Pushed out the Door, Back in through the Window: The Role of the ILO in EU and US Trade Agreements in Facilitating the Decent Work Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the debate on the inclusion of labour provisions in trade agreements seemed to be closed after the multilateral trade negotiations in the late 1990s, it is revived in the current negotiation of the EU–US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Agreement (TTIP). TTIP negotiations are of particular importance in this regard as the agreement is believed to set the norm for future negotiations. This paper examines the evolution of labour provisions in the EU and US trade agreements in the past two decades. It finds that: First, labour provisions are increasingly included in trade agreements of the US and the EU. Second, ILO instruments are the main reference here, and they often include an explicit reference to the decent work agenda. Third, reference to the role of the ILO in the implementation of labour commitments is less explicit, but leaves the door open for involvement in various ways, mainly through technical cooperation activities, monitoring or via a consultative role in dispute settlement mechanisms.The analysis leads to the conclusion that whereas the trade–labour linkage and the role of the ILO in trade may have been pushed out of the multilateral trade system, the discussion revived in the framework of pluri-lateral trade negotiations.
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 | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".