Arbitration Involving Dual Nationals Under Investment Treaties: A New Area of Conflicting Rulings in International Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The paramount purpose of the study is to put forth conflicting decisions in International Law while arbitrating dual nationals under investment treaties. Method: The majority of investment treaties are predicated on clauses that are somewhat wide and define qualified standards. Result: According to the findings of a number of studies, the increased participation of dual nationals in investments in host countries will likely result in future issues for international investment law (IIL), particularly the ISA system. Because of this, it is essential to conduct an in-depth investigation on the level of protection that dual nationals receive from investment deals, especially from Investor-State Dispute Settlement’s point of view. Conclusion: In investor-state arbitration (ISA) context, one's nationality is an extremely vital factor. Most investment treaties provide that in order to be eligible for the protections afforded by the treaty, an investor needs to hold citizenship in the home state. However, determining a person's nationality for the reason of an investment treaty can be an especially challenging endeavour, as it brings up a number of unanswered problems that are of significant relevance in practical terms.
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 | 0.035 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".