The Constructive Role of General Principles in International Arbitration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In international arbitration, treaty standards, such as fair and equitable treatment (FET), general procedural norms, such as due process, and excuses for suspension of performance, such as the exceptio defense, draw on general principles of international law to clarify their interpretation and application. This article will (1) show what general principles of international law are, how they form and how they are distinct from general principles in domestic, public and private law systems; (2) illustrate their role with specific attention to their unique application in different international law contexts; (3) use the examples of FET, procedural norms and suspension of performance to show how general principles of international law are used in international arbitration; (4) warn against their inattentive, sloppy or haphazard use and application; and (5) ultimately highlight the benefits of incorporating general principles in international arbitration while proposing a precise methodology for their use.
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 | 0.053 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".