Human Rights Protection in International Investment Law: From the Perspective of Investment Arbitration Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since specific provisions on human rights issues are rarely seen in current international investment agreements which set a considerably high protection standard for investors,the conflict and contradiction between protection for the human rights of residents of host states and protection for the property rights of investors.The investor-state arbitration unveiled those potential conflicts.In practice,investment arbitration tribunals are zealous for protecting investors'property rights,and indifferent to protecting economic and social human rights of residents of host states.The source of the conflict is the failure to clarify the theoretical connotation ofself-containment of international investment and positioning of arbitral tribunal.In order to strike a balance between protecting human rights of residents of host states and protecting property rights of investors,the international investment law must evolve in respect of substance and procedure.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".