Emergency Exceptions to International Obligations in the Realm of Foreign Investment: The State of Necessity and Force Majeure as Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
States can defend themselves in cases alleging that they have violated investment treaty obligations on the grounds that situations of economic crisis required that they take emergency action. Likely defenses are the customary international law doctrines of necessity and force majeure, although a State faces stiff hurdles to establish their availability, as well as exculpatory provisions found in the investment treaties themselves. There is an inescapable tension, of course, between undertaking an obligation, on the one hand, and excusing oneself from complying with it, on the other. At bottom is the question of risk allocation and determining who should bear the burden in situations of unforeseen events or economic crises. The state of necessity defense in particular has an uneasy relationship with the obligations States have undertaken in their investment treaties. By entering into investment treaties, States provide assurances to investors that their investments will be safe notwithstanding the State's inherent power to regulate and legislate in ways adverse to investors' interests. Moreover, a successful invocation of the necessity defense suspends a State's obligations only temporarily, and the State may still be responsible for losses resulting from the measures its has taken during that period, particularly when those damages are economic in nature and readily quantifiable. The limited case law on necessity, and the divergence in those cases that have been decided, suggest a legal doctrine that will develop haltingly. It remains an open question whether the necessity defense has been so stringently limited that its successful invocation is virtually impossible in the context of foreign investment, or whether flexibility in interpretation might yet give it a role to play.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".