The international law gaze: Lilly v Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Zealand is party to several free trade agreements (FTAs), such as those with China, Malaysia, and Korea, that include investment chapters aimed at protecting foreign investors. These chapters also contemplate investor/State arbitration to settle disputes. It is, then, important to keep an eye on recent decisions regarding other FTAs, in order to identify how similar potential disputes involving the government or New Zealand investors abroad are likely be framed. A recent award by an international tribunal in Eli Lilly and Company v Government of Canada applying the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is one that deserves close evaluation. (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Eli Lilly and Company v Government of Canada. Case No. UNCT/142. 16 March 2017. [Lilly v Canada]). \n \nAlthough the award has a strong intellectual property component, this article deals with a different dimension: how far can a foreign investor dissatisfied with a final court’s new interpretation of national law go in challenging this interpretation before an investor/State tribunal? \n \nNot that far. This is the general answer to this question offered by the Lilly tribunal. … but
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it