Institutional entrepreneurship and the forgotten origins of investment treaty arbitration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advance consent clauses are the crux of modern bilateral investment treaties. By giving investors direct access to arbitration against states, they make the substantive promises of the treaties credible. They are responsible for the exponential increase in the number of investor-state arbitrations. Despite the importance of advance consent clauses, fundamental international political economy questions about their origins and development remain unanswered. This paper probes why advance consent clauses were created and how they disseminated. On the basis of new archival material, I argue institutional entrepreneurship played a vital and underappreciated role in the spread of advance consent. I systematically compare the explanatory power of institutional entrepreneurship with the explanatory power of state leadership, an approach informed by existing rational choice scholarship on these clauses, across three stages in the development and spread of advance consent. Although institutional entrepreneurship and state leadership both have explanatory power, institutional entrepreneurship is dominant: states inserted these advance consent clauses only after an IO drafted and disseminated them aggressively. The organization's top officials acted as institutional entrepreneurs - attempting to shape state preferences, acting as a knowledgebroker, and encouraging convergence - in order to ensure the survival of their organization. Studying the initial spread of advance consent clauses offers powerful insights into the development of the international investment regime and suggests scholars look beyond bilateral bargaining to understand its contours.
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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".