A review of the limitation of legitimate expectation principle in FET Claims in energy regulatory disputes: Can a balance be achieved?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the intricate interplay between the right of states to regulate in the context of environmental regulations aimed at decarbonization and an investor's right to investment protection, particularly focusing on the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) standard in international investment law. With the increasing importance of environmental regulations such as the US Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants, in the transition to cleaner energy sources, the potential economic impacts on investments and resulting investment disputes could be huge, making the balancing of these competing interests a topical issue. The article delves into the prominence of the FET standard in investment protection and its evolution in international investment law. It argues that the limitation on the legitimate expectation element of the FET standard in modern times poses challenges in balancing states' rights to regulate with the protection of foreign investments in decarbonization disputes. The author asserts that recent developments in international investment law, exemplified by treaties like the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), signal a shift towards prioritizing states' right to regulate over investment protection. By analyzing the limitations on legitimate expectation and investment protection in modern times and the implications for energy investments in the era of decarbonization, the article aims to shed light on the complexities of reconciling the competing interests of states and investors in the evolving landscape of international investment law. Ultimately, this author contends that achieving a balance between these interests is increasingly challenging and may require a reevaluation of the prevailing norms in investment protection.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".