Arbitragem de investimentos e o meio ambiente: reflexões sobre o caso Ethyl Corporation v. Canadá = Investment arbitration and the environment: reflections on the Ethyl Corporation v. Canada case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frequentemente nos deparamos com críticas às arbitragens de investimentos, notadamente quando envolvem temas de manifesto interesse público, como o meio ambiente e a saúde, por exemplo.Neste artigo, optou-se por abordar o assunto com base em um caso concreto envolvendo questões ambientais, a arbitragem Ethyl Corporation v. Canadá.Nesse sentido, foram analisadas algumas medidas adotadas para que as empresas multinacionais não abusem de sua capacidade postulatória em arbitragem de investimentos.Além disso, discutiram-se, ainda, os meios escolhidos pelas organizações internacionais e pelas instituições arbitrais para um aprimoramento da arbitragem de investimentos na busca por um equilíbrio entre os interesses públicos e privados.Considerando-se a repercussão do tema, regularmente alvo de debates entre internacionalistas, economistas e estudiosos da arbitragem, o presente estudo se justifica em razão da necessidade de adoção de normas protetivas ao meio ambiente nas arbitragens de investimentos.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".