Change in the Constitutional Framework of the European Union with regard to regulating foreign direct investment (DOI: 10.2436/20.3000.02.29)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, the European Union (EU) has assumed powers over foreign direct investment. This article describes the system for allocating powers in this area between the Union and member states. It also comments on the powers still retained by the member states (which they exercise through bilateral investment treaties) and outlines the instruments that could make the EU's investment policy compatible with that of member states. It focuses in particular on developments in the EU's policy based on new global investment agreements that are about to be ratified or are still in the negotiation stage (such as the agreements with Canada, Singapore and the United States) and explores the consequences of establishing a state/investor dispute resolution system, which is envisaged by these agreements, and its compatibility with the principle of EU legal autonomy.Key words: foreign direct investment, constitutional law, European Union law, bilateral investment treaties, European Union investment agreements, state/investor dispute resolution systemOriginal source: Revista Catalana de Dret Públic, 51: 104-121 (2015)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".