Sustainable Development as a Wicked Problem in Investment Arbitration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract References to ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainability’ can be found in decisions of investment arbitration tribunals and submissions from disputing parties. By relying on the concept of ‘wicked problem’, this article highlights the failure to articulate any clear relevance of sustainable development in the adjudication of investment disputes and structural limitations imposed by investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). It proceeds in four steps. First, the article defines wicked problems and their distinguishing properties. Second, it shows how tribunals have used sustainable development in a way that evidences these distinguishing properties. Third, in light of submissions from respondent States and claimants, the article shows that ISDS imposes structural limitations on narratives that relate to sustainability and sustainable development. Finally, it examines the discussions on sustainability under the umbrella of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III and stresses the need for a political resolution outside ISDS proceedings.
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 | 0.058 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".