Доктрина locus standi: виникнення та еволюція в адміністративному праві
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is dedicated to the issues of the history of the emergence and evolution of the locus standi doctrine (locus standi in judicio). The occurrence of the term “locus standi,” as well as its manifestations in Roman law, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the 20th century, allows for a better understanding of the locus standi doctrine and possible avenues for its development. In administrative law of the United States, Canada, France, Italy, South Africa, and other countries, the locus standi doctrine holds a prominent place. Ukranian legal system operates with the right to access to the court, the right to appeal to an administrative court, the right to judicial protection, and the right to seek redress, which can have different meanings depending on their understanding in substantive or procedural aspects, taking into account their possible understanding in sensu stricto or sensu lato. In the aspect of determining the right to appeal to an administrative court, the presence of administrative procedural legal subjectivity in a person is crucial in national legal system. Any person with administrative procedural legal subjectivity can be a plaintiff in an administrative case, but not every plaintiff is a proper plaintiff in an administrative case. The right to protection belongs to the proper plaintiff, who has claims in a particular administrative legal dispute. The presence of the right to protection, and in the laws of the United States, Canada, France, Italy, and other countries – the presence of locus standi (locus standi in judicio) in a person, precedes the determination of the possibility of granting the claims of such a person. The evolution of the locus standi doctrine in this article is examined from the right of an individual to appear before popular assemblies in ancient Rome to the right of an individual to appear before the court and act as a plaintiff in a case in modern times. This article attempts to explore the historical aspect of the formation of the locus standi doctrine, as well as its potential application as a basis for further clarification of the substantive legal nature of a proper plaintiff.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".