A Tailor-Made (Legal) Suit? The Actual Scope, Power, And Functioning of nafta Chapter 11’s Rules and Institutions For the Settlement of Cross-Border Disputes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many scholars argue that the rules, mechanisms and bodies established under the North American Free Trade Agreement’s Chapter 11 for the settlement of disputes on foreign direct investment have undermined the policymaking capacities of national and subnational governments in the United States, Mexico and Canada for promoting public welfare in their territories. In their view, the provisions of Chapter 11 on the resolution of investor-state disputes allow business actors to undermine and overthrow domestic legislation that might be perceived as adverse to their investments. In contrast, this article argues that the rules, mechanisms and actions and decisions of the bodies established by Chapter 11 have contributed to reaffirm the power of national and subnational governments in North America to enact and uphold social-oriented domestic laws. Over the past 20 years, Chapter 11’s dispute settlement mechanisms have demonstrated they lack the structure and power to fully address investor-state disputes; they thus constitute quasi-regional mechanisms, not supranational rules and bodies which can overrule the decisions of governmental actors. Furthermore, their creation and implementation mainly responded to the interests of the North American national governments, not foreign investors (as it is widely assumed), in delivering an institutional and legal framework that would ease and increase the flows of trade and investment capital between their countries without compromising their sovereignty and policy-making powers. As a result, the mechanisms and bodies of Chapter 11, foremost amongst them, the Arbitral Tribunals, have consistently favoured the actions and largely held up the decisions and policies of national and subnational governments in the three North American countries over the claims of foreign investors.
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 | 0.036 | 0.060 |
| 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 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".