MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366381860 · doi:10.1017/9781839703102.068

Living Without The Jurisdictional Rules of Brussels IIA

2022· other· en· W4366381860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nigel Lowe

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily matters · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonourPrivilege (computing)AsideFamily lawLawPolitical scienceSociologyLaw and economicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. INTRODUCTION It is a privilege to write in honour of John Eekelaar, whose contribution to the study of family law is as immense as it is wide-ranging. Aside from his research, John was a key figure in creating and nurturing the International Society of Family Law, which was so influential in shaping the family law agenda, and which provided opportunities for academics around the world to meet and to discuss issues of joint concern. I first met John in 1976, at a conference organised by the University of Toronto. He was already an established and well-respected scholar. I had just ‘discovered’ the issue of international parental child abduction via my research into the wardship jurisdiction. John also had an early interest in that topic, and his valuable study of the problem, in Commonwealth legal systems, helped to persuade Commonwealth law ministers to support a Hague initiative, which in due course led to the concluding of the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention. While John’s career took a different direction, I developed an interest in international child abduction and, more broadly, in the global attempts to deal with cross-border disputes concerning children. Pursuing an international theme, this contribution explores some of the jurisdictional consequences that ensue in having to apply the 1996 Hague Protection of Children Convention (the Convention), rather than Council Regulation No. 2201/2003 (the revised Brussels II Regulation, hereafter ‘BIIa’), which the UK formally revoked on 31 December 2020 – the end of the implementation period following its withdrawal from the EU – and which is now referred to as ‘IP completion day’. 2. BACKGROUND TO THE CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL RULES 2.1. THE CONVENTION, BIIA AND THE FAMILY LAW ACT 1986 Jurisdiction to make orders relating to children is complicated. To put the following discussion into context, it should be appreciated that, before IP completion day, the UK was bound by BIIa, and was a Contracting State to the Convention. So far as children are concerned, the two instruments overlap to a significant extent, which is not surprising, since the Regulation was modelled on the Convention. Each instrument provides for common rules of jurisdiction, and for consequent recognition and enforcement.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.282
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily mattersSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207