International investment agreements and mega-regionals: promoting or undermining the right to water?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines how investment law interacts with the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation in IIAs, comprising both bilateral investment treaties (BITs) as well as preferential trade agreements (PTAs) with investment provisions. This analysis includes recently negotiated mega- regional agreements such as the Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement between Canada and the European Union (CETA) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans- Pacifi c Partnership (CPTPP). The first section studies in what way, if any, investment protection standards as included in IIAs affect the right to water. The second part examines whether foreign investor’s legitimate expectations are affected by a host state’s measure to regulate the supply and maintenance of water on public policy objectives, including by implementing specific human rights obligations. The final section considers whether the human right to water can be used as a defence in investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) by the respondent state. Special attention will be paid to the recent award by an arbitral tribunal under the rules of the International Centre for the Settlement of Disputes (ICSID), namely the Urbaser v Argentina.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".