Restoring Balance in Investor State Dispute Settlement: Addressing Treaty Shopping and Indirect Expropriation Claims and Consistent Approaches to Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores two of the apparent concerns of western liberal democracies regarding investor-state dispute settlement provisions in bilateral and multilateral investment treaties and trade agreements. Both of these concerns have been highlighted in the recent arbitration in Philip Morris Asia Ltd v The Commonwealth of Australia, wherein Philip Morris Asia challenged Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 as amounting to, amongst other things, indirect expropriation or a breach of the fair and equitable treatment (“FET”) standard. Recent responses to the issues of indirect expropriation and breach of the fair and equitable treatment (“FET”) standard are explored, firstly through analysing the response of the arbitral tribunal in the Philip Morris case and other cases to the treaty shopping issue; and second by analysing responses in more recent treaties to protecting State regulatory power, including in the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (“CETA”) and in the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“TTIP”). Reference is also made to the former Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”), as its negotiated provisions have sought to address concerns raised in this article.
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 | 0.077 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".