Building on the Canadian approach to resolve the stalemate on the trade and environment agenda in the World Trade Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the competing views on the link between trade and environment in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and come up with a proposal that better clarifies the scope of legality of environmentally motivated unilateral trade measures in the multilateral trading system. Design/methodology/approach The paper adopts a doctrinal approach to legal research in providing an exegesis on the various efforts towards the integration of trade and environment in the WTO framework. Findings Employing the theory of transnational social justice as its analytical tool, the paper suggests that a state contemplating the use of environmentally motivated unilateral trade measures first extend positive measures to the communities in other states that are affected by the purported measure. Accordingly, it argues that unilateral trade measures are allowed in the system only as a last resort and only if their application runs congruent to the values and objectives recognized by the system. Originality/value It is hoped that the discussion and proposition in this paper will contribute to the discourse on the clarification of the status of environmentally motivated unilateral trade measures in the WTO.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".