Prior Judicial Involvement in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Lessons from the Courts Rhetoric in Opinion 2/15
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Court of Justice of the European Union has long protected the integrity of the Union legal order from external impact of judicial and normcreating processes. Initially concerned with the harmonious interpretation and application of Union law, the principle has gradually developed into a shield that protects the judicial prerogatives of the Court against international courts and tribunals. Now, the Court stands before a new challenge; Opinion 1/17 on the compatibility of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada was only very recently registered on the Court ’ s docket. The assessment of core features of the post-Lisbon trade and investment policy, not least the investment court system, will be eagerly awaited. But the recent judgment of the Court in Opinion 2/15 over the allocation of competences for the conclusion of the EU – Singapore free trade agreement may already entail some hints as to the Court ’ s stand on investor-State dispute settlement provisions. In fact, the Court ’ s rhetoric resembles statements made previously in the context of the European Patents Court in Opinion 1/09. The Court is in particular concerned with the profound effect of investor-State tribunals on domestic courts in the Member States, who are deprived of hearing disputes that would otherwise come before them. In terms of competence allocation, this removes the investor-State dispute settlement provisions from the purview of exclusive Union competences. In terms of compatibility, it may put these mechanisms, and incidentally the investment court system, on a collision course with the principle of autonomy of the Union legal order.
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 | 0.034 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".