{"schema":"https://ver.cy/schemas/card/1.0.0","id":"vr.wm-pol-015","code":"wm-pol-015-jurisdiction","url":"https://ver.cy/models/wm-pol-015-jurisdiction/","name":"Jurisdiction","alternateNames":[],"kind":"world-model","status":"published","version":"0.3.0-research.1","language":"en","classifiers":{"family":"World Models","category":"Society, people and institutions","entryKind":"entity","plane":"","domain":["SOC.POL.JUR"],"industry":["Cross-industry"],"navPath":"NAV.SOC.POL.JUR","tags":["jurisdiction","soc.pol.jur"],"facets":{}},"whatItIs":"A Jurisdiction record binds an identified authority-holder to a delimited competence and records the evidence for that delimitation. It covers identity and coding of jurisdictions and their subdivisions; the conferring instrument and category of competence; the four scope axes (territorial, personal, material, temporal); the declared type of power (prescriptive, adjudicative, enforcement) as a classification only; relations between jurisdictions (hierarchy, concurrency, exclusivity, delegation); immunities, reservations and derogations that narrow scope; lifecycle change including succession and cession; provenance, contestation and validation; and interoperability with external territorial and legal identifier schemes. It does not author geometry, does not hold legal instruments, does not decide a concrete case, and does not evaluate, execute, enforce or audit anything at runtime.","purpose":"Describe, in a storage- and interface-neutral way, the bounded competence of an authority: which authority-holder may act, over what territory, persons, subject matter and period, on what legal basis, and how that competence relates to, yields to or is excluded by other competences.","scope":{"in":["Identity, naming and versioned records for jurisdictions and jurisdictional subdivisions, including supranational, State, sub-State and specialised tribunal scopes","Alignment to external territorial code lists (ISO 3166-1/-2 as normatively referenced by other standards, UN M49, EU Countries and territories NAL, NUTS) without asserting conformance","Authority-holder binding by reference and the conferring or constituting instrument cited as legal basis","Category of competence and exclusivity (exclusive, shared, supporting/coordinating) and the principle of conferral","Territorial scope by reference, including land territory, internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, continental shelf and superjacent airspace","Personal scope and connecting factors (domicile, habitual residence, nationality, seat, place of conduct, place of effect, targeting)","Material or subject-matter scope, including declared subject-matter competence catalogues","Temporal scope: entry into force, applicability window, non-retroactivity and jurisdiction ratione temporis","Declared classification of power type as prescriptive, adjudicative or enforcement competence","Inter-jurisdictional relations: hierarchy and supremacy, subsidiarity, concurrency, priority and lis pendens references","Immunities, privileges, reservations, opt-outs, derogations and carve-outs that narrow declared scope","Forum-selection and recognition bindings recorded as references to the governing instrument","Lifecycle of the jurisdiction record: establishment, extension, reduction, transfer, cession, merger, split, suspension, termination and State succession","Provenance, official-publication attestation, contested or overlapping claims, and validation status with currency"],"out":["Authoring or storing boundary geometry, coordinate reference systems or topology; these belong to the parent place and administrative-unit spatial model","Holding the text, consolidation, FRBR expressions or in-force computation of legal instruments; these belong to the legislation model addressed by ELI and Akoma Ntoso","Deciding the competent forum, the applicable law or the outcome of a concrete dispute; this model produces advisory candidate sets only","Runtime policy evaluation, decision execution, enforcement action and enforcement outcomes; these are owned by a referenced policy-decision and enforcement runtime model","Audit-trail semantics, audit record schemas and audit retention execution; the model emits provenance about its own records only and never owns another model's audit trail","Court dockets, case files, judgments and case-law citation graphs, which belong to the case-law identification model addressed by ECLI","Organisational structure, appointments, budgets and staffing of the authority-holder, held in the public-authority organisation model","Legal-entity master data such as LEI reference data, ownership structures and registration-authority records, mastered by GLEIF and Local Operating Units","Statistical territorial classification for reporting purposes as an authority claim; NUTS units are statistical and are aligned to, not treated as, jurisdictions","Natural-person nationality, citizenship or residence registries, and postal address formats","Tax rate schedules, treaty-benefit computation and customs tariff calculation"],"boundaries":[{"neighbor":"Parent place and administrative-unit spatial model (WM-PLC-004; INSPIRE Administrative Units theme)","distinction":"The spatial model owns AdministrativeUnit and AdministrativeBoundary features, their geometry, national levels and boundary editing lifecycle. Jurisdiction carries only a resolvable reference to those features plus the competence semantics attached to them, and never re-authors or re-versions geometry locally."},{"neighbor":"Statistical territorial classification (NUTS, Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003)","distinction":"NUTS levels exist to enable collection and dissemination of European statistics and are built from administrative units subject to population thresholds and a triennial amendment cadence. A NUTS unit is therefore an alignment target for reporting, not evidence that an authority holds decision-making power over that area."},{"neighbor":"Legislation and legal-instrument model (ELI, Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention)","distinction":"ELI and the Akoma Ntoso FRBR Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item stack own instrument identity, versioning and publication. Jurisdiction cites an instrument as the legal basis for a competence; it must not mirror expression-level versioning, consolidation or in-force computation of that instrument."},{"neighbor":"Applicable-law / conflict-of-laws model (Rome I, Regulation (EC) No 593/2008)","distinction":"Rome I governs which law applies to a contractual obligation, including party choice, default connecting rules, overriding mandatory provisions and the public-policy exception. Brussels Ia governs which court has jurisdiction. Choice of law and choice of forum are separate determinations and this model owns only the forum-scope side, by reference."},{"neighbor":"Case-law identification model (ECLI)","distinction":"ECLI identifies individual judgments through country code, court code, year and ordinal number. Jurisdiction may align to the ECLI court code as an identifier for an adjudicative authority, but judgments, dockets and citation metadata are not modelled here."},{"neighbor":"Legal-entity registry model (ISO 17442 / GLEIF Global LEI Index)","distinction":"The LEI record masters an entity's legal jurisdiction and registration authority as entity reference data. Jurisdiction consumes those values as connecting-factor inputs by reference and never becomes a second master for entity reference data."},{"neighbor":"Policy-decision, enforcement and audit runtime","distinction":"This model supplies scope facts and advisory candidate sets. Evaluation of a rule against a case, issuance of a decision, enforcement action against a party outside the territory, and the audit trail of those acts are wholly owned by the runtime model. Enforcement jurisdiction is recorded here only as a declared classification, never as an executed capability."},{"neighbor":"Territorial code maintenance agencies (ISO 3166 series, UN M49, EU Countries and territories NAL)","distinction":"Code assignment, retirement and re-use rules belong to the maintaining agency. UNSD explicitly states that grouping assignments are for statistical convenience and imply no position on political affiliation or legal status. Alignment entries here are assertions with a match strength, not conformance claims."},{"neighbor":"Maritime delimitation and law-of-the-sea model","distinction":"UNCLOS fixes zone breadths and the content of coastal-State rights per zone. A maritime jurisdiction record specialises the generic Jurisdiction entity with zone type, baseline reference and deposited-coordinate reference; it does not redefine zone entitlements, delimitation methodology or dispute settlement machinery."