Anti-suit injunctions and the New York Convention: inquiry on compatibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A presente Tese de Doutorado parte da hipótese de que, no âmbito das relações jurídicas internacionais, a emissão de anti-suit injunctions – ordens proferidas por cortes estatais ou árbitros para que pessoa ou outro jurisdicionante se abstenha de iniciar ou de continuar processo – é cada vez mais frequente. Busca, então, confirmar a tese de que, especialmente no que concerne os processos arbitrais, a emissão destas injunções visando procedimentos estrangeiros viola a Convenção de Nova York sobre o Reconhecimento e a Execução de Sentenças Arbitrais Estrangeiras. Nessa esteira, além de esmiuçar conceitos relacionados às próprias anti-suit injunctions, extrai de dita Convenção estrutura de distribuição de jurisdição e princípios de cortesia internacional e confiança mútua que, quando confrontados com o instituto, revelam incompatibilidade. Ao fim, individualiza o exame da compatibilidade das injunções alegadamente em prol da arbitragem, daquelas voltadas a processos arbitrais, das emitidas por árbitros e das que interferem unicamente com processos domésticos, constatando que apenas as últimas mereceriam conclusão diversa, por não impactarem diretamente a Convenção de Nova York.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".