Structure, Legitimacy and NAFTA’s Investment Chapter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this Article, Professor Brower examines the investment chapter of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He argues that the relevant treaty provisions lack a substantial measure of textual clarity. In addition, he argues that ad hoc tribunals based on the commercial arbitration model have generated incoherent doctrine and are relatively less accountable, transparent, and accessible than permanent tribunals. Furthermore, he argues that the NAFTA Parties and their courts so far appear to place a higher priority on the pursuit of narrow self-interest than on the principled administration of international governance. Collectively, these circumstances help to explain the frequency and intensity with which claimants, tribunals, and the NAFTA Parties refer to the perceived illegitimacy of investor-state arbitration under NAFTA. While superior proposals may emerge, Professor Brower suggests that mitigation of this legitimacy crisis may require the continuation of ad hoc arbitration, followed by review by a standing appellate body and supervised by an accountable, transparent Free Trade Commission.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".