Canadian Acceptance of International Commercial Arbitration
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A few years ago it would have been impossible to speak of Canadian "acceptance" of international commercial arbitration. Canada had not adhered to any international convention on arbitration, and Canadian legislation did not specifically regulate arbitration in commercial dealings or when it involved some non-national element. There was no federal enactment on the subject. Canadian provincial legislation, whether the civil law of Quebec or the common law of the rest of Canada, had not greatly evolved from the 19th century position expressed in legislation based upon the legal traditions of France and the United Kingdom of the same period. No more than a handful of judicial decisions had been rendered in Canadian courts involving the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. There was little doctrinal writing on the topic. Institutional structures designed to assist in the implementation of arbitration agreements were no more than local organizations whose primary concern was domestic arbitration within local communities or specialized trade associations. Canada has recently gone through a remarkable transformation on all of these fronts. Since 1986 its position has evolved to the point where it is, indeed, appropriate to speak of a Canadian acceptance of international commercial arbitration. There have been dramatic developments in the legislative ordering of arbitration. New institutional facilities have been set up to accommodate the specific needs of those implicated in the organization of international arbitrations involving commercial interests. The topic, moreover, is one now claiming the fresh attention of members of the Canadian legal community. All of these developments are of interest to those generally concerned with the evolution of Canada's international trade law. They may also be of particular interest to those who are exploring the legal implications for the private sector of the bilateral free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. While the renewal of the Canadian position on international commercial arbitration has not been directly linked to the movement in promotion of free trade, it is only natural to enquire whether these developments in the law of arbitration may assist in the resolution of disputes arising between the commercial interests in the private sector on both sides of the border that will receive new impetus if the Free Trade Agreement is implemented in both countries. This study will therefore summarize the new legislative framework that has been put in place in Canada with respect to international commercial arbitration (Part II) and draw attention to the existence of newly formed institutional facilities designed to accommodate the organization of international arbitrations (Part III). Some concluding reflections are devoted to the specific considerations that are prompted by the possibility of using arbitration as a mode of dispute resolution within the context of Canada-U.S. trade in the private sector (Part IV).
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 | 0,007 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,018 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,021 | 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 ».