MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768561102 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v10n5p116

Brexit, Arbitration and Private International Law

2017· article· en· W2768561102 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed Adnan Al-Nuemat, Abdullah Nawafleh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrexitEuropean unionConflict of lawsLawJurisdictionPolitical scienceInternational lawScots lawArbitrationEuropean Union lawCommon lawEnforcementInternational tradeSources of lawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, ending a 40-year relationship. Britain’s exit (Brexit) will no doubt affect European Union private international law, which is currently part of the United Kingdom’s legal system. This article attempts to predict the sort of arbitration and private international law that the United Kingdom will have after its departure from the European Union. The article proposes that European Union private international law could be easily transposed into United Kingdom domestic law. In addition, the United Kingdom enforcement of court decisions in the European Union, after exiting the union and without concluding any further agreement with the union as to how jurisdiction must be allocated, should be achieved through the United Kingdom joining the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Finally, the paper concludes that Brexit will increase the use of English law and the specification of England and Wales as the jurisdictions in international commercial contracts because the United Kingdom would no longer be required to incorporate those aspects of European law that can prove problematic.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.305 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207