Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract CETA , the EU-Vietnam FTA , and the EU-Singapore FTA are the first investment treaties to replace the practice of ad hoc tribunals and party-appointed arbitrators with a two-tiered investment tribunal system ( ITS ), consisting of a standing tribunal of first-instance and an appeal tribunal, comprised of a roster of members who are pre-selected by the treaty parties. Underlying this retreat to domestic court structures is the perception of partiality sometimes associated with party-appointed arbitrators. The article explores this risk of bias rationale and identifies potential drawbacks associated with the shift away from disputing party involvement in the selection of the tribunal, towards a more institutionalized form of adjudication. The array of foreseeable challenges with regard to the identity, tenure, and qualifications of arbitral members, particularly when combined with the duty to remain available and prohibition on “double-hatting”, cast doubt on the efficacy of these reforms in resolving the legitimacy concerns that spawned its creation. A better solution might be to expand the role of arbitral institutions in mediating the link between the parties and their chosen arbitrator.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".