MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2260923290

국제우주법상 분쟁해결에 관한 연구

2013· article· ko· W2260923290 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
김한택

Bibliographic record

Venue안암법학 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSettlement (finance)Political scienceArbitrationConventionLiabilityState responsibilityTreatyDamagesInternational lawBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As far as the settlement of the space law dispute is concerned, there are provisions dealing with those problems in INMARSAT, INTELSAT, ITU, INTERSPUTNIK, ARABSAT, ESA, the United Nations resolutions of DBS, RS and NPS principles and space treaty provisions. However in this article I dealt with the traditional methods of settlement of the international law disputes such as negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement which are included in article 33 of the United Nations Charter and the settlement of the space law dispute contained in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, 1972 Liability Convention and 1979 Moon Agreement. Cosmos 954 incident was the first case occurred in Canada by the Soviet Union in relation to the settlement of the space law dispute. Cosmos 954 was a reconnaissance satellite launched by the Soviet Union in 1977. A malfunction prevented safe separation of its onboard nuclear reactor; when the satellite reentered the Earth`s atmosphere in the following year it scattered radioactive debris over northern Canada, prompting an extensive cleanup operation. Under the terms of the 1972 Liability Convention, a state which launches an object into space is liable for damages caused by that object. However Cosmos 954 case was settled not by the 1972 Liability Convention, but by 1981 Protoco1 on Settlement of Canada`s Claim for Damages Caused by Cosmos 954, although the two countries were the parties to the 1972 Liability Convention. International Law Association(ILA) proposed the Draft Convention on the Settlement of Space Law Dispute in Taipei Conference in 1998. International Tribunal for Space Law, ICJ and Arbitration were the proposed possible solutions to deal with the settlement of the space law dispute in the Draft Convention. However in my opinion the establishment of the Annexes of the Settlement of Space Law Dispute to 1967 Outer Space Treaty or 1972 Liability Convention would be better than the enactment of the Space Law Dispute Convention. The fact that Permanent Court of Arbitration(PCA) adopted “Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Outer Space Activities” in 2011 and nominated 16 judges over the world in 2012 is a recommendable way to the Space Law Dispute among states.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.011

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue안암법학Same topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207