Conflict of constitutional proportions: treaty power in constitutional law, and US federalism versus NAFTA Chapter 11
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neo-liberal 'world constitutionalism' privileges the right to property for domestic owners and foreign investors against government expropriation. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a 1994 executive agreement between the USA, Canada and Mexico, is a typical example of such constitutionalism for direct and regulatory expropriations. But NAFTA concerns the rights of foreign investors suing a host nation. NAFTA's constitutionality, with regard to protecting the sovereignty of US States against the federal government's encroachments, is uncertain. Federalism as a constitutional process has been challenged by the US legal tradition's result-orientation towards private property rights. Police powers reserved by the States are undermined when State conduct is used by foreign investors (and cannot by domestic investors) to gain relief in NAFTA panel judgements. These judgements are significantly more plaintiff-friendly than are US takings doctrines in constitutional law. NAFTA cannot override the federalism provisions of the Constitution, but the States are penalised by the political process for their alleged NAFTA violation, which they never consented to honour in the first place. Federalism, once so exalted as a currency for constitutional revolution, has been compromised due to NAFTA's surging influence in making good on foreign, and not necessarily domestic, investors' expropriation arguments.
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 | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".