Democratic Implications Arising from the Intersection of Investment Arbitration and Human Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last two decades, investors have taken advantage of investment arbitration mechanisms in investment treaties to challenge state regulations, often implicating human rights issues. This article examines the conflict between states’ human rights obligations and their obligations under investment treaties. The first part of the article examines common obligations arising under investment treaties and the investment arbitration process created by the treaties. In the second part, the author examines the way in which investment treaties and arbitrations impact human rights concerns. In particular, the author reviews a number of human rights, including the right to water, the right to health, and rights related to culture. The author also examines common provisions of investment treaties that are particularly problematic in terms of human rights issues: expropriation and fair and equitable treatment. The author analyzes the democratic deficit inherent in the creation of investment treaties and the structure of investment arbitration, concluding that investment treaties generally lack true democratic consent, and that investment arbitration lacks sufficient transparency and protection for minority rights to reflect true democratic principles. The article concludes with suggestions for reform to address the democratic deficit of investment arbitration through both the provisions of investment treaties and the structure and procedure of arbitration.
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 | 0.033 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".