TACIT CHOICE OF LAW IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS: PROGRESS OR STAGNATION IN THE COMMON- LAW JURISDICTIONS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The English common-law rules of private international law have, to a large extent, been replaced by European conflicts-law regulations in the United Kingdom (UK). Nevertheless, English common law remains highly influential in numerous jurisdictions. In many legal systems, the private-international-law rules are based fundamentally on the common-law rules developed by English courts. This is problematic since the common-law rules of private international law may be outdated. This article examines the English common-law choice-of-law rules – more specifically, the rules and principles concerning the determination of a tacit choice of law in international commercial contracts. The traditional common-law position is compared to selected common-law jurisdictions – namely, Australia, Canada, India, Israel and New Zealand. Finally, the article highlights the progress (or lack thereof) in the aforementioned common-law jurisdictions in addressing the issues related to the determination of a tacit choice of law in international commercial contracts.
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 | 0.029 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".