A Legal Analysis of the Application of Articles I and III of the GATT 1994 on the Economic Development of ECOWAS Member States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the tension inherent in the relationship between the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) as Member States Parties of the GATT/WTO and the GATT/WTO regime.It focuses specifically on the tension triggered off by the requirements of Article Ithe Most-Favoured-Nation principle (MFN) and Article IIIthe National Treatment principle (NT) GATT 1994.It shows that while the non-discrimination principles are meant to promote trade liberalisation and economic growth, they produce the opposite effect in developing and least developed countries like ECOWAS and aggravate the tension between those countries and the WTO.It argues that the MFN is used to deny market access to the developing countries by exposing them to stiff but unequal competitive conditions and the NT to deny national governments the policy space to protect and promote national industries, employment and economic growth.It challenges the general assumption that the MFN and the NT are good and in the interest of all the WTO Members and rather identifies them as lynch-pins of economic development in the ECOWAS region.It also shows, contrary to the assumption of non-participation, how the ECOWAS High Contracting Parties are adapting their trading systems and harmonising their laws to the key provisions of Articles I and III of the GATT.It shows that the principles of non-discrimination are the outcome of the standard-setting procedures legally formulated as the SPS and TBTAgreements which favour the developed countries and how the Dispute Settlement Body has rejected the 'aims-and-effect' approach, taken a literal approach, overly emphasising trade liberalisation to the neglect of market access and economic development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".