<i>Rand Investments v. Republic of Serbia</i>: Transparency and the Limits of Consent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International investment law has consistently grappled with the issue of transparency. While the need for increased transparency in the practice of investment tribunals is generally recognized in principle, in practice the application of transparency norms often raises contentious issues. One common issue is the appropriateness of transparent proceedings where the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) governing the dispute is silent on the matter. A further, more vexed question arises when claimants proceed under multiple BITs with disparate transparency obligations. This situation arose in Rand Investments v. Republic of Serbia, where the claimants instituted an arbitration under both the Canada-Serbia and the Cyprus- Serbia BITs. Noting that the Cyprus-Serbia BIT was silent on the question of transparency, the Majority held that the transparency provisions of the Canada-Serbia BIT could be applied to the entire arbitration on grounds of procedural efficiency. However, the respondent’s arbitrator dissented, finding that the Majority’s approach violated Serbia’s consent and sovereignty. Upon examining the dichotomous approaches adopted by the Majority and the Dissenting Arbitrator, this case comment offers an insight into the potential implications of the case on future investment arbitrations involving multiple BITs with disparate transparency obligations. investment arbitration, dissenting opinion, transparency, Lotus principle, Effet Utile, procedural efficiency, Eurogas v Slovakia, duty of arbitrator, state consent, residual powers of the tribunal, confidentiality.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".