Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the first of two Articles that analyze the dynamic and complex relation between international trade law and the Kyoto Protocol. These Articles argue that the Kyoto Protocol undermines efforts to negotiate a meaningful climate change treaty, and alternatively, they propose a new treaty framework to replace the Protocol. This first Article sets out the trade and climate treaty conflict and demonstrates that the problem cannot be addressed within the current framework of international trade law. Developing nations that are now emerging economies and major greenhouse gas emitters are not bound by targeted emissions reduction obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Their exclusion in an era of trade liberalization under rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) creates loss of competition and leakage concerns among developed country signatories. These concerns have caused developed nations, such as the United States, to reject Kyoto Protocol obligations. Others, notably Canada, Japan, and Russia, have also rejected continued obligations under the Protocol. Solutions to these problems conflict with WTO rules, as demonstrated by efforts by some nations to promote their renewable energy sector in a manner that also addresses competition concerns. Specifically, countries have provided renewable energy subsidies (RES), but conditioned their availability on the use of domestic content. WTO member nations have challenged such RES under WTO rules, including specific agreements, notably the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) and Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs). In one recent dispute, a WTO Panel ruled that the RES violate WTO law. Further, these measures do not qualify for environmental exceptions under WTO law, for both legal and normative reasons. A new climate change treaty is needed in 2015 to addresses the loss of competition and leakage problems.
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 | 0.030 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.046 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
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".