Investment law v. supply-side climate policies: insights from Rockhopper v. Italy and Lone Pine v. Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract New fossil fuel developments are inconsistent with keeping global warming below 1.5 °C, and while most climate policies focus on reducing demand for fossil fuels, an emerging transversal consensus promotes efforts to simultaneously reduce supply. In this article, we discuss the obstacles to effective supply-side climate policies posed by international investment treaties that protect corporations against state interventions through investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). We focus on two recently concluded ISDS cases ( Rockhopper v Italy and Lone Pine v Canada ) that concern prohibitions on fossil fuel development in ecologically sensitive areas. Italy was ordered to pay a British firm approximately € 250 million in compensation for a ban on offshore oil developments along the coastline, whereas Canada successfully defended Québec’s ban on gas development in the St. Lawrence River. Arbitrators in both cases reasoned that investors should be compensated when oil and gas exploration permits are revoked (even if such a remedy is not available under domestic law) and expressed antipathy towards civic engagement in the policy process. As companies can seek lost future profits through ISDS, these cases show that the system can engender material costs for states enacting supply-side policies. The threat of ISDS can generate a chilling effect, limiting the potential for supply-side initiatives, particularly in the Global South. Initiators of global efforts to limit further fossil fuel developments must consider the obstacles posed by international investment treaties, support efforts to abolish ISDS, and as an interim measure, promote the interpretation of treaty protections in line with climate objectives.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".