MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110931934

‘인도네시아자동차사건’에서의 TRIMs관련 법적 쟁점

2004· article· ko· W2110931934 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
김인숙

Bibliographic record

Venue국제경제법연구 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvestment (military)IncentiveAutomotive industryDiscretionScope (computer science)NegotiationBusinessInternational tradeForeign direct investmentEconomicsInternational economicsEngineeringMarket economyLawMacroeconomicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its inception in 1947, GATT has governed the trade-related aspects of investment measures, while leaving other aspects of investment policy to national discretion. On the other hand, as a result of UR Negotiations, the TRIMs Agreement deal with a matter directly investment policy. The TRIMs Agreement left no doubt that it applies to investment measures related to trade in goods only, such as the required use of domestic content in preference to imported goods. But the agreement's scope lie many policies and restrictions that discourage investment as well as inhibiting trade. An Annex to the TRIMs Agreement now clarifies that violations of the TRIMs Agreement can take the form of investment incentives and inducements, as well as mandatory restrictions, and that trade balancing as well as local content requirements are prohibited. In WTO system, the TRIMs issue has especially been relevant to the automotive industry. The automotive sector in both developing and developed countries is often the subject of special trade and investment restrictions, from import quotas and voluntary restraints to local content rules and other forms of investment incentives and requirements. In 1996, along with 'Brazil-automobiles case', Indonesia's automotive investment measures attracted the first WTO cases filed under the TRIMs Agreement. This dispute concerns a series of measures maintained by Indonesia with respect to motor vehicles and parts and components thereof. In this case, after finding that the measures in question were inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement, the pane! determined that, based on the principle of judical economy, It did not have to address the claims under Article 3.4 of the GAIT. But the attitude of the Indonesia-auto panel is different from that of subsequent case's panel. In 'India-Auto case', hke the 'Canada-Automotive case', after finding that the measures in question violated Articles 3.4 and 11.1 of the GAIT, the panel applied the principle of judical economy and concluded that It was not necessary to analyse the measures under the TRIMs Agreement. Because of this approach, the Indonesia-auto panel become the focus of criticism. But, although 'Indonesia-Automobiles case' did not result in either strong and effective WTO discipline on special TRIMs, it is true that, on the point that to treat directly the TRIMs, this case is significant dispute in WTO system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.143 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue국제경제법연구Same topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207