Common good and the concept of expropriation in international law on foreign investment: Determinacy of substance in legitimacy of structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis, exploring the rule of law for international rules, offers a human bond of common good between determinacy of substance and legitimacy of structure of rules in order to evaluate international obligations of States in international law on foreign investment. In an in-depth exposition of the theoretical underpinnings and practices underlying the normative structure of rules in international law, the thesis critically questions the legal reasoning embedded in—and the authority of rules borrowed from—principles and precedents or moral and political evaluations by arbitrators in interpretation of States' contractual, customary, and treaty obligations in investment arbitrations. With crucial moral, political, social and economic ramifications for the constitutional functions of States and concomitant interests of their human members implicated in the concept of expropriation in international law, the thesis provides a framework of legitimacy in a common good approach with structural criteria of recognition and coherence for the interpretation of States' obligations in investment arbitration. Coherence brings to the fore conflicting demands of justice requiring fresh evaluation divesting a general rule of its authoritative force, and recognition brings to the fore the validation of the power to engage in moral and political evaluation. Together, these structural criteria offer a common good approach of legitimacy to test the authority of States' obligations and the power of arbitrators in hard cases. By virtue of these criteria, the thesis characterizes the nature of substantive property rights of corporations and corresponding obligations of States in foreign investment as contingent and consensual in contrast with the absolute and constitutional rights of human beings in human rights. Through coherence and recognition, the thesis also portrays a supreme status for customary international law for the normative structure and substance of States' contractual or treaty obligations in the interpretation of hard cases in international law on foreign investment. The thesis espouses a new horizon for legal reasoning in foreign investment arbitration that eschews the lex lata veneer for lex ferenda propositions manufactured from precedents and principles, on the one hand, and the sheen of law for the conception of justice of investor-State arbitrators, on the other, in cases of hard confrontation between the demands of justice.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".