Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the existing theories regarding arbitrators powers and arbitration in general and sets forth an alternative approach based on the Scholastic school of philosophy. In doing so, it clarifies misconceptions concerning the Scholastic’s alleged rejection of private justice, expounds the concept of natural law as understood by Scholastic philosophy and analyses the oft-forgotten cousin of natural law, the Ius Gentium. It then demonstrates how arbitration, and arbitrators powers, flow from the Ius Gentium and thus can only be regulated by States to a limited extent. Specific examples of such regulations and their relations with the restrictions imposed on arbitration by the Ius Gentium are also analysed. This article is unique as it is the first to set out a scholastic theory of arbitration and one of a very few articles which analyses the relationship between arbitration and natural law. It should, therefore, be of use to all those who are interested in natural law, Scholasticism and theories of arbitration, as well as having practical value in explaining the real basis for many of the inherent limitations of arbitration as a consensual form of dispute resolution.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".