}]},"distinguishingFeatures":["Binds an authority to a delimited competence along territorial, personal, material and temporal axes, not just to a territory.","Differs from an administrative unit or place, which describe space; a jurisdiction describes the power to make, judge or enforce rules.","Differs from applicable-law determination: it records competence, not which law governs a particular dispute.","Records the conferring instrument and evidence for every delimitation, so overlapping claims can be traced."],"structure":{"bundles":[{"id":"identity-and-typology","name":"Jurisdiction Identity and Typology","description":"Establishes what a jurisdiction record is, how it is uniquely and durably identified, how it aligns to external territorial code lists, and how it is classified by kind of jurisdictional entity and by type of power claimed.","layers":[{"id":"identity-and-territorial-coding","name":"Identity and Territorial Coding","description":"How a jurisdiction record is identified in its own right and how that identity is bound to externally governed territorial codes without absorbing their governance.","findings":[{"id":"jurisdiction-record-identity","name":"Jurisdiction record identity and identifier stability","description":"The identifier for a jurisdiction record, its priority order of sources, its immutability guarantees, and how obsolescence is expressed without reuse or deletion.","questions":[{"text":"Which identifier is the authoritative master-system identifier for this jurisdiction, and which body issues it?","id":"q-identity-primary","kind":"identity"},{"text":"If no master-system identifier exists, which governed global URI is used, and on what basis is a locally minted ULID or UUID justified instead?","id":"q-identity-fallback","kind":"decision"},{"text":"How is an identifier retired so that it is never renamed or reassigned to a different jurisdiction?","id":"q-identity-obsolescence","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Which alternate names, historical names and transliterations are recorded, and which one is authoritative for display?","id":"q-identity-aliases","kind":"definition"}]},{"id":"territorial-code-alignment","name":"Territorial code alignment","description":"Assertions linking a jurisdiction to externally maintained territorial codes, each with a match strength, validity window and explicit refusal to claim conformance.","questions":[{"text":"Which external code schemes are aligned to this jurisdiction, and what code value applies in each?","id":"q-code-schemes","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"Is each alignment exact, broader, narrower or merely related, and what evidence supports that judgement?","id":"q-code-strength","kind":"evidence"},{"text":"Does any aligned scheme carry a published caveat that its groupings imply no position on legal or political status?","id":"q-code-caveat","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"How are code changes, splits and withdrawals by the maintenance agency detected and reflected without altering the local identifier?","id":"q-code-change","kind":"process"}]}]},{"id":"typology-and-power-classification","name":"Typology and Power Classification","description":"Classifies the jurisdiction by the kind of entity holding it and by the type of power asserted, keeping both as declared classifications rather than operational capabilities.","findings":[{"id":"jurisdiction-kind-classification","name":"Kind of jurisdiction","description":"The controlled typology of jurisdictional entities: supranational union, sovereign State, dependent or associated territory, federated or devolved sub-State unit, local authority, functional maritime zone, international tribunal, and specialised regulatory authority.","questions":[{"text":"Which typology value applies to this jurisdiction and what evidence selects that value rather than a neighbouring one?","id":"q-kind-value","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Can a single jurisdiction hold more than one typology value at once, and how is that recorded without ambiguity?","id":"q-kind-multiplicity","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Is the jurisdiction functional and partial rather than plenary, covering only enumerated activities within an area?","id":"q-kind-functional","kind":"definition"},{"text":"Who may extend the typology code list, and how are additions reviewed against primary sources?","id":"q-kind-governance","kind":"authority"}]},{"id":"power-type-classification","name":"Type of power asserted","description":"Records whether the jurisdiction is prescriptive, adjudicative or enforcement in nature, strictly as a declared classification with no operational capability implied.","questions":[{"text":"Which types of power does this jurisdiction assert: to prescribe rules, to adjudicate claims, or to enforce outcomes?","id":"q-power-types","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Where prescriptive reach exceeds enforceable reach, how is that asymmetry recorded rather than smoothed over?","id":"q-power-asymmetry","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Which referenced model owns the actual evaluation, decision and enforcement execution that this classification merely describes?","id":"q-power-nonownership","kind":"ownership"},{"text":"Where a non-resident actor must appoint a local representative or agent for service, which instrument imposes that and what is recorded here?","id":"q-power-representative","kind":"requirement"}]}]}]},{"id":"authority-and-conferral","name":"Authority-Holder and Conferral","description":"Binds a jurisdiction to the authority that holds it, to the instrument that confers or constitutes it, and to the category and exclusivity of the competence conferred, including delegation and devolution.","layers":[{"id":"authority-holder-and-legal-basis","name":"Authority-Holder and Legal Basis","description":"Which body holds the competence and which instrument confers it, both carried by reference to their owning models.","findings":[{"id":"authority-holder-binding","name":"Authority-holder binding","description":"The reference to the public or legal authority that holds the competence, with role qualification and the boundary against the organisation model that masters it.","questions":[{"text":"Which authority holds this competence, and in which external register is that authority mastered?","id":"q-holder-ref","kind":"ownership"},{"text":"Where several bodies share the same scope, how is each body's distinct share recorded?","id":"q-holder-plurality","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"When the holding authority is reorganised, renamed or abolished, what happens to the jurisdiction record's identifier?","id":"q-holder-continuity","kind":"lifecycle"}]},{"id":"conferral-instrument-and-legal-basis","name":"Conferring instrument and legal basis","description":"Citation of the constitution, treaty, statute, delegated act or judicial instrument that creates or amends the competence, referenced through governed legal identifiers.","questions":[{"text":"Which instrument confers this competence, and by which governed legal identifier is it cited?","id":"q-basis-instrument","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"Which specific provision within the instrument carries the conferral, and how is that pinpoint citation expressed?","id":"q-basis-provision","kind":"evidence"},{"text":"Where competence is conferred through a chain of instruments, how is the chain ordered and its weakest link identified?","id":"q-basis-chain","kind":"composition"},{"text":"Which instrument attributes are deliberately not stored here because the legislation model owns them?","id":"q-basis-nonduplication","kind":"interoperability"}]}]},{"id":"competence-allocation-and-delegation","name":"Competence Allocation and Delegation","description":"How competence is categorised, how exclusivity is expressed, and how it is passed downward or outward through devolution, delegation and agency.","findings":[{"id":"competence-category-and-exclusivity","name":"Competence category and exclusivity","description":"Whether the competence is exclusive, shared, coordinating or supporting, and what residual freedom other authorities retain when it is exercised.","questions":[{"text":"Into which competence category does this scope fall, and what does that category permit other authorities to do?","id":"q-category-value","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Which