The Quest to Define 'Fair and Equitable Treatment' for Investors Under International Law: The Case of the NAFTA Chapter 11 Pope & Talbot Awards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article critically analyses the latest Awards in the NAFTA Chapter 11 Pope & Talbot case. The Final Award in Respect of Damages, issued on 31 May 2002, contains very interesting developments in the proper interpretation to be given to the concept of fair and equitable included in the standard of clause of NAFTA Article 1105. Is fair and equitable a concept which should be applied in addition to the minimum standard of treatment of investors under international law? Is there a threshold limitation whereby governmental conduct complained against by foreign investors must be egregious or outrageous in order to breach this minimum standard? The Award also tackles the question of the validity and effect of the Nafta Commission's of Article 1105, issued on 31 June 2001, as well as the interaction of this Interpretation with the most-favoured-nation clause contained in NAFTA Article 1103.
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 | 0.032 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".