KAZAKHSTAN: A CASE STUDY IN STATE SUCCESSION TO INVESTMENT TREATIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two arbitral cases were initiated against Kazakhstan on the basis of the 1989 Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments. The tribunal of the first case (World Wide Minerals v. Republic of Kazakhstan) determined that Kazakhstan was a legal successor to the Canada-USSR BIT and found breaches of fair and equitable treatment. While in the second case (Gold Pool Limited Partnership v. Republic of Kazakhstan) the tribunal rejected the claimant’s argument that the Canada-USSR BIT was applicable to Kazakhstan. Since the decisions in these two cases have not been published, there is currently speculation that investors from other states besides Canada can take advantage of the Soviet Union’s treaties, even if there is no treaty in force with Kazakhstan. Thus, the aim of this paper is to show the legal framework and practice for treaty-making related to investment in Kazakhstan both pre-and post- collapse of the Soviet Union. In particular, this paper examines the relevant international treaties, diplomatic notes, intergovernmental-level statements regarding the succession to the USSR treaties, and the USSR and Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic investment legislations. It also provides recommendations for the future development of state succession and investment treaties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".