subject matters are reserved to this jurisdiction exclusively, so that no other forum may hear them?","id":"q-exclusive-heads","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Where competence is shared, at what point does exercise by the higher authority pre-empt the lower one?","id":"q-preemption","kind":"state"},{"text":"How is the principle of conferral recorded, so that competence not expressly conferred is not inferred?","id":"q-conferral-limit","kind":"requirement"}]},{"id":"delegation-devolution-and-agency","name":"Delegation, devolution and agency","description":"Downward or outward transfer of competence, including whether the transfer is revocable, whether the delegating authority retains oversight, and how sub-delegation is bounded.","questions":[{"text":"Which instrument effects the delegation or devolution, and is the transfer revocable by the delegating authority?","id":"q-delegation-instrument","kind":"authority"},{"text":"What competence does the delegating authority retain, including oversight, direction and substitution rights?","id":"q-delegation-retained","kind":"composition"},{"text":"May the delegate sub-delegate, and if so within what limits?","id":"q-subdelegation","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Where competence is created or narrowed by party agreement rather than by public conferral, how is that consensual basis recorded?","id":"q-agency-consent","kind":"relationship"}]}]}]},{"id":"scope-delimitation","name":"Scope Delimitation","description":"Delimits the competence along the four axes recognised across the primary sources: territorial and spatial, personal, material or subject-matter, and temporal.","layers":[{"id":"territorial-and-spatial-scope","name":"Territorial and Spatial Scope","description":"The spatial reach of the competence on land, at sea and in the air, plus reach that attaches to conduct or effects outside that space.","findings":[{"id":"land-territorial-extent-reference","name":"Land territorial extent by reference","description":"Binding of the jurisdiction to administrative units and boundary features mastered in the spatial model, with the level, nesting and enclave or exclave handling.","questions":[{"text":"Which administrative unit or boundary features in the spatial model delimit this jurisdiction's land territory?","id":"q-extent-ref","kind":"spatial"},{"text":"Which jurisdictions nest inside this one and which does it nest within, and is the nesting exhaustive without gaps?","id":"q-extent-nesting","kind":"composition"},{"text":"Does the territory include enclaves, exclaves, condominia or areas of shared administration, and how is each recorded?","id":"q-extent-anomalies","kind":"exception"},{"text":"Which spatial attributes are deliberately excluded here because the spatial model masters them?","id":"q-extent-nongeometry","kind":"ownership"}]},{"id":"maritime-aerial-and-special-zones","name":"Maritime, aerial and special zones","description":"Functional and partial competence zones seaward and skyward, where the content of authority differs by zone and rests on deposited baselines and coordinates.","questions":[{"text":"Which maritime or aerial zone type does this record cover, and what is its outer limit measured from which baseline?","id":"q-zone-type","kind":"spatial"},{"text":"What specific rights and jurisdiction does the authority hold in this zone, as distinct from full sovereignty?","id":"q-zone-content","kind":"definition"},{"text":"Which freedoms or passage rights do other States retain within this zone, and under what conditions?","id":"q-zone-otherstates","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Which charts or lists of geographical coordinates were deposited, with which depositary, and on what date?","id":"q-zone-deposit","kind":"evidence"}]},{"id":"extraterritorial-reach-and-connecting-factors","name":"Extraterritorial reach and connecting factors","description":"Competence asserted over conduct, actors or effects located outside the territory, recorded with the connecting factor relied on and the known limits on giving it effect.","questions":[{"text":"On which connecting factor does the extraterritorial assertion rest: establishment, conduct, effect, targeting, nationality, protective interest or universality?","id":"q-extra-basis","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Where reach depends on targeting or monitoring of persons in the territory, what indicators evidence that targeting?","id":"q-extra-targeting","kind":"evidence"},{"text":"What limits on giving the assertion practical effect are recorded, and which model owns any action taken about them?","id":"q-extra-effectiveness","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Has the assertion been contested by another authority, and where is that contestation recorded?","id":"q-extra-contest","kind":"exception"}]}]},{"id":"personal-and-material-scope","name":"Personal and Material Scope","description":"Which persons and entities fall within the competence, and which subject matters it covers or expressly excludes.","findings":[{"id":"personal-scope-and-attachment","name":"Personal scope and attachment","description":"The classes of natural and legal persons within scope and the attachment criteria that place them there, together with the priority among competing criteria.","questions":[{"text":"Which classes of natural and legal persons are within scope, and which are expressly excluded?","id":"q-personal-classes","kind":"definition"},{"text":"Which attachment criteria apply — domicile, habitual residence, nationality, statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business — and in what priority order?","id":"q-personal-criteria","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Which weaker-party or protected categories receive special attachment rules that displace the general rule?","id":"q-personal-protected","kind":"exception"},{"text":"Where are the underlying person and entity attributes mastered, and what is consumed here by reference only?","id":"q-personal-master","kind":"ownership"}]},{"id":"subject-matter-scope","name":"Subject-matter scope","description":"The material competence: which matters are covered, which are expressly carved out, and how the catalogue is versioned against its instruments.","questions":[{"text":"Which subject matters fall within this competence, and by which classification scheme are they named?","id":"q-matter-covered","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Which matters are expressly excluded from scope, and does an exclusion in one instrument imply competence elsewhere?","id":"q-matter-excluded","kind":"exception"},{"text":"Do any gravity, value or seriousness thresholds condition the competence over a covered matter?","id":"q-matter-threshold","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"How is a change to the subject-matter catalogue tied to the amending instrument and its effective date?","id":"q-matter-versioning","kind":"temporal"}]}]},{"id":"temporal-scope","name":"Temporal Scope","description":"When the competence exists and to which conduct periods it attaches, keeping the applicability window distinct from record validity.","findings":[{"id":"temporal-applicability-window","name":"Temporal applicability window","description":"Entry into force, start and end of applicability, non-retroactivity and any declaration that extends competence backwards, recorded separately from when the record was created or observed.","questions":[{"text":"When did the competence enter into force and from which instant does it apply to conduct or proceedings?","id":"q-temporal-force","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"Does the competence reach conduct occurring before entry into force, and under which express declaration if so?","id":"q-temporal-retroactivity","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Is there a sunset, expiry or termination instant, and what happens to matters already pending at that instant?","id":"q-temporal-end","kind":"lifecycle"},{"text":"How are the effective instant of a change and the instant this model observed it kept as separate fields?","id":"q-temporal-bitemporal","kind":"provenance"}]}]}]},{"id":"interaction-conflict-and-exception","name":"Interaction, Conflict and Exception","description":"How a jurisdiction stands relative to others — hierarchy, concurrency, priority, party-chosen forum and mutual recognition — and how immunities, reservations and derogations narrow its declared scope.","layers":[{"id":"inter-jurisdictional-relations","name":"Inter-Jurisdictional Relations","description":"Vertical and horizontal relations between