MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2728623423

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

2002· article· en· W2728623423 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Héctor Olásolo

Bibliographic record

VenueSMU Scholar (Southern Methodist University) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationSupreme courtPolitical scienceAdjudicationLawInternational arbitrationScope (computer science)Compulsory arbitrationState (computer science)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.030
Scholarly communication0.0360.011
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0240.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSMU Scholar (Southern Methodist University)Same topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207