The United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement the Foreigner Investment Protection in the Treaty (Spanish Version)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On May 3, 2006, the Minister of Commerce of Peru published a letter on the official website stating that the Chapter X of the Trade Promotion Agreement (investment provisions) neither incorporates new legal mechanisms, nor undermines national sovereignty . The letter intended to refute information spread by the Peruvian media inferring that the agreement with the U.S. would allow American corporations to obtain huge compensations from the Peruvian government, without intervention of the Peruvian judicial system, if they feel that the Peruvian system do not favor them. The Minister argued that Article 63 of the Peruvian Constitution allows the parties to solve the controversies in international arbitral tribunals whenever they agree. Therefore, since the possibility of solving disputes in international forums has always existed, this provision of the agreement cannot be considered as an innovation. What the Ministry did not say is that the Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) will allow the American investors (not only corporations but also investors) to avoid the national forum and sue the government in an international forum if the government does not comply with the minimum standard of treatment required. Under a similar provision in the North America Free Trade Agreement, Methanex (a Canadian company) sued the U.S. for $90 million, and on April 30, 2004, Mexico was compelled to compensate Metalclad (an American corporation) for $16.8 millions for a tantamount expropriation. Is the provision of the Treaty, which allows the foreigner investors to avoid national jurisdiction if any controversy with the nation arises, constitutional? Supposing that the agreement do not overlook Peruvian constitutional law or undermine their national sovereignty, is the mechanism of dispute resolutions between the investors and the government new for Peru? Finally, is Peru (a country that lacks of a well developed administrative system) really prepared to maintain a standard of treatment to American investors not below the standard established in the agreement?
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.013 |
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".