MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2780219282

Legal Issues Arising from the Feed-in Tariff of Renewable Energy: Controversial issues in investor-state dispute settlement (Japanese)

2017· preprint· en· W2780219282 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tamada Dai

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribunalObligationInvestor-state dispute settlementTariffBusinessState (computer science)Settlement (finance)ReputationInternational economic lawInternational tradeLaw and economicsInternational economicsLawInternational lawForeign direct investmentEconomicsInternational investmentPolitical scienceFinancePublic international law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims at analyzing several cases of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) which relate to the feed-in tariff (fiT) of the renewable energy sector, for the purpose of extracting the legal issues involved in them. On the basis of this analysis, it will bring some implications toward Japan, both from the investors' viewpoint and the host-State's perspective. first, in European and North American countries, there have been many cases in which foreign investors (claimants) submitted disputes, against the host-States, before the ISDS concerning the operation and abolishment of the fiT system. In particular, the main topic is to allege a violation of the fair and equitable treatment (FET) obligation stipulated in the applicable international investment agreement. Second, in cases against Spain, the Tribunal either admitted a breach of FET ( Eiser case) or did not ( Charanne case and Isolux case). The same applies in the cases against Canada. These situations require us to analyze the reason why there has been a difference of conclusions. Third, on the basis of the above analysis, it will become possible to evaluate the modified fiT law of Japan (2016) and present some implications about it.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0080.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law→French-language works237,207→