Whether China’s State-Owned Commercial Banks Constitute “Public Bodies” within the Meaning of Article 1.1 (a) (1) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: Analysis of <i>US—Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
US—Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China is the initial WTO dispute in which China claims that US-countervailing duties on certain products from China are inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”). In this dispute, the specific meaning of “public bodies” within Article 1.1 (a) (1) of the SCM Agreement and the question of whether China’s state-owned commercial banks (“SOCB”) constitute “public bodies” are the heart of the matter. This thesis will analyze these issues by examining the reports of the Panel and the Appellate Body. In particular, the thesis will argue that the theory of the governmental function advanced by China is much more persuasive than that of governmental control in terms of defining “public bodies”. Although China’s SOCBs have gone through several stages of reforms, the majority ownership of them has remained in the hands of the Chinese government. However, SOCBs’ policy-oriented nature has been largely marginalized, and currently they only perform subsidiary governmental functions. In this regard, the conclusion this thesis will attempt to reach is that the WTO system needs to give developing countries like China more policy flexibility in order to upgrade their international trade participation to the level required and followed by developed countries. During the process, developing countries should also make the best use of their latent comparative advantage and the effects of globalization.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".