MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789900073 · doi:10.25073/2588-1167/vnuls.4140

Improving the Mechanism to Examine Judgment Debtor’s Ability to Satisfy Civil Judgments in Vietnam from International Experience

2018· article· en· W2789900073 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nguyen Thi Bich Thao, Nguyễn Thị Hương Giang

Bibliographic record

VenueVNU Journal of Science Legal Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebtorEnforcementSanctionsCivil procedurePolitical scienceLawCommissionBusinessCreditorDebtFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVNU Journal of Science Legal StudiesSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207