MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Jurisdictional immunity of foreign central banks: international and national regulation

2025· article· en· W4412386855 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ye. V. Popko

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical and Comparative Jurisprudence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunityPolitical scienceBusinessInternational tradeImmunologyMedicineImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is indicated that the international community is developing various approaches to establishing the boundaries and content of jurisdictional immunity, which are based on relevant international agreements. A number of foreign countries have adopted specialized legislative acts regulating the issue of jurisdictional immunity of central banks of other states. In some legal systems, the provisions on the immunity of foreign states are set out in general terms, which imposes on the courts the obligation to interpret them in detail, which significantly increases the relevance of the issue of jurisdictional immunity of central banks. The article examines current trends in the development of jurisdictional immunity of foreign central banks in the context of state immunity. The status of central banks, their functions, and property relations are defined. The peculiarities of central banks as participants in international private law relations are revealed, and attention is paid to the legal regulation of immunity issues in these relations. From the perspective of comparative law, foreign experience is examined, and the peculiarities of the legal regulation of the status of central banks in legal systems and their immunity are studied. Judicial practice in private law relations and problems of resolving disputes are analyzed. The article examines the legal regime of jurisdictional immunity of foreign central banks in the context of private international law. Approaches to determining the legal status of a central bank, its participation in cross-border private law relations, and the limits of judicial immunity are analyzed. The author examines in detail the concept of limited immunity and its implementation in international treaties and the legislation of foreign states (the US, the UK, Canada, China, etc.). Particular attention is paid to court practice regarding the seizure of central bank assets, particularly in cases where they engage in commercial activities. The need to develop Ukrainian legislation in this area, taking into account international experience and financial security needs, is emphasized.

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)0.011
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical and Comparative JurisprudenceSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207