Regulatory Freedom and Control in the New ASEAN Regional Investment Treaties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The expanding universe of regional investment agreements of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) illustrates the difficulties of accepting host States’ expansive regulatory freedoms, while neglecting to design durable institutional controls for regionally-coordinated investment treaty compliance and regionally-harmonized investment treaty interpretation. Since its transformation from a loose economic cooperation into a rules-based organization discharging binding executive-legislative functions under its 2008 Charter, ASEAN has already entered into regional investment treaties applicable within the ten ASEAN Member States (2009), as well as with China (2010), India (2014), Australia and New Zealand (2009), Korea (2009), and Japan (2008). Negotiations are pending with the United States, the European Union, and Canada. Institutional deficits in the monitoring and implementation of ASEAN regional investment treaties could be addressed by strengthening the mandate and capacity of the ASEAN Investment Area (AIA) Council. An intergovernmental centralized appellate mechanism could help facilitate harmonized interpretation of these regional treaties.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".