Global counter-terrorism sanctions and European due process rules : the dialogue between the CJEU and the ECtHR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines the Kadi case from the perspective of judicial dialogue. It focuses on the relationship between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the, (ECtHR) and explains how the dialogue between two of Europe’s most powerful and prestigious courts. The chapter argues that the CJEU and the ECtHR have been influencing each other, and that their interaction, under the looming accession of the EU to the ECHR, has been instrumental to ensure the effectiveness of the protection of due process standards in the European multilevel human rights architecture. The Kadi case law has been at the crossroads of many scholarly analyses. Academics have investigated the question of the powers of the United Nations (UN) Security Council and the autonomy of the European Union (EU) legal order vis-à-vis international law. Chinese Journal of International Law contributes better balance between due process rights and national security in the global fight against terrorism.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.046 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".