(L’accord commercial entre le Canada et l’Union européenne prévoit-il une résolution des différends par arbitrage ou règlement judiciaire ?) Does the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement provide for dispute resolution through arbitration or judicial settlement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: En octobre 2015, l’Union europeenne [UE] a inaugure sa strategie de libre-echange Le commerce pour tous qui specifiait que la Commission europeenne inclurait dorenavant dans ses accords commerciaux modernises un « systeme juridictionnel public des investissements » compose d’un Tribunal de premiere instance et d’un Tribunal d’appel qui opererait a la maniere des cours traditionnelles. Un systeme juridictionnel des investissements [SJI] a depuis ete integre dans l’Accord economique et commercial global entre l’UE et le Canada, dans l’Accord de libre-echange entre l’UE et le Vietnam, dans l’Accord de libre-echange entre l’UE et Singapour et dans l’Accord global UE-Mexique. Est-ce que le SJI est reellement une cour, comme le soutiennent les parties signataires ? En se fondant sur des arguments de theorie juridique et politique, il appert que le SJI represente un hybride entre l’arbitrage consensuel et les cours nationales et internationales. En fait, il constitue une forme plus institutionnalisee d’arbitrage d’investissement. Le SJI est base sur le consentement bilateral et limite des parties, il adopte l’idee d’avoir un representant neutre sur le banc (bien que plus eloigne des parties au differend specifique) et il est constitue de maniere a rendre justice principalement pour les parties en cause plutot que pour assurer le developpement coherent du droit dans l’arbitrage d’investissement plus largement. Il s’ecarte des arbitrages traditionnels en incorporant des regles de procedure et des garanties ethiques plus robustes et detaillees, mais il ne constitue pas une cour a part entiere. English Abstract: In October 2015, the European Union launched its Trade for All strategy, which specified that the European Commission would from then on include in its modernized trade agreements a “public investment court system” consisting of a Tribunal of First Instance and an Appeals Tribunal that would operate like traditional courts. An Investment Court System [ICS] has since been integrated into the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement, the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, and the EU-Mexico Global Agreement. Is the ICS really a court, as the signatory parties contend? Based on legal and political theory arguments, it appears the ICS represents a hybrid between arbitration and judicial settlement in international law. More precisely, it represents a further-institutionalized form of investment arbitration. The ICS is based on the bilateral and narrow consent of the disputing parties, adopts the idea of having a neutral representative on the bench (albeit one more distant from the parties in the specific dispute at hand), and is constituted in a way primarily to do justice to the parties rather than to ensure the consistent development of investment law more broadly. It departs from typical arbitral proceedings by incorporating more robust and detailed procedural rules and ethical safeguards for decision-makers, but it falls short of being a full-fledged court.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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.
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".