jurisdictions and the recorded rules that break ties between them.","findings":[{"id":"hierarchy-supremacy-and-subsidiarity","name":"Hierarchy, supremacy and deference","description":"Vertical ordering between jurisdictions, including which order prevails on conflict and which deference rules require a higher body to stand back where a lower one is genuinely acting.","questions":[{"text":"Which jurisdictions stand above and below this one, and on what instrument does the ordering rest?","id":"q-hierarchy-order","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"On direct conflict of norms, which order prevails and within what limits?","id":"q-hierarchy-prevail","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Under what conditions must this jurisdiction defer to another that is genuinely investigating or deciding the same matter?","id":"q-hierarchy-deference","kind":"decision"},{"text":"Which jurisdiction reviews decisions of this one, and is that review reference or ownership?","id":"q-hierarchy-appeal","kind":"ownership"}]},{"id":"concurrency-overlap-and-priority","name":"Concurrency, overlap and priority","description":"Horizontal coexistence of competences over the same matter, the classification of the overlap, and the recorded rule that assigns priority, such as first seised.","questions":[{"text":"Is the relation to the other jurisdiction exclusive, concurrent, hierarchical or disputed at the reference instant?","id":"q-overlap-class","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Which recorded rule assigns priority when both competences would otherwise apply?","id":"q-overlap-priority","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Where proceedings on the same cause are already pending elsewhere, what is the recorded consequence for this jurisdiction?","id":"q-overlap-pending","kind":"process"},{"text":"Where two competences overlap only partially, how is the intersection scoped along the four axes?","id":"q-overlap-partial","kind":"composition"}]},{"id":"forum-selection-and-recognition-reference","name":"Forum selection and recognition, by reference","description":"Party-chosen forum bindings and mutual-recognition arrangements recorded as references to their governing instruments, with the recorded grounds on which recognition may be refused.","questions":[{"text":"Which instrument designates this jurisdiction as a chosen forum, and is that designation exclusive?","id":"q-forum-designation","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"What obligations follow for the chosen court and for other courts under the governing convention?","id":"q-forum-obligations","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"On which enumerated grounds may recognition or enforcement of a decision from this jurisdiction be refused elsewhere?","id":"q-forum-refusal","kind":"exception"},{"text":"How is the record kept clear that designating a forum does not determine the applicable law?","id":"q-forum-lawseparation","kind":"interoperability"}]}]},{"id":"exceptions-and-immunities","name":"Exceptions and Immunities","description":"Overlays that narrow an otherwise applicable competence for particular beneficiaries, matters or periods.","findings":[{"id":"immunity-privilege-and-derogation","name":"Immunity, privilege, reservation and derogation","description":"Recorded carve-outs — State immunity with its enumerated exceptions and waiver, treaty reservations and declarations, opt-outs, and time-bounded derogations — each scoped to a beneficiary class and validity window.","questions":[{"text":"Which exception type applies — immunity, privilege, reservation, declaration, opt-out or derogation — and who benefits from it?","id":"q-immunity-type","kind":"exception"},{"text":"How may the benefit be waived, and does submitting to proceedings amount to waiver for related matters?","id":"q-immunity-waiver","kind":"authority"},{"text":"Which enumerated exceptions defeat the immunity, such as commercial transactions, employment contracts or immovable property?","id":"q-immunity-exceptions","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Where was the declaration or reservation lodged, with which depositary, and is it still in force?","id":"q-immunity-deposit","kind":"evidence"},{"text":"Is there an overriding mandatory provision or public-policy reservation that displaces an otherwise applicable rule?","id":"q-immunity-publicpolicy","kind":"requirement"}]}]}]},{"id":"lifecycle-provenance-and-quality","name":"Lifecycle, Provenance and Quality","description":"How jurisdiction records change over time, what evidence supports them, how contested claims are held without silent resolution, and how records are validated and kept current.","layers":[{"id":"lifecycle-succession-and-cession","name":"Lifecycle, Succession and Cession","description":"State transitions of the jurisdiction record and the transfer, merger, split, suspension or termination of the competence itself.","findings":[{"id":"scope-change-succession-and-dissolution","name":"Scope change, succession and dissolution","description":"The controlled set of change events affecting a competence and the continuity links that survive a change of holder, territory or existence, including predecessor and successor bindings.","questions":[{"text":"Which change type occurred — establishment, extension, reduction, transfer, cession, merger, split, suspension or termination — and which instrument effected it?","id":"q-change-type","kind":"event"},{"text":"What record states exist between draft and terminated, and which transitions are permitted?","id":"q-change-state","kind":"state"},{"text":"Which predecessor and successor jurisdictions are linked, and what proportion of scope passed to each?","id":"q-change-continuity","kind":"lifecycle"},{"text":"What happens to matters and obligations pending at the moment of the change?","id":"q-change-pending","kind":"process"},{"text":"Does the change require a new identifier or preserve the existing one, and on what rule does that turn?","id":"q-change-identifier","kind":"identity"}]}]},{"id":"provenance-evidence-and-quality","name":"Provenance, Evidence and Quality","description":"Where each assertion came from, how competing claims are carried without arbitration, and how records are validated and dated for currency.","findings":[{"id":"source-attestation-and-provenance","name":"Source attestation and provenance","description":"Per-assertion provenance recording the official publication, the asserting party, the retrieval instant and the authority tier of the source.","questions":[{"text":"Which official publication or register attests each assertion, and at what citation precision?","id":"q-prov-source","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"What authority tier does the source hold, and is it primary or secondary for this assertion?","id":"q-prov-tier","kind":"quality"},{"text":"When was the source retrieved and by which actor or process, and what was its version at that instant?","id":"q-prov-retrieval","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"Which assertions are derived rather than attested, and what derivation rule produced them?","id":"q-prov-derivation","kind":"evidence"}]},{"id":"contested-claim-and-dispute-recording","name":"Contested claims and disputed scope","description":"Parallel, incompatible assertions about the same scope held side by side with their asserting authorities, without the model choosing a winner.","questions":[{"text":"Which authorities assert incompatible competence over the same scope, and what does each assert?","id":"q-dispute-parties","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"What is the recorded status of the contestation and before which body, if any, is it pending?","id":"q-dispute-status","kind":"state"},{"text":"How does the record avoid implying a position on legal status while still being usable by an agent?","id":"q-dispute-neutrality","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"How must a consuming system behave when a query returns competing claims rather than a single answer?","id":"q-dispute-consumer","kind":"decision"}]},{"id":"validation-conformance-and-currency","name":"Validation, conformance and currency","description":"The rule set a jurisdiction record must satisfy before publication, the refusal to claim conformance to external standards without evidence, and the freshness date attached to each record.","questions":[{"text":"Which validation rules must a record pass before it may move from draft to published?","id":"q-valid-rules","kind":"validation"},{"text":"For each external standard cited, is conformance claimed, and what evidence