The Continuing Appeal of Annulment?: Lessons from Amco Asia and Cme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parties to an ICSID arbitration are able to seek annulment of an award rendered under the ICSID Convention, but are not able to appeal the merits of the award. This control mechanism was adopted after careful consideration and negotiation as a way to monitor the integrity of ICSID Convention arbitration without imperiling the goal of achieving relatively quick and final resolution of investment disputes. Both Amco Asia v. the Republic of Indonesia and CME v. the Czech Republic raised concerns in the arbitral community; their outcomes seemed to threaten the legitimacy of investor-State arbitration. With Amco Asia the concern was that annulment proceedings might too easily become full-fledged appellate review, thereby undermining the balance between finality and correctness of awards achieved by those designing the ICSID Convention's control mechanism, whereas with CME it was the unavailability of appellate review which seemed problematic. Deciding whether establishment of an appellate mechanism is reasonable depends on the weight given to different objectives served by investor-State arbitration generally and the purpose an appellate body would serve within that framework. An appellate body would, ideally, help to establish systemic regularity and predictability for both investors and States. It is possible, however, that establishing this mechanism would undercut to a significant extent the underlying purpose of the ICSID Convention - the encouragement of foreign direct investment. Moreover, an appellate body would not necessarily be able to resolve all legitimacy issues, and its failure to do so could backfire, generating even more criticism about the integrity of investor-State arbitration. The international arbitral community would be advised to consider these questions carefully before making decisions. Festina lente.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".