Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Kingdom (UK) has voted to leave the European Union (EU). Ever since the deficiencies of Art. 50 TEU allowing for an exit from the EU (‘Exit’) have caused legal uncertainty. This article intends to shade light on the main questions causing this uncertainty: In a first main part it elaborates on the requirements to be met in order to invoke Art. 50 TEU. As of now, it is discussed highly controversially if a notification pursuant to Art. 50 TEU is conditional upon the compliance with national constitutional requirements and if such a notification can be unilaterally revoked. It is found that national constitutional requirements have to be met before Art. 50 TEU can be invoked and that a notification is not unilaterally revocable. Furthermore, this part elaborates on the requirements for the conclusion of an Exit-agreement as well as the consequences of an Exit without an Exit-agreement. The second main part of the article shifts perspective to potential future legal relations between a former Member State and the EU. It structures possible legal consequences by classifying four different scenarios: (1) No Exit, (2) Exit and the former Member State remaining member of the EEA on the side of EFTA, (3) Exit and bilateral approach compared e. g. to Switzerland, Turkey or Canada (4) Exit and no more direct legal connections between the EU and the former Member State besides multilateral international treaties. In a third part these scenarios are tested on their legal consequences in certain areas of law most of them relating to European business law. Of course, this article can by no means address all affected areas of law and had to make a choice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".