MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W338844312

Lessons for the Hague: Internet Jurisdiction in Contract and Tort Cases in the European Community and the United States, 23 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 1 (2004)

2004· article· en· W338844312 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Moritz Keller

Bibliographic record

VenueUIC Law Open Access Repository (University of Illinois at Chicago) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionTortPolitical scienceLawThe InternetConflict of lawsComputer scienceLiability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing use of the Internet, all on-line users, web site owners, e-commerce companies and consumers alike, feel the need to be able to rely on clear standards for a potential contract or tort lawsuit following the Internet presence that could lead to multinational litigation. This goal could be achieved if the negotiations of the Hague Convention on international jurisdiction and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters succeed in harmonizing the rules of the different legal systems around the globe, or at least create a minimum standard for legal cases which would benefit greatly e-commerce and Internet litigation. The author argues that the global character of the Internet does not present an obstacle to regulation. He then proceeds in a more detailed description and examination of the different systems of jurisdictional law, the current solutions as well as the proposed approaches for jurisdiction with regard to Internet litigation in tort and contract cases in the United States and the European Union. Concluding that the current American doctrine lacks certainty as well as foresee ability while providing ground for developing modern approaches, the author then argues that the European solution provides a better set of rules-especially for consumer contracts-and only the European solution can be used as a foundation for an international solution and best suits today's demands in multinational e-commerce and Internet tort cases. However, a slightly modified American/Canadian "targeting" test provides helpful criteria as well as a strong base concept with regard to Internet-related litigation and should therefore be integrated into an international solution for multinational litigation for a solid international solution to be acheived. By implementing this American/Canadian approach, the subsequent rules will provide foreseeability as well as the necessary flexibility to include new technologies and developments will be ensured. Finally, the status of the negotiations of the Hague Convention and the possible obstacles and problems of the current solutions is presented, along with a proposed solution aiming to institute a clear set of rules to establish foreseeability and certainty, while simultaneously establishing a concept that provides the flexibility to incorporate future developments.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0280.039
Scholarly communication0.0340.040
Open science0.0060.013
Research integrity0.0510.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUIC Law Open Access Repository (University of Illinois at Chicago)Same topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207