Chopping Away at Chapter 11: The Softwood Lumber Agreement's Effect on the NAFTA Investor-State Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On September 12, 2006, the governments of Canada and the United States signed the Softwood Lumber Agreement 2006 (SLA 2006), hoping to end the longstanding dispute between the two countries on the issue of softwood lumber. Fearing liability for measures taken to give effect to the agreement, the Parties included a provision in Article XI(2) of the SLA 2006, limiting the availability of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter 11 dispute resolution. This comment argues that in limiting the availability of NAFTA Chapter 11 dispute resolution, Article XI(2) of SLA 2006 effects the application of NAFTA Chapter 11 in a way that is inconsistent with customary international law. Specifically, Article XI(2) impermissibly affects the applicability of NAFTA Chapter 11 in one of two ways: (a) it separates provisions of Chapter 11 that are inseparable, were critical to the consent of Canada and the United States in signing NAFTA, and renders the continued performance of NAFTA unjust; or (b) it modifies Chapter 11 in a prohibited manner that limits the effective execution of the object and purpose of NAFTA. Regardless of which interpretation of the SLA 2006's effect on NAFTA is more accurate, both are inconsistent with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention). In recognition of these inconsistencies, this comment recommends a litigation strategy for Canadian and American lumber producers that challenges the validity of SLA 2006 Article XI(2). This comment also recommends a series of measures for the Canadian and U.S. governments designed to bring the SLA 2006 in line with customary international law, while still insulating them from liability for measures taken to implement the SLA 2006.
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 | 0.030 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".