MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On International Law of Treaty Interpretation

2010· article· en· W1881449380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhang Naigen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyVienna Convention on the Law of TreatiesLawInterpretation (philosophy)Political scienceInternational courtInternational lawSettlement (finance)Public international lawPhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treaty interpretation means that a treaty is interpreted in the course of implementation and application after it has entered into force. The rules of treaty interpretation of 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty (VCLT) were expressly applied to dispute settlement by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the 1994 case of Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Chad), and then by the Appellate Body of Dispute Settlement of the World Settlement of the World (WTO) in the 1996 case of United States - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline as “the customary rules of interpretation of public international law”. This article is mainly based on leading cases of the ICJ and the WTO in last decade to offer a systematic analysis of treaty interpretation in the practices of contemporary international laws and to discuss some theoretical issues regarding the rules, methods and approaches of treaty interpretation with some viewpoints of the International Law Commission’s Commentaries on the VCLT and of well-known international lawyers. Key words: treaty interpretation; international law; practice; theory Resume: L'interpretation des traites signifie qu'un traite est interprete dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre et de l'application apres son entree en vigueur. Les regles de l'interpretation de traitede la Convention de Vienne de 1969 sur le droit des traites (CVDT) ont ete expressement prevues pour le reglement des differends par la Cour internationale de Justice (CIJ) dans le cas du differend territorial en 1994(Jamahiriya arabe libyenne c. Tchad), puis par l'Organe d'appel de reglement des differends de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) dans le cas des Etats-Unis en 1996 - les normes concernant l'essence reformulee et conventionnelle comme ''les regles coutumieres de l'interpretation du droit international public''. Cet article est principalement base sur les cas de la CIJ et de l'OMC dans la derniere decennie afin d'offrir une analyse systematique de l'interpretation des traites dans les pratiques contemporaines du droit international et d'examiner certaines questions theoriques concernant les regles, les methodes et mes approches de l'interpretation des traites avec des commentaires de la Commission du droit international sur la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traites et ceux des certains juristes connus internationaux.Mots-cles: interpretation des traites; droit international; pratique; theorie

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207