International Arbitration - ICSID Jurisdiction under NAFTA - Bayview Irrigation District V. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/05/1, Award 19 June 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) protects and investors. (1) Under this chapter, citizen of the ratifying parties may seek redress for violations of NAFTA through international arbitration mechanisms. (2) In Bayview Irrigation District v. United Mexican States, (3) an International Centre for the Settlement of Disputes (ICSID) tribunal considered whether NAFTA granted it jurisdiction over the claims brought by Bayview Irrigation District (Bayview). (4) The arbitral panel concluded that Bayview had not invested in Mexico under NAFTA's definition, and, therefore, the panel lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits of Bayview's claims against Mexico. (5) In December 1992, Canada, Mexico, and the United States signed onto NAFTA. (6) Along with many other policy objectives animating from this agreement, there is a desire to create clear and mutually advantageous rules governing ... trade among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. (7) To this end, Chapter 11 of NAFTA sets forth standards for treatment of by nationals of a state, including provisions for expropriation and compensation, as well as an arbitral mechanism for dispute resolution. (8) Bayview, along with other named claimants, requested, by cover letter dated January 19, 2005, the institution of arbitration proceedings at ICSID pursuant to NAFTA against the United Mexican States (Mexico). (9) Applying Texas case law, Bayview argued that it obtained property rights in Mexican waters through a bilateral treaty between Mexico and the United States. (10) Bayview further alleged that measures taken by Mexico with regard to relevant rivers deprived Bayview of its rights under that treaty and gave rise to a claim under NAFTA. (11) Upon the Secretary-General of ICSID's invitation, the parties constituted a three-member arbitral tribunal. (12) Prior to reaching the substantive issues, however, the tribunal preliminarily considered matter of jurisdiction. (13) Chapter 11 creates obligations amongst states to honor certain standards with regard to foreign investment made by nationals of another state. (14) Article 1101 defines the scope of these substantive protections: article 1101(a) extends them to investors of another Party, and article 1101(b) extends them to investments of of another Party in the territory of the Party. (15) Investment is further defined by Article 1139 to include property interests acquired in states. (16) Article 1101(a) is silent with regard to where the investors of another party must have their to qualify for Chapter 11 protections. (17) The states, however, unanimously interpret Chapter 11 as providing substantive protection to foreign made by nationals of states; no protection is afforded citizens of states investing within their own nations, even where other states' actions might affect this investment. (18) Moreover, as the tribunal notes, a contrary interpretation would lead to the perverse result that NAFTA would provide better protection to foreign than is accorded domestic by domestic laws. (19) In 1944 Mexico and the United States entered into a treaty that mandates an allotment of water to each from the Rio Grande. (20) The treaty also provides a list of use priorities as a guide for water allotment policy and vests the International Border and Water Commission (IBWC) with the authority to enforce the treaty. (21) The seminal decision issued by a Texas court construing this treaty held that the treaty does not afford individual U.S. citizens riparian and appropriative rights over the water allocated to the United States by treaty. (22) Rather, the Texas legislature and courts retained authority to determine the amount of water afforded each irrigation district. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".