The role of investor-state arbitration in promoting climate change mitigation : from “shield” to “sword” through renewable energy disputes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.028 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".