The Role of the Judiciary in the Promotion of Democracy and Human Rights in Cameroon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ratification and domestication of international human rights instruments could be used as indices to determine a state’s commitment to the promotion and protection of, and respect for, human rights. Within municipal legal systems, the judiciary is one of the stakeholders to fulfil these tasks. As one of the organs of government, it can play a critical role in defining the content and evolution of both democracy and human rights. Even though a state party to numerous international human rights instruments, a critical analysis of Cameroon’s institutional mechanisms reveals that there is a conspicuous incompatibility between these institutional mechanisms and the ideals of democracy and human rights. More specifically, the power of the judiciary, as stipulated in the Constitution, is very limited. This parochial mandate has had a heavy toll on first, the democratic evolution of the country; and secondly, on ensuring the promotion, protection of, and respect for, human rights. This paper argues that the judiciary in Cameroon should play a role in enhancing democracy and human rights. To do this, the judiciary must undergo a paradigm shift from a complacent and disturbing judicial inertia to judicial activism.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".