JCPOA; A Dialectical Paradigm of Treaty and Other International Instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generally, agreements made between subjects of international law can adopt diverse contents. Due to their status in international law system, these treaties can play different roles resulting in different repercussions. In this sense, lack of a benchmark to be used as distinguishing between treaties and other international instruments might cause problems in the system of international law of treaties because its paradigm has always been the locus of dialectic issues hold between legal scholars. JCPOA is not devoid of this dialectic since it is considered as a new pattern for solving problems in international relations. Hence, it is very important to determine the position of JCPOA in the system of international law, particularly in terms of its role within the international society, nature of subject matter, and parties. Therefore, the present study is aimed at offering an investigation of JCPOA and its comprising columns to come to an answer to the question of whether JCPOA is an international treaty or another instrument. Investigating the content of JCPOA and its comprising columns and also offering an interpretation on definition of ‘treaty’ from the viewpoint of1969 Convention, it is concluded that not only do not the content of JCPOA and the intentions of its writers imply a treaty, but also rules of international law of treaties and Vienna Convention confirm this too.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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".