Impact of International Investment Dispute Arbitration on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Host States: Current Status and Development Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, international investment treaties have included intellectual property rights into the category of "investment", and the protection methods are no longer limited to disputes between states (diplomatic protection and WTO dispute settlement). Investors can start international investment arbitration proceedings against host states through investment treatment clauses and Investor-state dispute settlement. Cases such as the Morris Asia v Australia and Eli Lilly v. Canada show that intellectual property owners are trying to use international investment treaties and their arbitration mechanisms more actively to challenge IP policies (measures) in host states. However, this situation will affect the IP policy and practice of the host state and break the balance established between the protection of private rights and the welfare of society. Based on this, host states should be more careful in establishing international treaties that specify IP policies and the obligations of investors. At the same time, host states and the international community have made clear the boundaries of IPR protection in investment treaties, and it is necessary to maintain the autonomy of host states' IPR policies (measures).
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".