Will the EU’s Proposal Concerning an Investment Court System for CETA and TTIP Lead to Enforceable Awards?—The Limits of Modifying the ICSID Convention and the Nature of Investment Arbitration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both the November 2015 EU Commission proposal for Investment Protection and Resolution of Investment Disputes in the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) as well as the revised February 2016 version of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) contain an investment court system (ICS) which is a two-tier mechanism for investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), combining elements of traditional investor-State arbitration (ISA) with judicial features. The resulting hybrid form of dispute settlement should be regarded as a permissible inter se modification of the ICSID Convention. Nevertheless, this will not ensure that the non-modifying ICSID Contracting Parties have to recognize and enforce ICS awards as ICSID awards pursuant to the specific rules of the ICSID Convention. Rather, they should be regarded as enforceable awards under the New York Convention. This latter result will ensure that the outcome of ICS dispute settlement will be enforceable not only in the respective Contracting Parties of TTIP and CETA, but also in other States parties to the New York Convention.
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 | 0.042 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".