The Hague Principles and the Choice of Non-State "Rules of Law" to Govern an International Commercial Contract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In March 2015, the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts were adopted by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. More than five years in the making, these Principles reflect a broad international consensus on party autonomy, recognizing that parties to international commercial contracts should have the freedom to designate the governing their contractual relationship. In so doing, the Principles recognize that parties can also designate non-State law, called rules of law in the Principles, following the terminology current in arbitration statutes and regulations. Moreover, the Principles provide that such a choice of non-State should be operative before State courts and not only, as is currently the case, before arbitral tribunals. This article traces the drafting history behind the rule on non-State in the Principles, considers its justification, examines the challenges that it may pose in practice and how these might be addressed.
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 | 0.036 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".