{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01763803680981595, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015337423312883436, 'mean_word_length': 5.941489361702128, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
From Sovereignty to International Cooperation: Lessons from Legal Logic and Social Ontology (Short Paper)

Current global issues, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, international terrorism, environmental threats, or the refugee crisis, call for coordinated responses of States. The international cooperation required to tackle these issues demands some minimum regulatory framework: the creation and application of international rules. Any (potential) inconsistencies or conflicts between or within regulatory frameworks make international cooperation more difficult and challenge international law’s role as a tool for facilitating cooperation. It has been argued that international law is inconsistent because it is fragmented;this fragmentation can be seen as a result of state sovereignty.In this paper, we connect state sovereignty to fragmentation and the potential for inconsistencies and conflicts and investigate whether exercises of sovereignty necessarily lead to inconsistencies that would hinder international cooperation. We argue that this is not the case, essentially because the logic of rules differs fundamentally from the logic of statements, and because this rule logic allows us to find a coherent legal system in a pluralistic and fragmented collection of sources of international law.