Tendințe europene in dreptul investițiilor: competențe, standarde de protecție si aplicații arbitrale (European Trends in Investment Law: Competence, Protection Standards and Arbitral Reflections)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Romanian Abstract: In studiul de fața ne-am propus sa oferim o viziune istoric-conceptuala asupra genezei instituționale a politicii europene in domeniul dreptului internațional al investițiilor. Incepând cu momentul unei competențe exclusive a statelor-membre, in maniera Westphaliana, și ajungând la competența exclusiva a Uniunii in aceasta sfera (dupa momentul Lisabona), sunt evidențiate metamorfozele structurale ale strategiei comunitare. Din acest punct de vedere, prezentarea trateaza tentativele – timide – de a gasi un mod eficient de rezolvare a situațiilor privind Tratatele de Investiții extra-UE (Regulamentul 1219/2012), precum și aporiile generate de acordurile intra-UE. Totodata, in ultima parte, se reliefeaza noile abordari comunitare, pe fondul negocierilor unor tratate bilaterale cu Singapore (EUSFTA), Canada (CETA) și SUA (TTIP), in incercarea de a gasi un parcurs coerent. English Abstract: The present study offers a historical and conceptual inquiry upon the institutional genesis of the EU policy in the field of international investment law. Starting with the Member States' exclusive competence in this regard and getting to the Union's exclusivity (after the Lisbon moment), we emphasize the structural metamorphoses of the European strategy. In the final part, we present a practical excursus regarding the latest treaties with Singapore, Canada and the proposed agreement with the United States.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".