NAFTA Chapter Eleven and the Implications for the FTAA: The Institutionalisation of Investor Status in Public International Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two issues have emerged from the innovation spurred by the investment chapter (Chapter 11) of NAFTA which provides for the settlement of investor-State disputes outside of the State’s domestic courts. First, it represents the recognition that the legal standing of the natural and/or corporate legal person, when acting in the economic capacity of investor, is equal in international law to that of the State. Second, the inclusion of a private party-State alternative dispute resolution mechanism in an intergovernmental treaty is contradictory to the voluntary commitment by parties to such an agreement underlying this method, known as “privity of contract”. These innovations have given rise to challenges in international public law, particularly given the strong influence that this NAFTA alternative dispute resolution mechanism has exerted on many intergovernmental bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements. If the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which is modelled on these developments, is adopted, then this will complete the institutionalization of the investor-State alternative dispute resolution innovation. It is not too late to review and debate in an in-depth manner this possibility in order to secure consistency within international public law.
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 | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".