The Glamis regulatory takings claim and compensation under NAFTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 10 December 2003, a Canadian mineral developer submitted a 50 million dollar takings claim under ch 11 of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).1 In its Notice of Intent, the company has alleged that the actions of the US Federal Government and California State Government have ‘destroyed’ the value of its mineral investment in California and compensation should be provided pursuant to ch 11.2 This is the first mineral takings dispute in which a NAFTA Tribunal will consider whether compensation is paid to a mineral developer by the US Government and if so, how much. NAFTA affords foreign investors with broad substantive rights to pursue a regulatory takings claim against a national government before an international Tribunal. The basis for compensation under US domestic law and international law will be examined as well as the quantum of compensation. Takings in the petroleum industry continue to arise for a variety of reasons including changes in the political environment,3 environmental protection,4 and conflicts between the holders of the mineral rights of different types of fossil fuels in close geological proximity.5 The significant increase in the price of oil in recent years and the royalty revenues for oil producing governments may prompt an increased number of takings claims in the future. Due to the significant level of investment in petroleum and mining projects, securing compensation when there is a regulatory taking through negotiation, arbitration or litigation is an important issue for mineral developers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".