O modelo ACFI revisado : aprimoramentos ao regime internacional de investimentos do Brasil,
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 2013, the Brazilian government approved its Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreement (CFIA) model. It has declared that the CFIA model integrates the most recent trends in investment policies, materializing the governments intention to build a new approach in the promotion and protection of investments. However, the CFIA model is only partially supported by academia and largely criticized by domestic and foreign investors and capital-exporting countries. The purpose of this study is to scrutinize the CFIA model to identify how it the balances States need for policy space and investors right for protection to propose the way forward for the Brazilian international investment regime. The CFIA model is evaluated holistically through its institutional design and main substantive and procedural provisions to give robustness to the investigation. Analyzing these intertwined elements combined determines the value of an investment framework, not the evaluation of its components in isolation. To successfully deal with the main apprehensions about the CFIA model, the stateof-art literature on ways to overcome the challenges faced by the international investment regime has served as a basis of assessment for elaborating a revised Brazilian regime. The study has also considered the criticism and lessons learned from the international and the Brazilian experiences with the traditional bilateral investment treaty (BIT) model, and the institutional choices and procedure and substantive disciplines found in the European Union (EU) model of investment treaty and the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement, attempting to understand the reasons for their institutional design, and drawing analogies and distinctions between the models and other international regulations. The EU and the United States are among the leading players searching for ways to improve the international investment regimes structure, disciplines, and rules. This study concludes that the Brazilian treaty-language fails to provide legal certainty and the model has overshot in its effort towards correcting the unbalance between States need for policy space and investors right for protection in the traditional BIT model. The study also presents several intertwined proposals for systemic reform of the Brazilian international investment regime. The proposals can contribute to constructing a renewed Brazilian regime that fosters the political and legal stability and predictability necessary for domestic and foreign investors to engage in new or additional investments while safeguarding the pursuit of competing public policy concerns. They enhance democratic legitimacy, fairness, and the rule of law, improve resource allocation efficiency, reduce diplomatic confrontation and protect fundamental and human rights, recognizing investment treaty as a tool rather than an obstacle to sustainable development. Several proposals can be easily adopted by the Executive and lately approved by Congress. However, to strengthen protection for investors while safeguarding public policy space, the Brazilian government must design its reformed regime transparently and inclusively to ensure the necessary support for its adoption and later entry into force.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».