Notice bibliographique
Résumé
On December 16, 1963, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 1967 (XVIII) recording its belief that provision for impartial fact finding within the framework of international organizations, and in bilateral and multilateral conventions, could make an important contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes, and to their prevention. The Resolution noted a considerable body of practice in the use of fact finding methods in international relations, which is available to be studied "for the progressive development of such methods" (6th perambular paragraph). In the light of this Resolution, the object of this study was to ascertain the nature and the scope of the fact finding powers possessed by the principal judicial organ of the community of nations, the World Court and their applicability in the various types of proceedings which may be instituted before it. As a background the major problems inherent in, and the nature and function of, the law of evidence in international judicial proceedings are sketched. An attempt is also made to determine the respective rights and duties of the litigants and the World Court in the matter of the adduction of evidence. The provisions of the Statute and Rules of the World Court which expressly confer upon it fact finding powers are then examined. A broad competence is seen to be granted the Court to request the production of evidence, and to undertake investigations and enquiries of various kinds into the facts of the issues submitted to it. The only condition precedent to the exercise of these powers being that the litigant states must have agreed to submit their dispute to the Court for adjudication. Notwithstanding a paucity of authority, it is also found that the world Court also possesses certain implied fact finding powers stemming not from the instruments of its creation, but from its inherent nature as a judicial tribunal. This implied competence to undertake researches, of its own motion, into the facts of an issue submitted to it supplements the Court's express competence, although a duplication of the power to appoint independent experts is evident. It is then ascertained whether the World Court can have recourse to all the fact finding powers conferred upon it in the two categories of proceedings, contentious and advisory proceedings, which may be instituted before it. Some limitations on the Court's powers are found to exist in the case of advisory proceedings, these limitations deriving from the nature of the proceedings. With respect to contentious proceedings no limitations were found. From the preceding examination of the fact finding powers of the World Court it was concluded that it had the potential to discover the absolute truth of any issue submitted to it for decision, with the co-operation of the parties. While some amendments to the Statute and Rules of the Court were suggested, it was felt that any major revisions of the Court's powers would have no substantial effect until the jurisdiction of the Court became compulsory.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,030 | 0,047 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,043 |
| Communication savante | 0,026 | 0,019 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,016 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».