Private Rights and Public International Law: Why Competition Among International Economic Law Tribunals is Not Working
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Article discusses the problematic consequences that result from individuals having multiple international economic tribunals available to redress grievances. The Article describes the proliferation of international courts and tribunals, and discusses the jurisdictional and subject matter authorities of the International Court of Justice, the World Trade Organization Settlement Body, and various regional dispute settlement bodies and municipal courts. The author notes the most problematic consequences of utilizing a system involving multiple forums are the promotion of fragmentation and duplication of tribunal and court authority. In addition, the author discusses the effect of public and private law principles on fragmentation and duplication. The author reveals an in-depth analysis of cases illuminating the convoluted and negative results promoted by the fragmentation and duplication of authority. Generally, the author argues that fragmentation and duplication are undesirable consequences and result in inefficient and ineffective international dispute resolution. The author notes the practical importance of maintaining the various courts and tribunals while working to create a more holistic system. Finally, the author discusses how various directives and doctrines may assist international forums to coordinate and reduce the likelihood of fragmentation and duplication of authorities in order to maintain the long-term viability of international dispute settlement.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".