How Some Countries Became ‘Special’: Developing Countries and the Construction of Difference in Multilateral Trade Lawmaking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the origins of the ‘special’ status of developing countries in multilateral trade lawmaking, and traces the form that their special treatment has taken throughout the history of the trade regime. The article takes issue with the influential view that the special treatment of developing countries stemmed primarily from their desire to be exempted from the legal disciplines of the trade regime. Instead, I argue that many aspects of the special treatment of developing countries in the trading system are best explained as manifestations of the desire of <it>developed</it> countries to accommodate the developing countries within the trading system without changing the fundamental features and default characteristics of the system. Granting exemptions and special treatment to developing countries has allowed the developed countries to preserve their preferred design of the trade regime, and to stick to their favoured method of making trade law, while keeping developing countries within the system. I derive this argument from a detailed analysis of three formative episodes in the history of multilateral trade lawmaking: the debate about the treatment of quantitative restrictions at the GATT/ITO preparatory conferences in the late 1940s; the emergence of the principle of less-than-full reciprocity in tariff negotiations in the late 1950s and 1960s; and the developing countries’ resistance to the TRIPS Agreement in the Uruguay Round. The article concludes by exploring whether the special treatment of developing countries in the new Agreement on Trade Facilitation represents a departure from this pattern.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it