MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2256190243

Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment Chapter 1, Historical Development of Investment Treaty Law

2009· article· en· W2256190243 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Newcombe, Lluís Paradell

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyInternational lawArbitrationPolitical scienceInternational tradeInvestment (military)Foreign direct investmentCustomary international lawLawPublic international lawBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The international legal framework governing foreign investment consists of a vast network of international investment agreements (IIAs) supplemented by the general rules of international law. Although other international treaties interact with this network in important ways, IIAs are the primary public international law instruments governing the promotion and protection of foreign investment. IIA texts differ in many important respects, but they are also remarkably similar in structure and content: most IIAs combine similar (sometimes identical) treaty-based standards of promotion and protection for foreign investment with an investor-state arbitration mechanism that allows foreign investors to enforce with a powerful and dynamic method of international treaty enforcement. The purpose of this book is to provide a comprehensive explanation of the substantive standards of treatment that states must accord to foreign investors and investment under IIAs. The uniqueness of the current IIA network is a product of an historical evolution going as far back as the Middle Ages. Prior to the twentieth century, international standards of foreign investment and investor protection developed primarily through the related processes of diplomatic protection and claims commissions. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as the world economy became increasingly internationalized, the limits of the diplomatic protection model became apparent, particularly as controversies arose between capital exporting and importing states regarding the customary international law minimum standard of treatment to be accorded to foreign investors and investments. n the aftermath of the Second World War (WWII), the process of international economic integration was rekindled, leading to the emergence of the contemporary investment treaty framework. It is crucial to consider this historical development in order to better understand current debates and contentious issues in investment treaty law. This chapter is divided into five parts. Part I delves into the historical origins of international investment law. Part II then explores developments in the post- WWII period, setting the background for Part III, which discusses the origins and development of IIAs. Part IV provides an overview of the current status of the IIA network. Part V discusses the basic structure of IIAs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207