MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406113666 · doi:10.57125/fel.2024.12.25.10

Analysing the Effectiveness of Legal Regulation of Contractual Relations during Martial Law in Ukraine: A Literature Review

2024· review· en· W4406113666 on OpenAlexaff
Krystyna Rezvorovych, Vyacheslav Bigun, Stepan Burak, Oleksandr Horban, Valeriia Holka

Bibliographic record

VenueFuturity Economics&Law · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutions123 Certification (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMartial lawPolitical scienceLawMartial artsLaw and economicsSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the current challenges in regulating contractual relationships during emergencies, especially in martial law. Its uniqueness lies in the interdisciplinary approach that integrates legal analysis, comparative jurisprudence, and economic factors while also considering the ongoing military situation in Ukraine. The primary objective of this article is to assess the effectiveness of Ukrainian legal frameworks in handling contractual relations amid martial law and emergencies, highlighting gaps in the current legislation. The article presents a systematic review of the literature on the legal regulation of contractual relations under martial law in Ukraine. It draws on academic publications, legal acts, and judicial practices from 2014 to 2024. The methodology encompasses analysing and comparing approaches to contract law in Ukraine and other countries facing similar conditions. This review enables the systematisation of existing knowledge and improves the legal regulation of contractual relations in Ukraine. The findings reveal that while Ukrainian law offers fundamental protection for contractual relations in emergencies, there are notable gaps, such as vague definitions of force majeure and the absence of specialised judicial procedures for dispute resolution. The comparative analysis suggests international practices could enhance Ukrainian legislation, especially incorporating insurance mechanisms and standardised force majeure clauses. The article concludes that there is a need for further refinement of legal regulations concerning contractual obligations during martial law, including more precise definitions of force majeure and developing specialised dispute resolution mechanisms. Adopting international best practices could significantly improve Ukraine’s legal framework in crises. Therefore, this study offers valuable insights for legislators, legal professionals, and businesses to bolster legal certainty and stability in contractual relations during emergencies.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuturity Economics&LawSame topicLegal Studies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207