Reforming Investor–State Dispute Settlement: The Need to Balance Both Parties’ Interests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The investor-to-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system is undergoing a reform process under the new competence conferred to the European Union (EU) by the Lisbon Treaty. The process pursues the abandonment of the traditional system and its replacement by an International Court System (ICS) with an appellate mechanism to increase consistency of decisions. The European Commission (EC) proposal regarding this reform was first adopted by the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement, to be then proposed to the United States in the context of the negotiation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). ICS is composed of a Tribunal of 15 independent members competent to adjudicate disputes between investors and the State under the relevant treaty by an award that may be enforced only if no appeal is filed within the following 90 days with the Appellate Tribunal appointed under the treaty. The analysis of the EC’s proposed ICS points to the political nature of the reform rather than to a serious review of the functioning for over 40 years of the traditional ISDS. The latter has proven to be able to achieve a fair balance between the conflicting interests of the two parties, the investor and the State, and to be able to satisfy by appropriate amendments the key elements on which the EC’s proposal is based. Among such key elements are the States’ regulatory powers, the consistency and predictability of decisions, the transparency of the arbitration process and the prevention of practices such as “forum shopping”.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".