MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009833761 · doi:10.17863/cam.48579

TAX DISPUTES IN INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRATION

2020· dissertation· en· W3009833761 on OpenAlex
Rav Pratap Singh

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueApollo (University of Cambridge) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Issues in Ukraine
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of CanadaCargillDuke Energy
KeywordsArbitrationState (computer science)BusinessLaw and economicsEconomicsInternational economicsPolitical scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines tax disputes adjudicated by investor-state tribunals. I argue that the nature of taxation – a compulsory levy – is unlike any other state regulatory measure such as an environmental or a public health measure. I suggest that tax-related investment disputes constitute a unique category of foreign investment disputes, and that investment tribunals should recognize them as such. Not all arbitral tribunals, however, acknowledge the distinct character of taxation which leads to inconsistent jurisprudence. Apart from the nature of tax, tax carve outs are another important factor that distinguish tax- related investment disputes from other investment disputes. I show that tax carve outs are included in IIAs in order to prevent overlap with tax treaties. Tax carve outs determine the scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction, and limit the substantive obligations that are applicable to a state’s taxation measures; but since tax carve outs are worded differently and vary in scope, each arbitral tribunal needs to establish its jurisdiction carefully. While some tribunals have been careful to clearly demarcate their jurisdiction, others have been imprecise. An analysis of the arbitral awards reveals that the approaches of investment tribunals in tax- related investment disputes differ as to expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, and non- discrimination. For expropriation claims, some tribunals regard tax measures as a unique category and correctly set a high threshold for taxation measures to qualify as expropriation. With respect to non-discrimination and fair and equitable treatment claims, investment tribunals tend to assimilate tax measures to all other measures. These differences reflect not only the distinct nature of the obligations, but also tribunals’ failure to recognize that tax-related investment disputes constitute a unique category. In the future, it is likely that the lower threshold for fair and equitable treatment and non- discrimination will lead investors to rely primarily on these standards in tax-related investment disputes. Additionally, international tax law (ITL) has played a limited role in tax-related investment disputes. Investment tribunals, instead, prefer to rely on WTO jurisprudence in their analysis and findings. I argue that there are general principles of law in ITL which tribunals should include in their analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.170 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it