Verso un modello di giustizia internazionale in materia d'investimenti. Il ruolo dell'Unione europea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il contributo esamina gli sforzi profusi dall'Unione europea per la realizzazione di un sistema giurisdizionale internazionale (detto "Investment Court System" o "ICS") volto a superare il tradizionale modello "ISDS" ("Investor-State Dispute Settlement"). Tali sforzi dell'UE hanno portato alla conclusione di trattati internazionali d'investimento con paesi terzi, quali il Canada, Vietnam, Singapore, e - molto probabilmente - porteranno alla conclusione di trattati, attualmente oggetto di negoziati, con Cina e Messico. Ciascuno di questi trattati prevede la costituzione di un tribunale stabile, competente a risolvere controversie, insorte sulla sua interpretazione e applicazione, tra gli investitori di una Parte contraente e l'altra, ove i primi abbiano investito. La ricerca analizza tanto le modalità di costituzione di tali tribunali quanto i meccanismi di celebrazione del procedimento contenzioso innanzi ad essi, mettendone in luce le novità rispetto al tradizionale sistema "ISDS".
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.004 |
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".