Improving the Mechanism to Examine Judgment Debtor’s Ability to Satisfy Civil Judgments in Vietnam from International Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides an overview of current law and current state of examining conditions of civil judgment enforcement in Vietnam and points out that the main shortcomings are the lack of a court’s supporting mechanism and lack of strict sanctions imposed on judgment debtors and other agencies, organizations and individuals who fail to provide information on the judgment debtor’s assets. The article explores the mechanism for examining of conditions for civil judgment enforcement in several countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada and draws some experience for improving the law on examining conditions of civil judgment enforcement in Vietnam. Keywords Civil judgment enforcement, examining judgment debtor’s ability to satisfy civil judgment enforcement References [1] Council of Europe. 2003, “Recommendation Rec(2003)17 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Enforcement.” September 9, https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=65531&Site=COE. [2] Henderson, Keith, Angana Shah, Sandra Elena & Violaine Autheman. 2004. “Regional Best Practices: Enforcement of Court Judgments. Lessons Learned from Latin America.” IFES Rule of Law White Paper Series, International Foundation for Electoral Systems, Washington, DC. [3] Hoàng Thị Thu Trang, Hoàn thiện quy định pháp luật về xác minh điều kiện THADS, Tham luận của Cục THADS tỉnh Nghệ An, http://thads.moj.gov.vn/nghean/noidung/tintuc/lists/nghiencuutraodoi/view_detail.aspx?itemid=13.[4] European Commission for the efficiency of justice, CEPEJ Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing Council of Europe's recommendation on enforcement, https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/textes/Guidelines_en.pdf[5] Wendy A. Kennett, Enforcement of Judgments in Europe, Oxford University Press, 2000.[6] German Civil Procedure Code, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/englisch_zpo.html.[7] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure.[8] California Civil Procedure Code, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=ccp[9] Procedure for enforcing a judgment: England and Wales, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_procedures_for_enforcing_a_judgment-52-ew-en.do?member=1[10] British Columbia Law Institute, Report on the Uniform Civil Enforcement of Money Judgment Acts, 2005.[11] Học viện Tư pháp, Giáo trình Nghiệp vụ thi hành án dân sự (Phần Kỹ năng), Tập 1, NXB. Tư pháp, 2017.
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 | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".