Sovereignty, National Interest & Security and the Bilateral Investment Treaties of Bangladesh and the Netherlands: a Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In absence of any global treaty, the bilateral investment treaties are playing the important role of regulating foreign investments in the host countries. The primary purpose of economic globalization is the economic development of the developing and least-developed countries as well as to facilitate benefits of the home states. Bangladesh and the Netherlands also signed bilateral investment treaties to facilitate trade. Bangladesh foreign investment laws and bilateral investment treaties mainly protect foreign investors; however, neither include any specific provisions of protecting sovereignty, national interest, and security. The Netherlands generally follows EU foreign investment policies. This paper addresses two questions: (a) do the bilateral investment treaties of Bangladesh and the Netherlands include any specific provisions to protect the sovereignty, national interest, and security, and (b) should the sovereignty, national interest, and security be considered during the entry of foreign direct investment in Bangladesh and the Netherlands? Using doctrinal research method, a total of 25 bilateral investment treaties have been analysed in order to explore whether they protect the sovereignty, national interest, and security of Bangladesh and the Netherlands. Based on the findings, this study will recommend that the government of Bangladesh should consider this important factor as an entry condition, either through amending the existing laws or through the bilateral investment treaties.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".