MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253617345 · doi:10.3138/cras.42.1.65

A State of Necessity: International Legal Obligations in Times of Crises

2012· article· en· W4253617345 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Avidan Kent, Alexandra R. Harrington

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrineLawState (computer science)CommissionPolitical scienceInternational investmentInternational lawEconomic JusticeOrder (exchange)State responsibilityInternational courtLaw and economicsPublic international lawEconomicsForeign direct investmentFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The purpose of the necessity doctrine is to assist countries in dealing with crises. The necessity doctrine allows, under certain conditions, a State to breach its international obligations in order to cope with the crisis it faces. The conditions of the necessity doctrine have been, and continue to be, clarified by international bodies such as the International Law Commission, and adjudicative tribunals such as the International Court of Justice. In recent years, the necessity doctrine has been the center of several international investment law cases, mainly following Argentina's financial crisis. The application of the doctrine's conditions by some of these tribunals has not been uniform, and has been criticized by academics and practitioners. This article provides an overview of the necessity doctrine and asks whether it can be used to justify measures concerning some of the near future's most urgent challenges.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.026
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207