Article: The 2019 BLEU Model BIT: BLEU’s Vision of the Future of Investment Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article compares the 2019 BLEU model bilateral investment treaty with the older 2002 version. After an overview of the BLEU’s role as a major actor in international investment law, the authors argue that the changes introduced by the 2019 Model BIT reflect the EU’s policy towards foreign investment protection. The drafters of the 2019 Model BIT were inspired by the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and trade Agreement and the European Commission’s proposal to establish a Multilateral Investment Court. The 2019 Model BIT marks a shift from liberalization of foreign direct investment (FDI) to the protection of the sovereign powers, in particular the State’s right to regulate, and the curtailing of investment protection presented as a response to the investment protection system’s misuse and abuse by investors. By placing certain limitations to substantive standards of protection, placing strong emphasis of sustainable development objectives and advocating a reform of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), the 2019 BLEU Model BIT puts forward a vision for the future of investment protection that departs from the Washington Consensus of economic liberalization but also enables the investment protection system to survive in the face of the so-called backlash against ISDS and the criticism of civil society.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".