MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7135878410

Permissibility of Investment Arbitration: between Achmea and CETA. Commentary on International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Decision in Case ARB/12/12, Vattenfall (Achmea issue)

2019· article· pl· W7135878410 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna Lam, Paweł Marcisz

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) · 2019
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterTreatySettlement (finance)TribunalArbitrationInvestment (military)Interpretation (philosophy)Conciliation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decision of the arbitral tribunal in the Vattenfall case holds that investment arbitration based on the Energy Charter Treaty is compatible with EU law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in the Achmea case. The arbitral tribunal found that the Achmea judgment does not apply to the Energy Charter Treaty (or similar international agreements) and, moreover, that neither the principles of treaty interpretation nor conflict of laws rules give EU law primacy over the Treaty. Even though this ruling is correct from the point of view of international law, it seems to infringe EU law as interpreted in the subsequent opinion in the CETA case.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.023
Scholarly communication0.0220.013
Open science0.0090.008
Research integrity0.0790.060
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen)Same topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207