would be required to claim it?","id":"q-valid-conformance","kind":"quality"},{"text":"How recently was each record reverified against its sources, and what staleness threshold triggers reverification?","id":"q-valid-currency","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"What happens to a published record whose source has changed or whose validation now fails?","id":"q-valid-failure","kind":"process"}]}]}]},{"id":"interoperability-and-operation","name":"Interoperability and Operation","description":"How jurisdiction records are mapped to external identifier schemes, how an agent resolves candidate jurisdictions, how the model is discovered and bootstrapped, and how access and retention are governed.","layers":[{"id":"identifier-interoperability","name":"Identifier Interoperability","description":"Explicit mappings to external identifier schemes and the syntactic rules governing jurisdiction tokens embedded in legal identifiers.","findings":[{"id":"external-identifier-crosswalk","name":"External identifier crosswalk","description":"Versioned mappings from jurisdiction records to the jurisdiction tokens used by ELI, ECLI, LEX URN, Akoma Ntoso, territorial code lists and legal-entity registers, with equivalence strength and conflict records.","questions":[{"text":"Which external schemes carry a token for this jurisdiction, and what is the token value in each?","id":"q-cross-schemes","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"Is each mapping exact, broader, narrower or related, and how are one-to-many mappings represented?","id":"q-cross-equivalence","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Where two schemes disagree about the same jurisdiction, how is the conflict recorded rather than silently resolved?","id":"q-cross-conflict","kind":"exception"},{"text":"How are crosswalk entries invalidated when an external registrar retires or obsoletes a token?","id":"q-cross-lifecycle","kind":"lifecycle"}]},{"id":"jurisdiction-token-in-legal-identifiers","name":"Jurisdiction tokens inside legal identifiers","description":"The syntactic and governance rules that constrain how a jurisdiction appears inside compound legal identifiers, including subdivision hierarchy, registrar responsibility and the prohibition on renaming.","questions":[{"text":"What syntax constrains the jurisdiction token in each compound identifier, including subdivision separators and hierarchy depth?","id":"q-token-syntax","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Who registers and maintains the jurisdiction token for a given scheme, and under what review policy?","id":"q-token-registrar","kind":"authority"},{"text":"Which rules forbid renaming or reassigning a token, and how is obsolescence expressed instead?","id":"q-token-immutability","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"How are international organisations and bodies without a territorial code accommodated in these schemes?","id":"q-token-international","kind":"definition"}]}]},{"id":"resolution-access-and-retention","name":"Resolution, Access and Retention","description":"How an agent queries the model for candidate jurisdictions, how it discovers and bootstraps the model, and how access and disposition of the model's own records are governed.","findings":[{"id":"scope-resolution-procedure","name":"Scope resolution procedure","description":"The advisory procedure that turns a set of facts and a reference instant into an ordered set of candidate jurisdictions with the basis of connection, stopping short of any decision or enforcement.","questions":[{"text":"Which facts must be supplied to obtain a candidate set, and which are optional refinements?","id":"q-resolve-inputs","kind":"process"},{"text":"What does a candidate set contain, and how is the basis of connection reported for each candidate?","id":"q-resolve-output","kind":"definition"},{"text":"What must the procedure refuse to do, and which model owns those refused operations?","id":"q-resolve-limits","kind":"ownership"},{"text":"How does the procedure signal that inputs are insufficient or that the answer is genuinely contested?","id":"q-resolve-underdetermined","kind":"quality"}]},{"id":"agent-bootstrap-and-discovery","name":"Agent bootstrap and discovery","description":"The mandatory bootstrap descriptor that lets an agent discover what this model is, where its specification, storage projection, interface and processes live, and in what order to read them.","questions":[{"text":"Which fields must the bootstrap descriptor carry for an agent to operate the model without prior knowledge?","id":"q-boot-fields","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"In what order must an agent read the bootstrap targets, and what must it do if one is unreachable?","id":"q-boot-order","kind":"process"},{"text":"How does the descriptor stay valid across storage projections such as document store, graph, repository or service interface?","id":"q-boot-neutrality","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"How is the descriptor versioned so an agent can detect that the contract has changed?","id":"q-boot-versioning","kind":"temporal"}]},{"id":"record-access-and-sensitivity","name":"Record access and sensitivity","description":"Default openness of jurisdiction records, the narrow cases where access must be restricted, and how personal or security-sensitive material is kept out of the model entirely.","questions":[{"text":"What is the default access posture for jurisdiction records, and on what public-publication rationale does it rest?","id":"q-access-default","kind":"access"},{"text":"Which records or fields require restriction, such as unpublished drafts or security-sensitive coordinate deposits?","id":"q-access-exception","kind":"security"},{"text":"Which categories of personal data are excluded from this model by design, and where do they belong instead?","id":"q-access-personal","kind":"privacy"},{"text":"What access evidence must be produced, and which system owns the audit trail that records it?","id":"q-access-audit","kind":"evidence"}]},{"id":"retention-and-disposition","name":"Retention and disposition","description":"How superseded and terminated jurisdiction records are retained, tombstoned rather than erased, and eventually disposed of under a policy executed outside this model.","questions":[{"text":"Which retention class applies to each record type, and what minimum retention period does it impose?","id":"q-retain-class","kind":"retention"},{"text":"What must a tombstone preserve when a record is withdrawn, so that historical citations still resolve?","id":"q-retain-tombstone","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Which policy and which actor own the execution of physical disposition, given that it lies outside this model's boundary?","id":"q-retain-owner","kind":"ownership"},{"text":"Are superseded versions retained indefinitely for legal-history reconstruction, and under what exception may they be removed?","id":"q-retain-history","kind":"exception"}]}]}]}]},"agentConduct":{"may":["Register a jurisdiction record with its conferring instrument and evidence.","Align the record to ISO 3166, UN M49 or another external territorial code.","Resolve candidate jurisdictions for a place, person or subject matter and report overlaps.","Record succession, cession or dissolution as a new state with dates."],"mustNot":["Decide which authority actually prevails in a conflict of competence.","Treat a territorial code as proof of legal competence.","Infer jurisdiction from a person's IP address, language or location alone.","Overwrite historical scope when borders or competences change.","Present a disputed or unrecognised claim of authority as settled."],"requiresHuman":["Resolving overlapping or contested claims of competence.","Recording recognition of a disputed territory or authority.","Registering an immunity or exception that removes a person or matter from a jurisdiction."]