Statements as Evidence of State Practice for Custom Creation in International Investment Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the sources of international law listed in Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law.” Rules of customary international law are binding on all states. They gradually develop over time based on the uniform and consistent practice of a large number of representative states. For any customary rule to emerge, states must also have the conviction (or the belief) that such practice is required by law (opinio juris). This so-called “double requirement” has been consistently adopted by decisions of international courts and arbitral tribunals. This article is part of the author’s recent work on how customary rules are created and how they can be identified in the field of international investment law In this article, the author intends to focus on one specific element regarding the essential requirement of state practice. Apart from the actual conduct of states in international relations, other “manifestations” of practice include signing/ratifying international treaties (and subsequent practice in relation to these instruments), activities within international organizations, conduct of the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government, and statements by states. Scholars typically enumerate lists of the different elements of relevant state practice.
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 | 0.021 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".