Foreign Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses in the New Zealand Maritime Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Party freedom to choose the terms of agreement is a core doctrine of contract law. Parties are legitimately able to agree to litigate or arbitrate disputes in a state that is not their usual residence. While the default position of the judiciary in New Zealand has been to uphold these types of clauses in commercial contracts, this is not the case in regards to foreign jurisdiction clauses contained in bills of lading evidencing the contract for carriage of goods by sea. In contrast, foreign arbitration clauses will be enforced by the New Zealand courts. This paper examines the historical reasons for legislation regulating foreign jurisdiction and arbitration agreements in New Zealand. An examination of the Australian and Canadian situations are also undertaken to provide a broader insight into the issues of regulating such agreements. This investigation leads to the conclusion that the historical reasons for regulation no longer remain. However, there are technical reasons for regulating foreign jurisdiction and arbitration clauses in bills of lading. A solution for the issues raised is sought from the international arena by examining the Hamburg Rules and the UNCITRAL Draft Convention on the carriage of goods [wholly or partly] [by sea]. The conclusions drawn are that the international arena does not and will not, in the near future, provide a remedy for the concerns raised in this paper.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".