Situating the Engagements with the Investment Treaty Regime in Argentina, the Czech Republic, India, and Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter centres on the economic and political climate of the period in which the selected countries concluded their first investment treaties. This period coincides with the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, when, as a result of the end of the Cold War, states across the globe adopted trade and investment liberalisation policies, increased property protections, and promoted liberal legal internationalism. It does so through four country snapshots. It then discusses the political debate regarding IIAs at the highest political level – in national parliaments – and in the media. When it comes to the debates in national parliaments, four themes emerged: (1) general lack of substantive parliamentary engagement; (2) belief that foreign investment was sufficiently protected under national laws; (3) substantive engagement on issues related to free transfers; and (4) more pronounced discussion when the investment connected with trade liberalisation, such was the case of Mexico. Regarding the media debate, the period of the conclusion of the first international investment agreements (IIAs) shows an almost total absence of reporting and media engagement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".