Investor-State Dispute Settlement under review; current challenges, lack of regulation in the EU-MERCOSUR agreement and basis for the EU-UK and UK-MERCOSUR FTAs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investment treaties aim to protect the rights of foreign investors and provide legal certainty, generally including an Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. The increase of criticism towards ISDS -which reached its highest point during the EU-US TTIP negotiations- brought up different concerns. As a result, the Investment Court System (ICS) was developed and incorporated for the first time in the CETA between Canada and the EU, and then in other Free-Trade Agreements (FTA) signed by the EU. However, in the EU-MERCOSUR FTA there is no regulation of a dispute settlement mechanism between investors and States parties.Currently, the United Kingdom (UK) is leaving the EU and negotiations of a new deal with the EU are being developed. In the next stages, the UK will most likely reach different agreements with sovereign states and others commercial blocks. In this sense, there is a possibility that a future EU-UK and UK-MERCOSUR agreement will need to consider whether the ISDS or the ICS will be adopted. Also, MERCOSUR will need to analyse which system it will be willing to adopt in the future in case a dispute settlement between investors and States is adopted, and could even explore a system that includes aspects of both the ISDS and the ICS.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".