Terra Incognita: What Happens When a Problem of State Succession Occurs during Arbitration Proceedings?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the question of State succession to bilateral investment treaties (BITs) in the unique context whereby the events leading to this change in sovereignty happen during an arbitration proceeding. I will assess the impact this will have on the respondent State in the proceedings which may cease to exist (dissolution, unification, and integration) or lose part of its territory (cession, secession). Succession may also affect the home State of the claimant investor and result in that person losing its nationality and acquiring a new one. An arbitral tribunal should continue to have jurisdiction over a dispute whenever a claimant involuntarily changes its nationality in such context. While the same conclusion should apply when changes affect the respondent State, major difficulties will arise if that State ceases to exist and no other State is willing to participate in the proceedings. I will examine the limits of tribunals’ powers in this respect.
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 | 0.052 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".