Bibliographic record
Abstract
A creeping tension exists within international commercial arbitration (“ICA”). Since the effectiveness of arbitral decisions depends on the possibility of enforcing them, one can observe a tendency to place the label of award on heterogeneous types of decisions with a view to ensuring their enforcement. This is so because, contrary to the decisions rendered by state courts whose enforcement can be guaranteed regardless of the form that they take (be it an order, an injunction, or a final judgment), arbitral decisions will be enforced by states only if they amount to awards. This article analyzes the concept of arbitral award by focusing on two radically different positions: a unitary conception championed by French law, and a non-unitary one, endorsed by English law and the Uncitral Model law. The author’s goal is twofold. First, to clarify that the definition of award is contingent to a given legal tradition; second, to demonstrate that the scope of the notion regulates the interactions between international commercial arbitration and state courts, reducing or decreasing the adjudicative power of the arbitrators. Descriptively, it will be argued that arbitral awards are conceived differently in French law (focusing on the finality of the decision itself) and English law (which focuses on the adjudicative procedure that led the arbitrators to render the decision). As a result, French law has more difficulty enforcing consent awards, interim measures, and emergency arbitrator decisions. Normatively, it will be suggested that the English approach is preferable given that ICA is thoroughly embedded in an adjudicative setting nowadays, especially given the rise of institutional arbitration.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".