MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

INVESTMENTS ‘IN THE TERRITORY’ OF THE HOST STATE

2009· book-chapter· en· W2483167660 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christina Knahr

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionInvestment (military)ArbitrationState (computer science)International investmentRespondentNexus (standard)Settlement (finance)Political scienceInvestment arbitrationInternational tradeRelevance (law)LawBusinessForeign direct investmentFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many bilateral as well as multilateral investment treaties contain in their provisions on the definition of investment a requirement that the investment has to be made in the territory of the host State, while other treaties do not contain language to that effect. This issue has been addressed briefly in some International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) cases but has not played a major role among the judicial requirements usually examined by tribunals. In two recent North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter 11 cases, Bayview v Mexico and Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade v United States, the tribunals for the first time rejected jurisdiction because the claimants had not made an investment in the territory of the respondent State. This chapter analyzes the reasoning and the findings of the tribunals in these two cases and tries to determine the relevance of the territorial nexus in investment arbitration. While the focus will be on Bayview and the Canadian Cattlemen Claims, previous ICSID cases that have addressed the issue is also considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207