MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122543399

Arbitration Procedures in the Investment Agreements of the European Union. The Stakes of Transatlantic Treaties

2015· article· en· W3122543399 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rainer Geiger

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue internationale de droit economique · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyEuropean unionArbitrationTransatlantic Trade and Investment PartnershipLiberalizationDamagesInternational tradeTreaty of LisbonLawMember statePolitical scienceCommissionLaw and economicsEuropean Union lawEconomicsMember states
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue internationale de droit economiqueSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207