},"ethics":{"considerations":["Jurisdiction determines which courts, police and tax authorities can act on a person; errors can deny access to justice or expose people to the wrong authority.","Disputed territories carry political weight; a record must show the dispute rather than take a side silently.","Indigenous and minority legal orders may be overlooked if only state authorities are modelled."],"affectedParties":["People and organizations subject to the authority","Authorities whose competence is recorded","Communities in disputed or transferred territories"]},"owners":{"steward":"The adopting Dimension must name a competent public or legal authority, or an accountable steward acting on published sources, as owner of every jurisdiction record it publishes; unowned records may exist only in draft state.","roles":[{"name":"Jurisdiction steward","responsibilities":["Owns a defined set of jurisdiction records and their promotion from draft to published state","Ensures every asserted element carries an attestation with a retrieval instant and authority tier","Approves scope-change records and confirms the identifier continuity decision for each change","Maintains the neutrality posture when contested claims are recorded"]},{"name":"Legal source verifier","responsibilities":["Verifies conferring and amending instrument citations against official publications and registers","Assigns and reviews authority tiers and primary or secondary markers for each source","Runs reverification against the staleness threshold and records the last verified instant","Raises errata where a record diverges from its cited source"]},{"name":"Spatial and boundary liaison","responsibilities":["Maintains resolvable references into the administrative-unit and boundary spatial model and rejects any local geometry authoring","Records maritime and aerial zone types, baselines and deposited coordinate references","Coordinates with the parent place model when unit references are retired, split or merged","Flags enclave, exclave, condominium and shared-administration anomalies for steward review"]},{"name":"Interoperability registrar","responsibilities":["Maintains crosswalks to ELI, ECLI, LEX URN, Akoma Ntoso, territorial code lists and legal-entity registers","Pins external scheme versions and monitors registrar change notices for retired or obsoleted tokens","Records conflicts between schemes rather than resolving them and escalates them to the steward","Enforces the prohibition on renaming or reassigning jurisdiction identifiers"]},{"name":"Access and retention officer","responsibilities":["Applies the open-by-default access posture and approves every documented exception with a reason and review instant","Assigns retention classes and confirms that a named actor and policy own physical disposition outside this model","Maintains the append-only tombstone register and verifies that no retired identifier is reused","Confirms that no personal data about identified natural persons enters jurisdiction records"]}],"masterSystems":[]},"relations":[{"target":"WM-PLC-004 (parent place and political-geography model)","type":"child","note":"Jurisdiction records are navigated beneath the parent place model, which owns place identity, administrative-unit features and boundary geometry. This model contributes competence semantics attached to those places and never re-authors place identity or geometry."},{"target":"Administrative unit and boundary spatial model (INSPIRE Administrative Units theme)","type":"references","note":"Carry resolvable references to AdministrativeUnit and AdministrativeBoundary features, the national administrative level and spatial anomalies, plus jurisdiction-specific parameters such as which competence attaches to which unit. Geometry authorship, topology, boundary editing and their lifecycle remain wholly in the spatial model."},{"target":"Territorial code registries (ISO 3166-1 and ISO 3166-2 as normatively referenced, UN M49, EU Countries and territories NAL)","type":"aligned","note":"Assert dated alignments with a match strength and a pinned scheme version, carrying forward any published neutrality caveat. Code assignment, retirement and reuse policy stay with the maintenance agencies and no conformance is claimed without evidence."},{"target":"Legislation and legal-instrument model (ELI, Akoma Ntoso, LEX URN)","type":"references","note":"Cite conferring, amending and terminating instruments through governed legal identifiers together with a pinpoint provision and a relation type. Instrument text, FRBR expression versioning, consolidation and in-force computation remain owned by the legislation model."},{"target":"Public-authority and court organisation model","type":"references","note":"Bind the authority-holder by reference with a role qualifier and continuity links. Organisational structure, appointments, internal competence allocation, dockets and operational activity are not modelled here."},{"target":"Case-law identification model (ECLI)","type":"aligned","note":"Align adjudicative jurisdiction records to the ECLI country and court codes so that decisions can be attributed to a competence record. Judgment records, ordinal assignment and citation graphs remain in the case-law model."},{"target":"Legal-entity registry model (ISO 17442 / GLEIF Global LEI Index)","type":"references","note":"Consume an entity's legal jurisdiction and registration authority as connecting-factor inputs for personal-scope evaluation. Entity reference data remains mastered by GLEIF and its Local Operating Units and is never duplicated as local master data."},{"target":"Applicable-law and conflict-of-laws model (Rome I and equivalents)","type":"references","note":"Keep choice of forum separate from choice of law by referencing, not reproducing, the applicable-law determination, including overriding mandatory provisions and the public-policy exception. Determining the governing law of a relationship is owned entirely by that model."},{"target":"Policy-decision, enforcement and audit runtime model","type":"references","note":"Supply jurisdiction scope facts and advisory candidate sets as inputs. Rule evaluation, decision issuance, enforcement action, representative-based service mechanisms and the audit trail of all of these are owned by the runtime model and are never modelled, executed or logged here."},{"target":"Statistical territorial classification model (NUTS, Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003)","type":"aligned","note":"Map jurisdictions to statistical territorial units for reporting, while recording that NUTS units are statistical constructs subject to population thresholds and a triennial amendment cadence and therefore carry no authority claim of their own."},{"target":"Maritime zone and law-of-the-sea model","type":"extends","note":"Specialise the Jurisdiction entity for maritime and aerial zones by adding zone type, baseline reference, outer limit and deposited-coordinate reference. Generic identity, authority binding, lifecycle, provenance and conflict machinery are inherited and are not restated in the specialisation."},{"target":"Bitemporal validity and record-versioning mixin","type":"composes","note":"Reuse a shared contract for effective-time versus observation-time intervals, supersession and version identity, so that this model records only jurisdiction-specific interval semantics such as entry into force and applicability windows."},{"target":"Parent place and administrative-unit spatial model (WM-PLC-004; INSPIRE Administrative Units theme)","type":"neighbor","note":"The spatial model owns AdministrativeUnit and AdministrativeBoundary features, their geometry, national levels and boundary editing lifecycle. Jurisdiction carries only a resolvable reference to those features plus the competence semantics attached to them, and never re-authors or re-versions geometry locally."},{"target":"Statistical territorial classification (NUTS, Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003)","type":"neighbor","note":"NUTS levels exist to enable collection and dissemination of European statistics and are built from administrative units subject to population thresholds and a triennial amendment cadence. A NUTS unit is therefore an alignment target for reporting, not evidence that an authority holds decision-making power over that area."},{"target":"Legislation and legal-instrument model (ELI, Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention)","type":"neighbor","note":"ELI and the Akoma Ntoso FRBR Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item stack own instrument identity, versioning and publication. Jurisdiction cites an instrument as the legal basis for a competence; it must not mirror expression-level versioning, consolidation or in-force computation of that instrument."},{"target":"Applicable-law / conflict-of-laws model (Rome I, Regulation (EC) No 593/2008)","type":"neighbor","note":"Rome I governs which law applies to a contractual obligation, including party choice, default connecting rules, overriding mandatory provisions and the public-policy exception. Brussels Ia governs which court has jurisdiction. Choice of law and choice of forum are separate determinations and this model owns only the forum-scope side, by reference."