Transnational Public Policy as a Vehicle to Impose Human Rights Obligations in International Investment Arbitration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract International investment arbitration has been criticized for its general reluctance to consider human rights concerns related to foreign investors’ activities. By contrast, arbitration tribunals have relied on transnational public policy to prevent a claimant whose investment is tainted with illegality from obtaining redress. This article explores how human rights norms could be conceptualized as part of transnational public policy to impose obligations on foreign investors. It proceeds in three steps. First, it addresses the role of transnational public policy in investment arbitration. Second, the article identifies the material sources considered by tribunals to delimit the content of the doctrine. Third, it focuses on three norms – the protection of fundamental human rights, a corporate responsibility to respect human rights and the right of Indigenous Peoples to be consulted – for which tribunals have found an international consensus and that could be conceptualized as norms of transnational public policy.
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 | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".