Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and investment chapters in FTAs promote investment and enhance investor protection through substantive obligations, including national treatment, MFN treatment, fair and equitable treatment (FET), and the prohibition against expropriation. These obligations are often enforceable directly by investors through investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). Despite the loud criticism of investment law, and more particularly, ISDS, States have not jettisoned the obligations or ISDS. As a review of State practice shows, new treaties contain important reform elements that clarify the meaning of vague concepts, including treatment ‘in like circumstances’, FET, and indirect expropriation. To a lesser extent, States are adopting reform elements that limit or even prevent access to ISDS. At the same time, States are eagerly pursuing procedural reform in ICSID and UNCITRAL. It remains to be seen whether these efforts will result in a new court or appellate mechanism, or whether they will contribute to the multilateralization of investment law, but even without it, the previously fragmented web of BITs are slowly being replaced by investment chapters in regional FTAs with much clearer obligations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".