DESARROLLOS EN EXPROPIACIÓN REGULATORIA: ¿CUMPLIÓ METALCLAD CON TODAS LAS OSCURAS PREMONICIONES?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the final result of an investigation. Developing practices in international trade and investment law bring new challenges to investors who are always seeking better and more certain grounds to develop their businesses abroad. In that regard, free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties set a legal frame under which a minimum standard of treatment is set for both the foreign investor and the Host State. The parties to NAFTA, especially the United States and Canada were concerned that Mexico could not be held accountable for measures that would be tantamount to expropriation. With that purpose Chapter Eleven was created with a very broad definition on its terms and a procedure that would allow a foreign investor from another Party, to submit a claim before an international tribunal without having to exhaust the local remedies. These two characteristics allowed Metalclad to submit a claim against Mexico for some domestic measures that allegedly amounted to a creeping expropriation. The Metalclad award introduced a very broad definition of indirect expropriation, which according to some academics it would undermine the regulatory powers of NAFTA Members and would drive states in a race to the bottom regarding safety, environmental and health regulations. My hypothesis is that based on the revision of the Tribunal's award and the recent developments in NAFTA jurisprudence, Metalclad did not have any relevant impact regarding the definition of expropriation.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".