Waste Management Inc. <i>v</i>. United Mexican States (No 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
145 Arbitration — Place of arbitration — Relevant factors — Neutrality of forum — Applicability of New York (1958) or Panama (1975) Conventions — Differences between two Conventions — Positions taken by Government of Canada in earlier proceedings — Whether relevant — Convenience of parties and counsel — NAFTA Articles 1122, 1130 — ICSID Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules, Articles 20, 21 Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Successive arbitrations on the same claim — NAFTA, Chapter 11 — First arbitration commenced without valid waiver under Article 1121(2)(b) — First tribunal deciding that it lacked jurisdiction — Whether new proceedings permissible — NAFTA Articles 1120, 1121 Arbitration — Principles — Res judicata — Decision of first tribunal denying jurisdiction over claim — Whether precluding new arbitration on same claim — Interpretation of first tribunal’s decision — NAFTA Article 1136 — ICSID (Additional Facility) Rules, Article 53(4) Arbitration — Procedure — Abuse of process — Successive proceedings relating to same claim — Whether Tribunal has inherent power to stay proceedings — No evidence of lack of bona fides — Second arbitration allowed to proceed Arbitration — Procedure — Costs and expenses — Unsuccessful jurisdictional objection — Whether respondent should be required to pay costs and expenses in any event — Extent of Tribunal’s discretion — Dismissal of claim on the merits Economics, trade and finance — International investment — Protection of investments — NAFTA Chapter 11 — Investor — Status of investor — Claimant owning or controlling investment in a holding company registered in a non-NAFTA State — Whether claimant possessing status of investor under NAFTA Economics, trade and finance — International investment — Standard of treatment — Minimum standard — Fair and equitable treatment — NAFTA Article 1105 — Standard of review — Breach of contract — Whether reaching level of prohibited treatment — Effect of financial crisis on respondent State 146 Expropriation — Direct and indirect expropriation — Non-performance of a contractual obligation — Whether amounting to expropriation — NAFTA Article 1110
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".