MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273226770

2003-2004 Survey of International Law in the Second : Alien Tort Claims Act and Subject Matter Jurisdiction

2004· article· en· W2273226770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSyracuse journal of international law and commerce · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionTortSubject matterAlienSubject (documents)LawSubject-matter jurisdictionAlien Tort StatutePolitical scienceLaw and economicsEconomicsOriginal jurisdictionLiabilityComputer scienceCitizenship
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that there was subject matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims Act [hereinafter ATCA], and that the Court could assert personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation under New York law. The Court treated Talisman Energy [hereinafter Talisman], a Canadian corporation, as a state actor for ATCA purposes and further found that Talisman's acts constituted jus cogens violations. This Court's ruling reaffirmed Second Circuit and international treaty precedent, which holds that corporations may be held liable for }us cogens violations under the ATCA. However, the District Court's ruling expanded the Court's subject matter jurisdiction under the ATCA. First, the Court reaffirmed that a corporation engaging in genocide need not act under color of state law in order to be subject to jus cogens violations under the ATCA. Secondly, the Court determined that even if a corporation were not acting directly under color of state law, demonstration of a "substantial degree of cooperation" between a corporation and a state is sufficient to treat the corporation as a state actor under the ATCA.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.224 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSyracuse journal of international law and commerceSame topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207