Dialoguing for Due Process: Kadi, Nada and the EU Accession to the ECHR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and the European Court of Human Rights regarding due process rules in the context of targeted anti-terror sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council.By analysing the references that the two courts make to each other's case law in the recent landmark decisions in Nada and Kadi II, the paper argues that the rivalling yet constructive relationship between CJEU and the ECtHR has played a key role in re-adjusting the balance between international security and fundamental rights in Europe.As the paper suggests, the looming accession of the EU to the ECHR influences the interaction between the two courts, and is already palpable in the case law of both.
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 | 0.061 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".