EU Investment Protection Law: Chapter Eight of CETA, the Vietnam and Singapore Free Trade Agreements and EU Regulations 1219/2012, 912/2014 and 2019/452. Article-by-Article Commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, EU investment protection law has found itself at a crossroads. Indeed, there is a widespread perception outside Brussels that the European Commission has replaced its long-standing previous commitment to protect European foreign investors with a desire to achieve the internal EU constitutional perquisites that it covets. The year of 2018 saw the landmark ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV that intra-EU investment-treaty arbitration was incompatible with EU law.3 This was rapidly followed by the 2020 Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the EU,4 through which almost all EU Member States committed to terminate intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs) on the basis of incompatibility between their investment-treaty arbitration clauses and EU law. Against this backdrop, the EU’s Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada (CETA) was the first EU trade agreement to provide a framework for the EU’s pet project of standing judicial bodies to resolve investment-treaty disputes, to replace arbitration, such as ad hoc UNCITRAL or ICSID arbitration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".