MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2198730501 · doi:10.54648/gtcj2010016

The EU Ban on Seal Products: Some Customs and WTO Open Questions

2010· article· en· W2198730501 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maurizio Gambardella

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Trade and Customs Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplaintLegitimacyBusinessInternational trade lawHarmony (color)International tradeInterpretation (philosophy)LawLaw and economicsPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent adoption by the EU of a regulation as to the ban of seal products has left unsolved a number of legal issues; namely, in the areas of (1) EU customs law and (2) the WTO law. As to the EU customs law, for example, the regulation lacks provisions as to the administration of the customs procedures. For example, the transit regime is undefined in the regulation. Thus, the legitimacy of the transit of seal products is still uncertain and open to several interpretations by national authorities. The way transit as to the seal products regime will be managed, this will inevitably affect other sectors of trade. In addition, the regulation lacks as well clear rules for the implementation of a harmonized custom penalty regime. How this is implemented will determine whether it is consistent with the general principles of EU law. These and other legal issues will affect directly or ‘de relato’ a great number of trading sectors, which are involved in the seal products trade, because as changes are made to create harmony with EU law, other sectors will inevitably be affected. Further, with reference to the World Trade Organization (WTO) law, in late 2009, Canada and Norway have brought a complaint against the regulation, claiming the inconsistency of the latter in the light of the WTO law. The pending litigation, which is mainly about environmental issues, may reach a new striking interpretation of several WTO principles, for example, as to the general exemption under Article XX(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and, in general, as to Article XX of the GATT 1994. Indeed, in the previous few case laws involving animals health issue, such as US-Shrimp, such general exemption under Article XX(b) was not analysed by the Appellate Body. Therefore, this seal product litigation could instead push WTO jurisprudence ahead on the interpretation of Article XX(b) and the consistency of the measures in the light of the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994. It goes without saying that the interpretation that the WTO judicature will possibly make over these issues will constitute a case law, which will be invoked in many future WTO litigation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Trade and Customs JournalSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207