MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997221616 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v7n2p143

Enforcement and Practicability of Sovereign Immunity Doctrine in International Commercial Arbitration

2014· article· en· W1997221616 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rowland Alaba Akande

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereign immunityArbitrationEnforcementDoctrineJurisdictionState (computer science)BusinessSovereigntyInternational arbitrationLawState immunityLaw and economicsPolitical scienceInternational tradeEconomicsComputer scienceConstitution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, in world market, States have become more involved in international business transactions. However, the various international contracts have been concluded between States and individual investors, either directly or through their State entities. The extent of the State’s or State entity’s commitment to arbitration clauses drafted within these commercial contracts and the fact that States seek immunity from jurisdiction and execution of arbitral award has been a major and knotty issue before arbitral award tribunals and the courts. It is on this background that, this paper will critically examine the enforcement and practicability of sovereign immunity doctrine in international commercial arbitration, and the way forward.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.054
Scholarly communication0.0140.013
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0120.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207