Research on Foreign Investment Screening Practices under BITs and FTAs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Countries with foreign investment screening mechanism have developed practices to avoid international investment disputes. These practices include using security exceptions, exceptions to dispute settlement provisions, and schedules to Annex regarding non-conforming measures in investment agreements. These practices do not specify specific national security requirements and are subject to full self-judgment. Countries with a long history of foreign investment screening, such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, actively use these practices to exclude foreign investment screening from international agreement obligations. These countries interpret the national security exception jurisprudence as applying to foreign investment screening, meaning that foreign investment screening is entirely self-judged. However, South Korea does not have a consistent approach to foreign investment screening in its Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The security exception clause in these agreements is different in each agreement, and the contents of the reservations are not uniform. However, it can be interpreted that Korea has decided to treat foreign investment screening as an exception to international law, since it joined the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which stipulates that the screening regime shall not be subject to the dispute settlement provisions. Foreign investment screening is likely to become more important as a policy tool in the era of expanding national security. The concept of national security has evolved from being applied only in exceptional emergencies such as war to encompassing more permanent situations such as economic security, high-tech protection, supply chain crisis response, and climate change. State measures to protect national security have also become more permanent. Given these circumstances, it is important to reconsider whether it is appropriate to treat foreign investment screening as an exception to international law. Allowing foreign investment screening as an exception to international law could lead to a crisis in the international legal system due to potential abuse of this exception. However, from the government's perspective, securing policy space for foreign investment screening can be advantageous in effectively addressing the growing threat to national security. Therefore, it is crucial to contemplate the stance and standards that should be established for the foreign investment screening practice in Korea moving forward.
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 | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".