The European Union’s Emerging Approach to ISDS: a Review of the Canada-Europe CETA, Europe-Singapore FTA, and European-Vietnam FTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Union’s approach to ISDS is examined based on the available textual evidence in proposed or negotiated trade agreements. The evaluation focuses on three criteria: judicial independence, procedural fairness, and balance in the allocation of rights and responsibilities. Each criteria arises from concerns about the powerful and far-reaching arbitration mechanism at the core of ISDS and its role to decide the legality of sovereign conduct and allocate public funds to foreign investors. The main conclusions are that, in pursuing a massive expansion of ISDS in new trade agreements, the European Union has taken only partial steps on the issue of independence, has signalled but not carried through with steps on the issue of procedural fairness, and has not taken steps to balance investor rights with investor responsibilities or to ensure respect for the role of domestic courts.
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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".