Perspectives from the United States and Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This joint contribution on Canada and the United States examines how these two States deal with cross-border recognition and enforcement of civil judgments. This collaboration made sense to the authors given that these jurisdictions have a long history of recognising each other’s judgments and exhibit similar openness to judgments from other countries. A comparative consideration of each country’s perspectives on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention was expected to yield interesting insights for readers from Canada and the United States, but also for those less familiar with the intricacies of recognition and enforcement law in these two countries. As the United States and Canada both have a federal system and share, for the most part, a common law tradition, one might think that the two countries would share similar perspectives about the Convention. But, as we will explain further, the views about the recognition and enforcement of foreign country judgments in the two countries present significant differences. The two countries do have generous and substantially similar regimes for recognising and enforcing foreign country judgments, but the concerns about the recognition and enforcement of their own judgments abroad are somewhat different. This contribution will explore those issues and conclude on a cautiously optimistic note on the prospects for ratification of the Convention for both countries. Even though the Convention will enter into force on 1 September 2023 as a result of ratifications by the European Union (EU) and Ukraine on 29 July 2022, patience may be the key with respect to ratifications by the United States and Canada. The chapter is structured to provide the perspective of both countries in relation to outgoing judgments (section II), incoming judgments (section III) and the treaty ratification and implementation process (section IV). In so doing, it will consider the history and current landscape in both countries and will discuss specific provisions of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention that may raise questions in one or both countries.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it