Have Public Interests Been Forgotten in NAFTA Chapter 11 Foreign Investor/Host State Arbitration - Some Conclusions from the Judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia on the Case of Mexico v. Metalclad
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
United States of Mexico vs. Metalclad Corp. is a landmark decision regarding both arbitration under NAFTA Chapter 11 and review proceedings of NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitral awards. For the first time since their creation in 1978, the Additional Facility Rules of the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) have governed an international arbitration. In addition, the case exhibits the first time an arbitration award has been challenged in a national court as provided for in section 1136 (3)(b)(i) of NAFTA. This article focuses on the interrelaton of the nature of NAFTA Chapter 11 foreign investor / host State arbitration and the scope of the judicial review of Metalclad´s arbitral award by the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada). The Supreme Court extended the scope of its review far beyond the limits contained in the International Arbitration Act of British Columbia (IAABC), even though it formally proclaimed the narrow limits of the scope of its review, as provided for in section 34 of IAABC). Such an extension is the natural consequence of having tried to assimilate NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitrations into pure commecial international arbitrations. It ought to be recognized that important public interests are adjudicated in NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitrations, and therefore, it is necessary to profoundly reform the current system of arbitration that mirrows the one created to adjudicate pure private interests.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it