Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book analyses the risk of double recovery in investment arbitration and suggests a solution to the problems it creates. The risk of double recovery has not been thoroughly addressed by investment arbitration tribunals or commentators, and this has resulted in host states’ concerns about the integrity of the ISDS system. The solution that is set forth in this work neither suggests a fundamental change to present legal doctrines and practice, nor requires a fundamental change to the regulatory system to take place in order for the solution to become operative. The proposed solution consists of two parts: first, recognising the prohibition of double recovery as a principle in international investment law; and second, setting out a legal mechanism to implement the principle in order to avoid double recovery. The mechanism (which covers both scenarios of parallel proceedings and sequential proceedings) utilizes three procedural tools: the res judicata principle, the lis pendens principle, and the power of tribunals/courts to stay proceedings. Traditionally, for res judicata and lis pendens to be applicable, a triple identity test (same parties, same cause of action, and same relief/object) must be met. The book argues that the traditional application of the identity test in this international context is misguided, and proposes instead a coherent, principled identity test that is in line with the underlying policies of international investment law. The book also explains that the term “double recovery” does not entirely correspond to the phenomenon it is known to represent and suggests that the term “double compensation” be used instead.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.663 | 0.400 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".