THE PROPOSED HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION, RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new international agreement on juridiction and foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters is needed because the Hague Convention of 1971 has proven unworkable. The Brussels Convention of 1968 and the Lugano Convention of 1988 were helpful in resolving jurisdictional issues in the European context, but because of the lack of reciprocity in the european approach, even though North American courts have a liberal approach towards the recognition of foreign judgements, North American judgements are at a disadvantage before European courts. The United States’ initiative in promoting a consistent international approach to the enforcement of foreign judgments may lead to a new Hague Convention. The author discusses procedures of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the work of the Special Commission, which is charged with the task of working up a draft text for a new judgments convention. The author’s view is that decisions made at the Hague Conference will have real impacts on the practice of international lawyers and their clients. He identifies key members of the Canadian delegation to the Special Commission and encourages practitioners to contact the members so their concerns and ideas will be considered during the drafting process of the convention.
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 | 0.033 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.010 |
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".