MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Constitutional review bodies’ orders to enact legislation: an introduction to the issue

2025· article· en· W4414985682 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Viktor Balakaev

Bibliographic record

VenueSravnitel noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeJurisprudenceConstitutionConstitutional courtLegislationLegislatureLegal researchConstitutional lawEconomic JusticeOrder (exchange)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a rule, a court decision’s value is in its implementation. Decisions of constitutional justice are no exception. The high mission of constitutional courts — bringing the legal system in line with the constitutional ideals — cannot be achieved without the participation of the legislature, which receives a large share of their rulings. It is logical that courts will seek to increase the effectiveness of enforcing their decisions by all available means. One such tool is an order to enact or to create legislation (normative order) which is an order made to the law-making body to amend legal rules, the aim is to remove a violation of the constitution. However, this part of constitutional court decisions usually goes unnoticed, not only in legal scholarship but also by the main addressee — the legislature. To gain a fuller understanding of normative orders, the author reviews constitutional courts’ jurisprudence in different legal families: common law (Canada, USA), civil law (Germany, Spain, Russia), and mixed systems (Israel, South Africa), also referring to legal doctrine, opinions of judges, and arguments of parties in court cases. The author focuses not only on the formal legal features of a normative order, but also on how it is developed inside the work of constitutional justice. The research shows that a normative order is an independent legal tool that serves different purposes than declaring a law unconstitutional, removing it from force, or interpreting it in a way consistent with the constitution. Normative orders can prevent future violations of the constitution and motivate the legislature to carry out the court’s decision, and most importantly, they can help the legal system develop. At the same time, the hypothesis that normative orders can only exist in a specific legal family or model of separation of powers is not confirmed. In reality, normative orders are very sensitive to various legal, political, and social factors, and identifying these factors requires separate research. Further study of normative orders, their origins, and their use in different countries could help address the larger problem of non-implementation or ineffective implementation of constitutional courts’ decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSravnitel noe konstitucionnoe obozrenieSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207