MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3198162623

'State Succession to BITs: Analysis of Case Law in the Context of Dissolution and Secession'

2018· article· en· W3198162623 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Dumberry

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecessionState (computer science)Context (archaeology)TreatyPolitical scienceTribunalMontenegroLawConventionEcological successionLaw and economicsSociologyHistoryMathematicsPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question of State succession to BITs has recently gained some attention by scholars as a result of an increasing number of cases dealing with the issue. This article examines awards decided in the context of dissolution of State and secession. My analysis shows that while many tribunals in the context of the dissolution of Czechoslovakia have not explained why a new State could be considered to be bound by obligations arising from a treaty entered into by another State, many others have correctly explained that treaty continuation was the result of exchange of letters between the States concerned. In the context of the secession of Montenegro and the break-up of the USSR, tribunals have also correctly affirmed that the continuing State remains bound by the treaties that had been entered into before the date of succession. No tribunal has therefore endorsed the principle of automatic succession to bilateral treaties set out under Article 34 of the 1978 Vienna Convention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.026
Scholarly communication0.0130.013
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law→French-language works237,207→