MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6982614870

The International Currency of Arbitral Awards

2008· article· en· W6982614870 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnforcementArbitrationTreatyAnnulmentConventionInternational arbitrationJurisdictionDispute resolution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In more than one hundred and thirty countries, agreements to arbitrate are enforced under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Often referred to as the “New York Convention” (by virtue of its city of adoption) or the “United Nations Convention” (after the sponsoring organization), this treaty implements business managers’ agreements to waive recourse to otherwise competent national courts in favor of binding private dispute resolution. The Convention gives effect to both the arbitration clause and the resulting award even in countries that have resisted analogous treaties to enforce court selection agreements and foreign judgments.\nMore than a half century ago, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) issued a report underscoring the commercial community’s need for arbitral awards that are transportable from one country to another, to liberate foreign arbitral awards from burdensome “double exequatur,” enforcement procedures which had require judicial recognition orders in both the country where the award was made and the enforcement forum. Thus an award rendered in Boston would have had to be confirmed by a court in Massachusetts before enforcement in Montréal.\nThe ICC proposed streamlining award enforcement, shifting key burdens of proof from the party seeking award enforcement to the party resisting its recognition. For example, under the prior treaty the party relying on the award had to present documentary evidence that the award had not been annulled where rendered. In contrast, the ICC draft treaty required that award annulment be invoked by the party resisting recognition.\nIn its final form, the New York Convention operates both to enforce arbitration agreements and to promote recognition of awards at the place where the loser has assets. The Convention requires courts of contracting states to refer the parties to arbitration when a dispute is subject to a written arbitration agreement that is not “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.” Although this duty to refer the parties to arbitration will apply to judicial actions, the arbitration clause will not necessarily bar administrative proceedings.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0190.011
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.005

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Same topicAmerican Environmental and Regional History→French-language works237,207→