MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590459091

Biotech 제품의 무역 분쟁에 관한 WTO 패널결정 분석

2007· article· ko· W1590459091 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
성봉석

Bibliographic record

Venue무역학회지 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational tradeLegislationBiosafetyBusinessPrecautionary principleMember statesProtocol (science)European unionLawPolitical scienceBiotechnologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes WTO Panel's decision on European Communities-Measures affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Product. The Panel's decision of EC-Biotech case have three key implications for trade-related measures on GMOs in the future. First, the Panel concluded that the Biosafety Protocol is not applicable in the relations between the complaining parties to this dispute and the EC because America, Canada and Argentina ar not parties to the Biosafety Protocol. The Panel, in addition to, refrained from expressing a view on whether or not the precautionary principle is a recognized principle of general or customary international law. The Panel's approach showed that the WTO lacked much consideration of the concepts of mutual supportiveness in the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements and the WTO. Second, the Panel did not review whether or not EC approval legislations of GMOs are consistent with the WTO rules. However, the Panel concluded that the way of applying and operating the approval procedures set out in the EC approval legislation was inconsistent with its obligations, undertaking and completing in approval procedures without undue delay, under Article 8 and Annex of the SPS Agreement. The Panel's approach suggests that the WTO does not infringe on the right of each WTO member country to adopt nation-specific trade-related laws of GMOs but that the approval procedures have to be applied or operated in accordance with the WTO rules. Finally, the Panel recognized the right of EC Member States to take safeguard measures. However, the Panel stated, if Member could delay a final approval decision on the ground that available scientific evidence is sufficient, that Member could avoid the requirement of risk assessment set out in Annex A(4) of the SPS Agreement. The Panel's narrow interpretation of the notion of 'risk assessment' in the SPS Agreement could not show whether or not each WTO member country could take trade restrictive measures for safety on GMOs based on precautionary principle.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue무역학회지Same topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207