Penyelesaian Sengketa Investasi Internasional : Apakah Penyelesaian Dapat Dilakukan Melalui International Court Of Justice (ICJ)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Court of Justice, also known as the ICJ, is the principal organ of the United Nations based in The Hague, Netherlands. This institution was established in 1945 to resolve disputes between countries peacefully. The authority of the International Court of Justice is divided into two categories: Ratione Personae jurisdiction, which pertains to who is eligible to bring a case to the ICJ, and Ratione Materiae jurisdiction, which concerns the types of disputes that the ICJ can handle. The ICJ's jurisdiction includes examining cases, providing opinions/advisories, and adjudicating disputes submitted to it. The ICJ is not limited to specific types of cases and can also handle investment disputes brought before it. This paper aims to explain how the ICJ functions as a forum for resolving investment disputes by analyzing the issues faced by the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited, which was declared bankrupt by the Catalonian government of Spain and subsequently brought before the ICJ. The parties involved in this dispute include the Spanish government as the host country of foreign investment, Canada as the country where the parent company is incorporated, and Belgium as the country whose nationals are the majority shareholders. This lawsuit was submitted to the ICJ because, at the time, there was no specialized dispute resolution body for investor-state disputes. Hence, the Barcelona Traction case was brought to the ICJ as the international dispute resolution body.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".