Revisiting privatization, foreign investment, international arbitration and water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A subject relevant to the governance of water resources and public services is the effect that international trade and investment agreements may have on national capacities to manage natural resources and to regulate public services. As a consequence of globalization, many public services are provided and water rights held by companies within foreign investment protection systems or special conflict resolution regimes, which means that external jurisdictions can intervene in local matters. These agreements, which override national laws, restrict the power of governments to act in the public interest and in that of local communities. The region has yet to assess the consequences that international investment agreements may have on the economic, social and environmental sustainability and efficiency of natural resources utilization and provision of public services. Such an assessment is necessary when formulating public policies, adopting natural resources legislation and regulatory frameworks for public services, granting water rights and wastewater discharge permits, and entering into contracts related to economic activities in which water is an input or end product. This paper is a first step in this direction. It summarizes the main issues raised by Mann (2006a);, Hantke-Domas (2005); and Barraguirre (2005);, and at the same time expands on some of them. This study also draws on the research done by Agua Sustentable of Bolivia, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD); and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC); of Canada, the Water Law and Indigenous Rights (WALIR); project (ECLAC/The Netherlands, University of Wageningen);, and the Forum for Democracy and Trade of the United States.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".