International Employment Cases Post-Brexit: Choice of Law, Territorial Scope, Jurisdiction and Enforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The globalisation of employment relationships means that the international aspects of employment law are important in an ever growing number of cases. In particular, international employment cases may raise issues relating to international jurisdiction, choice of law and territorial scope. Before the UK left the EU, directly effective EU Regulations regulating jurisdiction and choice of law provided the rules which are applied in a large number of cases. This article outlines the changes post-Brexit and the resulting overlapping regimes which now govern international employment cases. The choice of law rules in the Rome I Regulation and Rome II Regulation remain as part of retained EU law. International jurisdiction will now be governed entirely by national law rules. However, for cases in the High Court, the common law rules are amended to mirror the provisions which are previously applied under the Brussels I Regulation recast. Although in many cases the rules look the same, different principles of interpretation will apply, and, longer term, now that the rules are not binding as matter of EU there will be scope to amend and reform the rules.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".