The Tabling of International Treaties in the Parliament of Canada: The First Four Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In January 2008, the government of Canada announced the adoption of the policy that international treaties would be tabled in the House of Commons following their signature or adoption and prior to Canada formally notifying its intention to be bound by the treaty This article provides an overview of the Tabling Policy, the domestic legal structure of treaty-making in Canada, a description of the international instruments that have been tabled under the from 2008 to 2011, and a review of the one treaty that has been discussed at length in the House of Commons.En janvier 2008, le gouvernement du Canada a annonce qu'il adoptait une politique voulant que les traites internationaux soient deposes devant la Chambre des communes apres leur signature ou autrement, mais avant que le Canada n'exprime son consentement a etre lie. L'article donne d'abord une vue d'ensemble de la politique sur le depot des traites, de la structure juridique canadienne de l'etablissement de traites au Canada ainsi qu'une description des instruments internationaux qui ont ete deposes sous le regime de la politique de 2008 a 2011; il passe ensuite en revue Tun des traites qui a fait l'objet de longues discussions a la Chambre des communes.IntroductionI. International treatiesII. Canada s domestic legal framework for treaty-makingIII. A few notes on the internal guidelines for the treaty-making processIV. The 2008 Tabling Policy1. Coverage2. Procedure3. Exceptions4. ContentV. What has been tabled 2008-2011VI. Specific treaties1. The Amendment to the NAFO Convention2. The Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement3. The Canada-Columbia Free Trade Agreement ConclusionIntroductionIn January 2008, then Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Bernier announced the adoption of the policy that international treaties would be tabled in the House of Commons.1 The intent of the policy was:to ensure that all instruments governed by public international law, between Canada and other states or international organizations, are tabled in the House of Commons following their signature or adoption by other procedure and prior to Canada formally notifying that it is bound by the Instrument.2The document that followed, the Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament includes: Annex A, departmental guidelines for the treatymaking process; Annex B, the procedures to be followed for the tabling of treaties in the House of Commons; and Annex C, a note on non-binding international instruments.3 At the heart of the policy is defining a role for the House of Commons in Canada's international treaty-making process.This contribution starts with a short section on international treaties and terminology, followed by a brief background on the domestic legal structure of Canada's treaty-making, an overview of the 2008 Tabling Policy, a description of the international instruments that have been tabled under the from 2008 to 2011, a review of the one treaty that has been discussed at length in the House of Commons as well as notes on two others and a few words of conclusion.I. International treatiesA key, though somewhat self-evident fact is that an international treaty exist only between entities that are subjects of international law. Subjects of international law include States and, in certain cases and for certain purposes, international organizations.4 That Canada is recognized as a State with the capacity to negotiate with other States and enter into international treaties with States and international organizations is not in doubt.The sacred text on international treaties between States is the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties5 which, amongst other things, defines (as will be explained below) what is a treaty between States and, as a result, what is not an international legally binding instrument. Canada is a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the 2008 Tabling states that the Convention can be described as a codification of public international law on treaties. …
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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".