Waiver and the Exhaustion of Local Remedies Rule in Nafta Jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NAFTA Chapter Eleven contains a waiver of the customary international law requirement that disputing investors exhaust local remedies available to them prior to filing an international claim. Or does it? The provision in NAFTA that arguably waives the local remedies rule itself requires a waiver by the claimant bringing a NAFTA claim, yet the language is not straightforward. Article 1121 requires claimants to waive their right to initiate or continue proceedings with respect to the measure at issue once they have chosen NAFTA dispute resolution. This requirement was intended, at the least, to limit multiple and potentially duplicative decisions on the same issue, and the best view of the provision is that it does indeed waive the local remedies rule, notwithstanding contrary suggestions by a few tribunals. Yet even if that is the case, the language of the waiver leaves many questions unanswered. For example, must an investor stop local proceedings addressing matters tangentially related to the Ameasure@? What if the local authority refuses to dismiss the case? What is the effect of those local remedies should any decisions on the merits of any underlying claim have issued from local tribunals? Moreover, given the many purposes served by the local remedies rule, its blanket waiver with respect to an undefined class of prospective cases may have been unwise. As arbitrations multiply, the wisdom of having waived the local remedies rule will likely become ever more questionable. Restoring a local remedies rule that includes a reasonable, but strict time-frame for those remedies to ensue, or provides a reasonable tolling period of the statute of limitations, while still maintaining a right for an individual to bring a claim directly should those remedies fail, has the potential to balance the rights of investors against the rights of State Parties.
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 | 0.033 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| 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".