From Canadian Minister to International Arbitrator: The Oral History of Marc Lalonde
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Arbitrators as a group”, Stephan Schill explains, “are the key institution for the emergence, persistence, transformation, and hence existence, of international arbitration as a system.” The recent debate about the role, values, and legitimacy of international arbitrators, whether in dealing with commercial or investment disputes, shows that they are “central” to the international legal system. Yet, in the exceptionally dense body of literature that studies international arbitration, few academic contributions have given a ‘first-person’ voice to international arbitrators themselves, which has restricted their opportunity to tell their side of the story and to share their firsthand experience in this field. To begin filling this gap in the literature, this essay presents the recollections of an international arbitrator from the “first generation”: the Honourable Marc Lalonde. Mr. Lalonde is an ideal candidate for such a project because, after a notable career in Canadian politics, he came into the field of international arbitration in the 1980s, as it was still emerging. His perspective is also particularly interesting, since he is one of the very few who sustained a long and successful career in various types of international arbitrations, and presided over commercial, public international law, and investment disputes. The different parts of this essay present, loosely following a chronological order, a specific field of international arbitration in which Marc Lalonde evolved. In Part II, the path that he took to become an international commercial arbitrator is exposed. In Parts III and IV are considered his career as public law adjudicator and as international investment arbitrator, respectively. Finally, the essay concludes with an appraisal of Mr. Lalonde’s life in the international legal field.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".