Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This welcome book, expertly revealing the nuances of third-party funding in international arbitration, examines the phenomenon in key jurisdictions around the world and provides a reliable resource for users and potential users that may wish to tap into and make use of this distinctive funding tool.\nThe authors analyze and assess the legal regime in a variety of countries based upon legislation, judicial opinions, ethics opinions, and practitioner anecdotes describing the state of third-party funding in that jurisdiction. They describe how courts and legislative bodies around the world have thus far handled the major ethical issues and concerns that affect the practice of third-party funding. Among the issues raised and examined are the following: ; payment of adverse costs; "before-the-event" (BTE) and "after-the-event" (ATE) insurance; attorney financing, including contingency representation and conditional fee arrangements; loans; ethical doctrines influential to the continued existence and viability of the third-party funding industry; possible waivers of the attorney work-product doctrine or attorney-client privilege; potential encouragement of non-meritorious claims; possible future bundling, securitization, and trading of legal claims; risk that the funder may put its own interests ahead of the client s interests; and whether the existence of a funding agreement must or should be disclosed to the decision-maker. \nThe book concludes with observations regarding third-party funding in international investment arbitration and predictions regarding the future of the third-party funding industry worldwide.\nFocusing on the key jurisdictions that have well-developed third-party funding markets--Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Netherlands, Canada, and South Africa--and regional overviews for Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, this book ably creates a reference source for parties aiming to take advantage of the high values, speed, reduced evidentiary costs, outcome predictability, industry expertise, and high award enforceability characteristic of the third-party funding arrangements available in international arbitration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".