Reviewed external-authority layer
External law anchors
These bounded propositions are tied to reviewed official law, treaty, model law, official guidance, or official reform material. External legal effect remains jurisdiction-specific and does not convert Eviulon internal status into external recognition.
EXTERNAL AUTHORITY · INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED
UNCITRAL automated-contracting rules require legal adoption
The UNCITRAL MLAC is presented by UNCITRAL as a model for national legislators and a framework for legal recognition of automation; it is not itself a worldwide enactment.
Scope: Use as an official model-law source, not as proof that a specific country has enacted every model provision.
EXTERNAL AUTHORITY · INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED
The Hague Judgments Convention excludes arbitration
Article 2(3) of the 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention states that the Convention does not apply to arbitration and related proceedings. Its recognition framework is therefore not a shortcut for enforcing an arbitral or generic machine decision.
Scope: Even court judgments must satisfy the Convention’s scope, eligibility, temporal, relationship, and refusal rules before recognition/enforcement follows.
EXTERNAL AUTHORITY · INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED
The New York Convention is arbitration-specific
The New York Convention concerns arbitration agreements and foreign or non-domestic arbitral awards rather than court judgments or generic internal governance determinations.
Scope: A machine-generated outcome must first qualify as an arbitral award under applicable law; Eviulon labeling alone cannot supply that status.
EXTERNAL AUTHORITY · INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED
EU party autonomy does not erase mandatory protections
Rome I permits governing-law choice while preserving non-derogable consumer protections and overriding mandatory provisions, and Brussels I bis limits forum agreements in protected and exclusive-jurisdiction categories.
Scope: EU rules are cited as a concrete example of bounded party autonomy, not as universal global conflict-of-laws rules.
EXTERNAL AUTHORITY · INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED
EU AI rules do not displace data-protection or product-safety law
The AI Act’s scope expressly preserves EU personal-data/privacy rules and states that it is without prejudice to other Union consumer-protection and product-safety law.
Scope: Do not convert AI Act status into a blanket compliance, civil-liability, privacy, or product-safety conclusion.
EXTERNAL AUTHORITY · INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED
The new EU Product Liability Directive has a future product-scope date
Directive (EU) 2024/2853 includes software in its definition of product, but Member States must transpose it by 9 December 2026 and, after the May 2026 corrigendum, it applies to products placed on the market or put into service after 8 December 2026.
Scope: As of 9 August 2026 the relevant product-scope date is still future. The site does not present the Directive as already deciding current AI/software harm claims or as replacing national contract/tort regimes.