Peeking Through the Form of Uniform Law: International Arbitration Practice and Legal Harmonization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When judged by the sheer amount of scholarly literature to which it has given rise, uniform law, taken broadly here to include all forms of interjurisdictional legal harmonization, is a vast subject. To a significant extent, however, this fascinating subject presents but an academic interest. That is because efforts toward legal harmonization and the incorporation of uniform law have remained in vain in many areas. Not so in respect of arbitration, the practice of which has seen spectacular growth in the context of international trade and commerce over the past twenty-five years. This article looks at the incorporation of uniform arbitration law both in its formal and informal manifestations. An overview of incorporation through procedural and substantive instruments is first provided with reference to Canadian arbitration laws. Drawing insights from a multidisciplinary look at the concept of “praxis” and the teachings of Lon Fuller, the article then looks at the status of arbitration practice vis-à-vis arbitration law and its incorporation, emphasizing the respective roles of experts and courts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".