FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT : A "COINCIDENTAL" COMPETENCE OF THE EU?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article gives an overview of the current status of EU foreign investment policy and outlines the direction in which it is headed. It is also testimony to the fact that when the competence for foreign direct investment was conferred upon the EU, deliberations on what this should entail were not really made. To begin with, the powers of the EU with respect to FDI before and after the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force are presented. As the EU has been empowered to regulate FDI matters for its Member States since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, there is potential for conflict. Therefore, the second part of this paper analyses the current legal status of intra- and extra-EU BITs and presents the BITs Regulation, a first attempt of the EU to define its competence and bring clarity with respect to the legal status of extra-EU BITs. Additionally, the special status of the Energy Charter Treaty is addressed. The third part of the paper will concentrate on the shape the common European investment policy might take in the future, with express reference to the new role of the instutions in regulating FDI and their positions towards FDI as a new competence. It seems from the EU-Canada trade agreement, which may be the first agreement to be concluded under the new competence, that the EU is opting for a rather broad competence including pre- and post-establishment of investments as well as portfolio investments. The European citizens, however, are not in favour of concluding any agreement. It will be concluded that the transfer of the competence was sudden, but the foundation for a solid European policy has been laid in the past five years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".