MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385068415 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v16n3p46

State Immunity in International Investment Disputes: Role of State Immunity in Resolving Investment Disputes and Adjudication Implications

2023· article· en· W4385068415 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Azab Alaziz Alhashemi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyAdjudicationSovereign immunityArbitrationState immunityInternational lawState (computer science)Dispute resolutionLaw and economicsJurisdictionInvestment (military)Customary international lawPublic international lawLawPolitical scienceBusinessEconomicsSupreme court

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The surge in international investment activities has led to a corresponding increase in international investment disputes, presenting significant challenges for states. State immunity serves as a fundamental concept designed to shield sovereign states from being subjected to lawsuits or foreign court jurisdiction. By affording this protection, state immunity permits states and their representatives to carry out crucial public functions without undue interference. Against this backdrop, this review article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the role of state immunity in resolving international investment disputes and explores its implications for adjudication processes. The study critically examines the intricate interplay between state immunity and international investment disputes, elucidating how this legal principle influences the resolution of such conflicts. It explores the mechanisms through which state immunity operates, highlighting its impact on the ability of investors to pursue legal actions against states in international tribunals or national courts. By delving into relevant case law, international treaties, and legal principles, this review article evaluates the extent to which state immunity can limit or undermine the rights of foreign investors and the implications this has for the effectiveness and fairness of adjudication in investment disputes. Furthermore, the study assesses the evolving international legal framework surrounding state immunity and its implications for the resolution of investment disputes. It analyzes recent developments, including shifts in state practices, treaty provisions, and judicial decisions, to shed light on emerging trends and challenges in this area. By providing a comprehensive examination of state immunity in the context of international investment disputes, this review article contributes to a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics between states and foreign investors and offers insights into the evolving landscape of investment arbitration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.017
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207