MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137318384

MFN in the GATT and the WTO

2012· article· en· W2137318384 on OpenAlexaff
Donald McRae

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational tradeContext (archaeology)TRIPS architectureInterpretation (philosophy)JurisprudenceTRIPS AgreementWorld tradeGeneral Agreement on Trade in ServicesCore (optical fiber)Object (grammar)Product (mathematics)International economicsLaw and economicsBusinessPolitical scienceIntellectual propertyEconomicsLawGeographyComputer scienceTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The object of this paper is to provide an analysis of the way in which MFN has been interpreted and applied in the context of GATT and the WTO agreements. In the first part emphasis is placed on MFN under the GATT. Firstly it discusses the inclusion of the MFN principle in the GATT, especially focusing on Article I:1 of the GATT with its exceptions. Secondly, it discusses the relationship between MFN principle and national treatment principle. Thirdly it points out the issues regarding the interpretation on the MFN principle through the analysis of various cases under the WTO. Fourthly it considers the MFN principle located in other covered agreements, such as GATS and TRIPS. Fifthly it discusses the interpretation on GATT Article I:1 though several cases that analyze the requirements of this Article, its exceptions and the core concept of the MFN principle, the determination of like product. In the second part, it discusses the MFN principle under GATS and TRIPS, as it still serves as a core concept in both agreements. In the last part, it provides an assessment of MFN under WTO jurisprudence, with several issues regarding several regional trade area and plurilateral agreements being raised.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207