Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ever-recurring issue of investment treaty law and arbitration reform takes again centre stage in this issue, courtesy of Noah Barr's excellent piece focusing on the EU Commission's 'model' of international investment protection as such model arises from the so-called new-generation International Investment Agreements ('IIAs') which the EU signed in recent years.Noah discusses the EU Commission's ambitious plans to develop a grand scheme of EU legal framework towards 'a special responsibility to lead the reform of the global investment regime' on the basis of non-economic values, including sustainable development, corporate social responsibility and human rights.As Noah explains, the EU Commission has, to date, failed to implement this framework.Instead, Noah posits, the main thrust of any investment law reform at EU level lies at the efforts of individual Member States many which have already begun modernizing their Bilateral Investment Treaties.Nevertheless, the EU model of international investment protection has been highly influential for Member States in aligning national policies on investment law and dispute settlement.One might be excused to feel a sense of fatigue, or indeed exhaustion, from the ongoing discussions about EU's reform plans of investment treaty law and arbitration.But the Commission's investment law policy (and, for that matter, the CJEU's decisions on investment arbitration) continue to divide opinions and remain important developments to follow.This is why it is interesting to note Noah's conclusion that while some recent national reforms largely align with the EU reformed approach to investment protection, other domestic reforms bring together some innovative features of dispute settlement and non-economic provisions which are not included in EU's IIAs.On this occasion, EU's failure to implement its broader 'model' of investment protection has failed, even if temporarily, by accident rather than design, as many of the EU's IIAs, including the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, have been subject to legal challenges which has hindered their ratification process.This raises a broader issue of reform process rather than reform content: namely, that ambitious reform plans might be more likely and organically implemented if the EU Commission merely sets out the broader goals and general direction of the desired reform allowing, at the same time, the policy space for national states to 'Editorial'.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.349 | 0.227 |
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".