MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024487037

The role of investor-state arbitration in promoting climate change mitigation : from “shield” to “sword” through renewable energy disputes?

2022· report· en· W7024487037 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCadmus - EUI Research Repository (European University Institute) · 2022
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGlass properties and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate change mitigationInvestment protectionRenewable energyInvestment (military)ObligationEnvironmental lawEmissions tradingArbitrationTreatySubsidy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In international investment law, the principle of solidarity has contributed to the growing concern for the protection of the public interests in the host state, particularly in environmental protection. It is demonstrated in three aspects: first, the definition of development has evolved from merely referring to economic development to include social development; second, the increasing inclusion of stand-alone provisions on environmental protection and labor standards in bilateral and multilateral investment treaties; and lastly, the rising number of cases that touch upon environmental concerns relating to the host state’s right to regulate, particularly the newest development of allowing the host state to invoke counterclaims against the investor for environmental damages, as demonstrated in Burlington v. Ecuador, as well as claims referring to the host state’s obligation under international environmental agreements. Apart from the opportunities above, there are also challenges in environmental protection under international investment law. For instance, it is questionable whether investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) can provide adequate protection to renewable energy investments, since the question remains unanswered whether the retraction of the subsidies from the host state constitutes a breach of legitimate expectations under international investment agreements, as is the case with several EU member states and Canada. These renewable energy investment cases present a paradox. On one hand, the host state should enjoy regulatory autonomy over the energy sector and should not be required to compensate investors for the change of energy regulation in good faith; on the other hand, the protection and promotion of renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gas emission represents a global common interest reflected in international environmental agreements, UN declarations, the Energy Charter Treaty and several investment treaties. This paper explores the opportunities and challenges of the contribution that international investment law can make towards mitigating climate change. Through analyzing investor-state arbitration cases concerning renewable energy investment, as well as cases that touch upon the applicability of international environmental agreements, this paper advocates for a re-conceptualization of important investment law concepts such as legitimate expectations to utilize the ISDS mechanism as a tool to compel states to mitigate climate change.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it