Bankruptcy and insolvency in European private international law : towards a harmonised approach?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is written from a private international law point of view and applies a conflicts analysis to cross-border insolvencies. A comparative approach is adopted. The jurisdictions chosen are Belgium and England and Wales. Belgian law was chosen because it is a good example of a radical adherence to the principles of unity and universality. In the light of this theoretical starting point a single set of proceedings is preferred and ancillary or territorial proceedings in any form are virtually impossible. English law, whilst accepting the universality principle, rejects the unity principle. This leads to a very different approach, with plenty of space for ancillary proceedings. The two legal systems are therefore highly suitable for a comparative analysis with the aim to discover whether existing national systems of private international law are capable of dealing effectively and efficiently with ever increasingly complex cross-border insolvencies.;The analysis of the two legal systems involved leads to the clear conclusion that each system has its advantages, but that nevertheless neither of them is able to deal with cross-border insolvencies on its own.;In a second stage the thesis therefore analysis transnational initiatives that could address this problem. The EU Regulation and the UNCITRAL Model Law have been chosen because the first one will enter into force in 2002 and because the latter one has a good chance of being implemented. Both initiatives come as packages and all their provisions are therefore analysed.;At the end of this analysis the clear conclusion is that national systems can no longer cover things alone. Ideally measures such as those contained in the Regulation should be adopted globally, as a starting point. Since that may not yet be possible, the slightly weaker alternative in the Model Law can be a good starting point. This is clearly an area in full evolution.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".