},{"target":"Case-law identification model (ECLI)","type":"neighbor","note":"ECLI identifies individual judgments through country code, court code, year and ordinal number. Jurisdiction may align to the ECLI court code as an identifier for an adjudicative authority, but judgments, dockets and citation metadata are not modelled here."},{"target":"Legal-entity registry model (ISO 17442 / GLEIF Global LEI Index)","type":"neighbor","note":"The LEI record masters an entity's legal jurisdiction and registration authority as entity reference data. Jurisdiction consumes those values as connecting-factor inputs by reference and never becomes a second master for entity reference data."},{"target":"Policy-decision, enforcement and audit runtime","type":"neighbor","note":"This model supplies scope facts and advisory candidate sets. Evaluation of a rule against a case, issuance of a decision, enforcement action against a party outside the territory, and the audit trail of those acts are wholly owned by the runtime model. Enforcement jurisdiction is recorded here only as a declared classification, never as an executed capability."},{"target":"Territorial code maintenance agencies (ISO 3166 series, UN M49, EU Countries and territories NAL)","type":"neighbor","note":"Code assignment, retirement and re-use rules belong to the maintaining agency. UNSD explicitly states that grouping assignments are for statistical convenience and imply no position on political affiliation or legal status. Alignment entries here are assertions with a match strength, not conformance claims."},{"target":"Maritime delimitation and law-of-the-sea model","type":"neighbor","note":"UNCLOS fixes zone breadths and the content of coastal-State rights per zone. A maritime jurisdiction record specialises the generic Jurisdiction entity with zone type, baseline reference and deposited-coordinate reference; it does not redefine zone entitlements, delimitation methodology or dispute settlement machinery."},{"target":"WM-PLC-004","type":"parent"}],"interaction":{"identity":{"applicability":"required","items":["Authoritative master-system identifier issued by the competent public or legal authority that constitutes or registers the jurisdiction — for example the national official register or gazette reference for the constituting instrument, the treaty depositary notification reference, the ECLI court code for an adjudicative body, or the statutory subdivision code issued by the national coding authority.","Governed global identifier or IRI from a maintained public registry — for example the EU Countries and territories NAL URI, an ELI URI for the conferring instrument, a LEX URN jurisdiction token, or an ISO 3166-1/-2 code as normatively referenced by Akoma Ntoso and urn:lex.","UUID or ULID minted by the adopting Dimension in its own namespace, used only when neither of the tiers above yields a stable identifier, and always recorded together with the tier marker and the reason no higher tier applied.","A date, a name, a boundary geometry, a NUTS code or any statistical grouping code is never an identifier for a jurisdiction; NUTS and M49 codes may be carried only as alignments."]},"properties":{"applicability":"not-applicable","items":[]},"recognition":{"applicability":"optional","items":["A jurisdiction record names an authority-holder, a type of power, a scope on four axes and the instrument that confers it.","Often confused with a country, an administrative region, a court and the governing law of a contract."]},"capabilities":{"applicability":"required","items":["Register a jurisdiction record: Create a new jurisdiction record binding an authority-holder to a delimited competence, with at least one conferring instrument reference and an identifier assigned by the identity priority rule.","Align to an external territorial code: Record an alignment assertion between a jurisdiction record and an externally maintained territorial code, with match strength, pinned scheme version and any published neutrality caveat.","Declare spatial extent by reference: Bind a jurisdiction to administrative-unit features or maritime and aerial zone declarations without storing geometry locally.","Resolve candidate jurisdictions: Return an ordered advisory set of jurisdictions whose recorded scope matches supplied connecting factors, subject matter and reference instant, each with its basis of connection.","Assess overlap and priority: Classify the relation between two or more jurisdictions over a shared scope as exclusive, concurrent, hierarchical or disputed, and cite the recorded priority rule.","Record a scope change: Apply a controlled change event to a jurisdiction record, closing the prior version's validity interval and opening a new one, with the effecting instrument cited.","Record succession, cession or dissolution: Link predecessor and successor jurisdictions when competence is transferred, merged, split or extinguished, recording the share of scope passing to each successor.","Register an exception or immunity: Record an immunity, privilege, reservation, declaration, opt-out or derogation that narrows declared scope for a beneficiary class over a validity window.","Crosswalk to an external identifier scheme: Add or update a mapping between a jurisdiction record and the jurisdiction token used by ELI, ECLI, LEX URN, Akoma Ntoso, a territorial code list or a legal-entity register.","Validate a jurisdiction record: Run the pinned validation profile over a record version, producing a rule-by-rule report and setting validation status and currency.","Apply retention and disposition: Determine and record the disposition outcome for a superseded, withdrawn or terminated record, leaving a tombstone and delegating physical destruction to the owning policy."]},"hazards":{"applicability":"required","items":["Filing, reporting or enforcement directed to an authority without competence.","Stale records after succession or boundary change misroute legal obligations.","Silent resolution of disputed claims misleads agents and users."]},"interfaces":{"applicability":"required","items":["ISO 3166-1 and ISO 3166-2 country and subdivision codes.","UN M49 standard country or area codes.","European Legislation Identifier (ELI) and European Case Law Identifier (ECLI).","INSPIRE Administrative Units theme.","NUTS classification, Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003."]},"context":{"applicability":"required","items":["The competence-category taxonomy (exclusive, shared, coordinating, supporting) and the principle of conferral are drawn from EU treaty law. They generalise reasonably to federal systems but are not universal; unitary and common-law systems may allocate competence by convention or judicial doctrine rather than by an enumerated list.","Brussels Ia, Rome I, ELI, ECLI and NUTS are EU instruments. Their structural lessons are used as evidence that particular distinctions exist and are operationally necessary, not as evidence that any specific rule applies outside the EU.","The 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities is not universally in force; several States apply national immunity statutes or customary law with materially different exceptions. Immunity entries must therefore cite the instrument actually relied on in the recording jurisdiction.","The HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention binds only its Contracting States; forum-designation entries must record the applicable regime rather than assuming the Convention applies.","Maritime zone entitlements assume UNCLOS as the reference frame; States not party to UNCLOS, and areas subject to pending delimitation, require the applicable bilateral or customary basis to be cited instead.","The open-by-default access posture assumes a legal system in which constituting instruments, registers and treaty depositary records are publicly published. Where they are not, the adopting Dimension must set a more restrictive default and record why."]