Intent, Presumptions, and Non-Self-Executing Treaties
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Self-enforcing climate-change treaties.
In the absence of world government, an effective treaty to control the emissions of greenhouse gases should be self-enforcing. A self-enforcing treaty has the property that, if a country expects other countries to abide by the treaty, it will be in the self-interest of that country to abide by the treaty too. (A difficulty with the Kyoto Protocol is that it does not appear to lay the groundwork...
متن کاملpatterns and variations in native and non-native interlanguage pragmatic rating: effects of rater training, intercultural proficiency, and self-assessment
although there are studies on pragmatic assessment, to date, literature has been almost silent about native and non-native english raters’ criteria for the assessment of efl learners’ pragmatic performance. focusing on this topic, this study pursued four purposes. the first one was to find criteria for rating the speech acts of apology and refusal in l2 by native and non-native english teachers...
15 صفحه اولImplicatures and hierarchies of presumptions
Implicatures are described as particular forms reasoning from best explanation, in which the paradigm of possible explanations consists of the possible semantic interpretations of a sentence or a word. The need for explanation will be shown to be triggered by conflicts between presumptions, namely hearer’s dialogical expectations and the presumptive sentence meaning. What counts as the best exp...
متن کاملPresumptions and Burdens of Proof
This paper studies the logical modelling of presumptions and their effects on the burden of proof. Presumptions are modelled as default rules and their effect on the burden of proof is defined in terms of a distinction between the burden of production, the burden of persuasion and the tactical burden of proof. These notions are logically characterised in such a way that presumptions enable a pa...
متن کاملThe Presumptions of Meaning: Hamblin and Equivocation
The force and the deceptive nature of the fallacy of equivocation lies in its dialectical nature. The speaker redefines a word in order to classify a fragment of reality, while the hearer draws a conclusion based on the ordinary meaning of such a classification. This difference between the interlocutors’ meanings is grounded on a crucial epistemic gap: how is it possible to know our hearer’s mi...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: American Journal of International Law
سال: 2008
ISSN: 0002-9300,2161-7953
DOI: 10.2307/20456642