The constitutionalisation of private law: Comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is divided into four parts. The first part discloses the definition of constitutionalisation of private law, which means the influence of fundamental (constitutional) human rights on private law. The second part is devoted to the analysis of the key issue related to the topic of constitutionalisation of private law — how and to what extent fundamental (constitutional) human rights influence private law. In this regard, the four models of private law constitutionalisation identified in comparativism and the pro/contra arguments for each of them are examined. The third part of the article examines which of these models is embodied in foreign legal orders (in particular, Germany, the Neatherlands, Canada, South Africa and the UK). The author concludes that the most widespread is the model of indirect influence of fundamental human rights on private law. The fourth part of the article provides a comparative legal analysis of the application of the indirect model of constitutionalisation. This model identifies two approaches that characterise the attitude of foreign lawmakers to human rights provisions in different ways. The first approach, the “strong” indirect model, assumes that human rights provisions enshrine rights that constitute binding rules. This approach is represented in particular in the UK. The second, the “weak” indirect model, views human rights provisions as enshrining values and being principles to be taken into account alongside other circumstances. This approach is represented in particular in Germany.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".