}},"sources":[{"title":"Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49)","url":"https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/","note":"United Nations Statistics Division"},{"title":"Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention Version 1.0","url":"https://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/akn-nc/v1.0/akn-nc-v1.0.html","note":"OASIS LegalDocML Technical Committee"},{"title":"European Legislation Identifier (ELI) — About","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli-register/about.html","note":"Publications Office of the European Union / EUR-Lex"},{"title":"Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Ia)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32012R1215","note":"European Union"},{"title":"United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part II — Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone","url":"https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm","note":"United Nations, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea"},{"title":"United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part V — Exclusive Economic Zone","url":"https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm","note":"United Nations, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea"},{"title":"Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court","url":"https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm","note":"United Nations / International Criminal Court"},{"title":"Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements","url":"https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=98","note":"Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)"},{"title":"A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Sources of Law (LEX)","url":"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-spinosa-urn-lex","note":"Internet Engineering Task Force (Internet-Draft)"},{"title":"European Case Law Identifier (ECLI)","url":"https://e-justice.europa.eu/175/EN/european_case_law_identifier_ecli","note":"European Commission — European e-Justice Portal"},{"title":"Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008R0593","note":"European Union"},{"title":"Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 on a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS), consolidated text","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02003R1059-20240101","note":"European Union"},{"title":"INSPIRE Data Specification on Administrative Units — Technical Guidelines","url":"https://knowledge-base.inspire.ec.europa.eu/publications/inspire-data-specification-administrative-units-technical-guidelines_en","note":"European Commission — INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Group"},{"title":"United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property","url":"https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/4_1_2004.pdf","note":"United Nations / International Law Commission"},{"title":"Countries and territories — Named Authority List","url":"https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-vocabularies/concept-scheme/-/resource?uri=http://publications.europa.eu/resource/authority/country","note":"Publications Office of the European Union (EU Vocabularies)"},{"title":"Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679","note":"European Union"},{"title":"Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12016E%2FTXT","note":"European Union"},{"title":"Introducing the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)","url":"https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/introducing-the-legal-entity-identifier-lei","note":"Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF)"},{"title":"Art. 3 GDPR — Territorial scope","url":"https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/","note":"Intersoft Consulting (gdpr-info.eu)"}],"openQuestions":["Retrieve ISO 3166-1 and ISO 3166-2 through the ISO Online Browsing Platform and re-ground every structural claim currently resting on indirect citation through Akoma Ntoso, urn:lex, UNSD and the EU Countries NAL.","Obtain a retrievable authoritative statement of the prescriptive/adjudicative/enforcement trichotomy (ILC A/61/10 annex or an equivalent doctrinal source) so power-type classification is no longer supported only by the operative structure of Brussels Ia, GDPR Article 3 and the immunities convention.","Add the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention to the source set; recognition and refusal grounds currently rest on Brussels Ia and the 2005 Choice of Court Convention alone, which leaves recognition outside chosen-court cases unevidenced.","Consult the 1978 and 1983 Vienna Conventions on Succession of States, or an equivalent authority, to ground succession, cession and dissolution, which no cited source currently governs.","Consult the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations (1961) and Consular Relations (1963) so that privilege and immunity are not modelled solely from the 2004 State immunity convention, which is itself not universally in force.","Verify the current status of draft-spinosa-urn-lex (expiry, successor draft or RFC), the current NUTS consolidation after the triennial amendment cadence, and the current EU Countries and territories NAL version, and repin all three.","Consult UNCLOS Part XI, the Antarctic Treaty regime and the Outer Space Treaty to decide whether non-territorial competence regimes need dedicated structure or can be carried by the existing typology and functional-competence elements.","Determine whether consensual competence should be extended to arbitral seat, kompetenz-kompetenz and award enforcement by consulting the New York Convention and ICSID regime, or whether that scope belongs to a sibling model.","ISO 3166-1 and ISO 3166-2 could not be fetched directly: iso.org returned HTTP 403 on every attempt. The standard is therefore cited indirectly through instruments that normatively reference it (Akoma Ntoso Naming Convention, urn:lex) and through UNSD and the EU Countries NAL. Any structural claim resting solely on ISO wording should be treated as unverified until the ISO Online Browsing Platform is consulted.","The International Law Commission's 2006 annex on extraterritorial jurisdiction (A/61/10) could not be parsed; the prescriptive/adjudicative/enforcement trichotomy is therefore supported here by the operative structure of Brussels Ia, GDPR Article 3 and the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities rather than by a doctrinal source. The power-type classification is marked as declared classification only and should be re-grounded if a retrievable authoritative statement of the trichotomy is obtained.","Religious, customary, indigenous and non-State legal orders are not separately modelled. The typology can express them as jurisdiction kinds, but no primary source in this set governs their identity, coding or conferral, so treating them as first-class here would be unsupported structure.","Arbitral tribunal competence, investor-State dispute settlement and the New York Convention regime are out of the source set; the consensual-basis element can carry an arbitration reference but the model asserts no structure for arbitral seat, kompetenz-kompetenz or award enforcement.","Cyberspace-specific and platform-jurisdiction questions (data localisation, jurisdiction over cloud-held evidence, cross-border production orders) are represented only through generic connecting factors; no instrument governing cross-border data access is cited.","Outer space, Antarctic Treaty area and deep seabed Area regimes are not modelled, although each is a genuine non-territorial competence regime; UNCLOS Parts XI and following were not consulted.","No source in this set defines a normative confidence scale, so confidence values on candidate sets and alignments are locally defined and are not comparable across adopting Dimensions.","Machine-verifiable conformance evidence for ELI, ECLI or Akoma Ntoso is not specified here; the model records only whether conformance is claimed and what evidence would be required."],"resources":{"spec":"/models/wm-pol-015-jurisdiction/spec.yaml","agents":"/models/wm-pol-015-jurisdiction/AGENTS.md","source":"https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-pol-015"},"provenance":{"origin":"world-models research","builtFrom":["models/wm-pol-015-jurisdiction/spec.yaml","ver-cy/world-models/card-supplements/wm-pol-015-jurisdiction.json"],"providers":["Claude"],"researchStatus":"reviewable-draft","generatedAt":"2026-09-03T01:10:52Z","builder":"tools/build_cards.py@1.0.0"},"completeness":{"sections":{"classifiers":"filled","whatItIs":"filled","purpose":"filled","distinguishingFeatures":"filled","structure":"filled","agentConduct":"filled","ethics":"filled","owners":"filled","relations":"filled","interaction.identity":"filled","interaction.properties":"not-applicable","interaction.recognition":"filled","interaction.capabilities":"filled","interaction.hazards":"filled","interaction.interfaces":"filled","interaction.context":"filled","sources":"filled"},"notes":{"interaction.properties":"Institutional or informational subject: no invented physical properties.","_supplement":"Sections authored in card supplement 1.0.0 by Claude (Opus 5.5) (2026-10-05, unreviewed). Written from the published specification and established practice in the field; no new sources were read. Unreviewed."},"score":1.0}}