Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proposal by the European Commission (‘EC’) to pursue an investment court system (‘ICS’) has received much critical attention. The ICS is touted by the EC as a solution to the problems underlying the ad hoc arbitration model operated in the ICSID system. The EC has expressed its desire to integrate the ICS system into its latest trade and investment negotiations, namely the EU – Vietnam FTA, the EU – Canada CETA and also the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (‘TTIP’) with the US. The EC proposals envisage the introduction of a dual-layered tribunal to hear investor-state disputes. The first layer consists of the Tribunal of First Instance (‘TFI’) and the second an Appellate Tribunal (‘AT’). Across the three initial trade/investment instruments mentioned above, the rules of appointment and composition of the adjudicators are largely the same. The proposal, however, is the addition of an appellate functionality to the arbitration process which is missing under the current Investor-state Dispute Settlement System (‘ISDS’) model. In particular, the EC insists that standards of treatment extended to foreign investors will be designed in a way that ensures they do not compromise public interest regulation by the host governments. This move by the EC represents a shift in a new direction in international investment law. Previously, under the ad hoc approach, regulation was largely influenced by private law tradition, however, under a court-based approach, the ICS adopts a more public law-oriented approach to ISDS. This article critically addresses the salient features of the ICS model from an Asian regulatory perspective. The aim of the article is to assess the extent to which the proposed ICS will affect Asian countries. In this regard, the EU – Vietnam FTA (which is the first FTA for any Asian country to incorporate the ICS) provides a useful starting point. The ICS proposal is an EU-centric solution to the question of foreign investment regulation and ISDS. Given the fact that the EU countries are some of the largest investors in Asia, it is only natural that the EC derives a long-term solution that suits the EU’s own trade and investment interests. Whether the ICS proves to be a credible and legitimate dispute settlement mechanism or merely proves to be old medicine in a new bottle remains to be seen.
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 | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".