Arbitration Procedures in the Investment Agreements of the European Union. The Stakes of Transatlantic Treaties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Making use of the exclusive competence for international investment conferred by the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union is now engaged in the negotiation of bilateral investment treaties within different regions. According to the Commission, these treaties will carry an ambitious set of rules combining the liberalization of trade in primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors, regulatory convergence, and investment protection. These new treaties are also designed as models to replace the numerous investment treaties previously concluded by the Member States of the Union. Among these initiatives, transatlantic negotiations raise the most important challenges because of their ambition and the great volume of trade and investment covered. Launched without any transparency, these negotiations have triggered strong concerns within political circles and civil society, one of the most important fears being created by the proposed introduction of an ad hoc system of investor-State arbitration to enforce the treaty provisions. In the face of strong opposition, the Commission has since tried to amend its course proposing now a permanent court of arbitration, with an appeals procedure. Taking into account the relevant decisions of the European Court of Justice, the article examines the problems that arise from the creation of a privileged access to justice for foreign investors only, which allows them to claim damages for the exercise of regulatory powers by the Union and its Member States. Can it really be established that such a system is necessary among countries having highly developed systems of law backed by an independent judiciary? Can it be considered compatible with the principle of the equal access of citizens to justice? Could it be prejudicial to the supremacy of European Law and the prerogatives of the European Court of Justice which are strong values for the European integration process? The conclusions of the article offer a critical perspective recommending the renegotiation of the European-Canadian Treaty (CETA) and the elimination of investor-state dispute settlement from the EU-US negotiations (TTIP).
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 | 0.032 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".