Multilateral Investment Court: prospects of creation and potential impact on the Ukrainian system of intellectual property rights’ protection and enforcement
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
On April 30, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its Opinion 1/17, confirming the compatibility of the mechanism for the resolution of disputes between investors and States, provided for by the free trade agreement between the EU and Canada, with the EU law. This Opinion may become the first step towards the creation of a Multilateral Investment Court, the project, which is preliminary promoted by the European Union through the conclusion of bilateral trade agreements.While Ukraine is no alien to investment disputes over intellectual property rights, the interplay between investment law and intellectual property rights has received limited attention among local scholars. Consequently, this article starts with introducing the reader to the key elements of existing international investment treaties that are relevant for the intellectual property regime. It is followed by an overview of main investment disputes, involving intellectual property rights, with a view of mapping potential issues such a dispute may present to the Ukrainian system.The third part of the article analyses the European Union’s new generation of international investment agreements. Although Ukraine has not yet been involved in such negotiations, art. 89 of the EU/Ukraine free trade agreement allows for its review to include provisions on investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement procedures. Consequently, two recent investment chapters are contrasted, the one included in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada, as a developed-to-de- veloped country negotiations model; the one included in the draft of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with Tunisia, as a developed-to-developing country negotiations model.Such comparative analysis has allowed me to discern both common and diverging provisions, relevant for the national intellectual property systems, which, in turn, will allow Ukraine to adopt informed decisions during a potential negotiation with the European Union.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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