Public policy considerations in intellectual property-related international investment arbitration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the investment arbitration Philip Morris v. Uruguay the arbitral tribunal rejected Philip Morris’ claim that Uruguay’s anti-smoking legislation expropriated the tobacco company’s trademarks. In its reasoning, the tribunal largely deferred to Uruguay’s policy decision to curtail tobacco companies’ business operations for the purpose of enhancing public health. Philip Morris v. Uruguay raises the question of whether there are, apart from public health, other public policy considerations which the tribunal should have given more weight to, e.g. the promotion of foreign investment and the protection of intellectual property (IP). The chapter explores the concept of ‘public policy’ and how IP law, WTO law and international investment law, i.e. the legal regimes relevant to IP-related investment arbitration, deal with public policy considerations. The chapter also reviews the handling of public policy considerations in the IP-related investment arbitrations Philip Morris v. Uruguay and Eli Lilly v. Canada, as well as Bridgestone v. Panama.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".