MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7010551188

The International Legal Obligations of Signatories to an Unratified Treaty

2025· article· en· W7010551188 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRatificationTreatyObligationCustomary international lawInternational lawNegotiationVienna Convention on the Law of TreatiesArms controlSettlement (finance)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are currently two major international agreements of the United States which have been signed by the parties and transmitted by the President to the Senate for its advice and consent: the Treaty with the Soviet Union on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, known as SALT II, and the Agreement with Canada on East Coast Fishery Resources and the accompanying Treaty to Submit to Binding Dispute Settlement the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area. Both agreements were signed after lengthy and complex negotiations. Both agreements are extremely detailed and represent a delicate balancing of the interests of the nations involved. Already there have been considerable delays in the ratification of both agreements. Perhaps neither agreement will be ratified. The President, however, continues to insist that ratification of both agreements is in the national interest, and eventual favorable action on them is still possible. Most contemporary treaties provide that they will enter into force only upon ratification by the states that are to become parties to the agreement. There is growing agreement that general international law imposes on the signatories to an unratified treaty the obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of that treaty prior to its entry into force. Once viewed as a moral admonition this obligation has come increasingly to be regarded as legal in nature. The desirability of such a principle is of course evident. The long and complicated process of negotiation during which each state may have made numerous concessions should be protected, especially where a signed agreement is the result. Furthermore, during negotiations the states may have refrained from taking certain actions—heavy fishing of certain stocks or the development of new weapons systems for example—because negotiations were pending. This self-restraint in expectation of a binding agreement should be encouraged. It is the thesis of this Article that general international law imposes on the signatories to a treaty the obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of that treaty prior to its entry into force. Decisional law, state practice, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties all support this proposition. The obligation has a firm theoretical basis in the general principle of abuse of rights. Finally, after examining the existence and nature of the obligation, the Article concludes with a discussion of the content of the obligation and attempts to discern its contours and extent.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.251 · 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