Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.028 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".