Jurisdictional overlap between domestic courts and investment arbitration: an occasion for judicial dialogue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since investors can commonly bring claims under both an international investment treaty and contracts, domestic courts and investment treaty tribunals may compete for jurisdiction over what is—in essence—the same dispute. While much has been written about the distinction between treaty and contract as well as its application in practice, relatively little attention has been paid to the extent of judicial dialogue between domestic courts and investment arbitration regarding this jurisdictional overlap. Investment treaty tribunals have arguably circumvented the issue altogether and show remarkably little restraint when faced with a conflicting contractual forum-selection clause. This current conceptual position presents several issues, however, which domestic courts may encourage arbitral tribunals to overcome. Finding an occasion for more judicial dialogue should therefore not be perceived as an undue encroachment of domestic courts on the autonomous nature of arbitration, but rather as an incentive for investment treaty tribunals to scrutinize the limits of their own jurisdiction more carefully and to start regulating the issue of jurisdictional overlap differently.
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 | 0.056 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| 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".