'Commercial Peacemaking' - The New Role of the International Commercial Arbitration Legal Order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International commercial arbitration (ICA) has risen to prominence over the past several decades as the most efficient and effective mechanism for resolving cross-border disputes between commercial entities, and has long been considered by the international business community as "the normal means of settling disputes arising from international transactions." ICA offers disputing parties an accessible, neutral, and private mechanism that is distinct from any specific national legal system; a "kind of social jurisdiction, opposed to State jurisdiction." It has thus been considered by some to constitute a specialized international regime, a form of "transnational" or "global" governance, or an autonomous legal order. Part II of this Article will discuss the two interrelated rationales for this new role of the ICA legal order: first, the dispute resolution lacuna that exists with respect to commercial disputes between parties from rival states and its effect on cross-border trade, and second, the potential impact of improved bilateral trade on interstate political cooperation and peaceful relations. Part III will examine the concept of ICA as an autonomous legal order and the particulars of its proposed "commercial peacemaking" role, and Part IV will analyze this role in the context of the Jerusalem Arbitration Center and the North-South Korea Commercial Arbitration Committee. Finally, Part V will consider the potential application of the new role of the ICA legal order to India and Pakistan, and Part VI will offer conclusions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".