INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION AND EU REFORM PROJECTS FOR APPELLATE MECHANISMS: SOME CRITICAL REMARKS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A reflection on International Investment Arbitration and the Law of the European Union (EU) is an immensely stimulating exercise to highlight some of the most difficult issues of International Law, as well as current discussions about the future of International Investment Law, at least in Europe. Present concerns include the growing perception of a lack of legitimacy and predictability of ISDS decisions, their time-lengthy and costly procedures deterring smaller respondent countries, and questioning the impartiality of arbitrators. It has been said that we presently live in times of big “constitutional choices” and accordingly the EU has already replaced Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) arbitration mechanisms with a bilateral investment court system (ICS) in recently negotiated international investment agreements - including those with Canada, Mexico, Singapore, and Vietnam. The same treaties also include provisions anticipating the transition from the bilateral ICS to a permanent Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). It is worth noting at the outset that such a debate and the MIC proposal are focused at substituting a judicial procedural framework for investor-state dispute settlements, a permanent intergovernmental Court, in lieu of international investment arbitration. Strangely enough, one does not see the same focus on the real issue, namely the quality of the substantive law applicable to the merits in International Investment arbitration, a problem that will stay even if in the (far) future a MIC would be established. Nonetheless, even though the EU has recently entered IIAs including bilateral ICS instead of arbitration, a number of the EU’s major trading partners, including the USA and Japan, have so far expressed little support for the creation of a Permanent Court such as a MIC. In this essay, the peculiar roots of the current EU position and how they lead, as a fil rouge, to the EU current proposals that are presently discussed at UNCITRAL will be critically assessed.
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 | 0.024 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.024 |
| 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".