How did investor‐state dispute settlement get a bad rap? Blame it on<scp>NAFTA</scp>, of course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the short history of the US bilateral investment treaty (BIT) programme, there have been no instances of dispute settlement cases initiated against the United States by firms fromBITcountries. TheNAFTAexperience changed that. Where other studies have only hinted at the reasons forNAFTAcontroversies, this paper makes clear three causal factors: (i) changing patterns and intensity ofFDI, (ii) the application of those rules to developed countries amid those changingFDIpatterns and (iii) ambiguities inISDSrules themselves. The paper explores these and traces the ways in which lessons of theNAFTAhave been instrumental in changing the pursuit of investment protection agreements.BITs used to be uncontroversial, but theNAFTAfocused attention on reforms toISDSthat maintain the utility ofBITs in the governance ofFDI, without creating a legal structure for simply challenging the state.
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 | 0.023 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".