MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580449250 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.3142

Sovereign Debt as a Commodity: A Contract Law Perspective

2017· article· en· W2580449250 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dania Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreditorSovereign immunityObligationEnforcementBusinessDebtLaw and economicsEconomicsLawSovereigntyPolitical scienceFinanceSupreme court

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ad hoc institutional configurations that facilitated the resolution of sovereign insolvency for over thirty years are fragmenting. Recent court decisions interpreting the pari passu clause in sovereign debt contracts reveal the dangers of pressuring common law courts to enforce contracts and mediate structural flaws in the market. The courts have dismantled sovereign protections in international law and common law checks and balances. They have gone beyond precedent to innovate remedies justified by interpreting a clause whose meaning and function were not clearly understood by the contracting parties themselves. They have also opened up a possible inter-creditor obligation that circumvents sovereign immunity legislation. This obligation imperils third party property protections and exposes the US clearing system to creditor remedies. The article argues that the current challenges require the courts to play an inadvertent, expansive regulatory role. To fulfil this role they must ensure that creditors enjoy their property (debt) without constraints and assume away the resulting externalities. In effect, enforcement sustains the legal fiction that debt is a commodity. Legal recognition of this fiction obviates negotiated debt workouts, which are premised on suspending this commodity form. The article dispels the idea that the possibility of enforcement in sovereign debt markets brings us closer to achieving the legal regime theorized as the neutral backdrop of competitive markets.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207