Private Rights and Public International Law: Why Competition Among International Economic Law Tribunals is Not Working
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it