A Closer Look at Canada’s Imminent Accession to the ICSID Convention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada appears to be on the verge of its long anticipated accession to the ICSID Convention. Accession will benefit Canadian investors abroad by giving them access to an arbitration process that is well known and specifically adapted for investor-state arbitration. Providing foreign investors in Canada with access to ICSID arbitration may also enhance international perceptions of Canada as a welcoming place to invest. In this short article we examine one other consequence of Canadian accession. ICSID arbitration avoids costly and time consuming judicial review of arbitral awards in investor-state cases. Only annulment of awards on very limited grounds is permitted. While such a limited review is likely to be attractive to investors, it will also curtail Canada’s ability to challenge investor-state awards against it, even those that are manifestly wrong or abhorrent to public policy. Though the real effect of the different review standard in ICSID arbitrations is hard to predict, the cases brought against Canada under NAFTA to date make clear that Canada must consider the impact of ICSID accession on its ability to challenge awards in investor-state arbitrations.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".