Regional Trade Agreements in the Era of Globalization: A Legal Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) are agreements whereby members grant preferential treatment to one another in regard to trade barriers. When a member in the World Trade Organization (WTO) enters into an RTA through which it grants more favourable conditions to specific trade partners, this member departs from the guiding principles of non-discrimination in international trade law. Those principles are generally defined in Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Article II of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and elsewhere. However, WTO Members are still permitted to form RTAs under specific conditions which vary depending on the level of integration sought, mainly according to Article XXIV of the GATT and Article V of the GATS. The number of RTAs has grown dramatically over the last decade. Since 1995, more than 300 agreements have been notified to the WTO. The coverage of RTAs tends to expand and cover issues beyond the scope of the WTO such as investment, competition policy, government procurement, e-commerce, labor and environmental standards. This proliferation of RTAs, had never been expected, and is considered by many legal and economic scholars as parallel competing trade regime that could undermine the multilateral trade order. In 1996, the WTO created the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) to oversee all RTAs and to consider the implications of such agreements on the multilateral trading system. So far, the CRTA has achieved limited success. For many legal and technical reasons, the CRTA has been unable to carry out effectively its duties of examining the consistency of RTAs with the rules, and overseeing their implementation. Thus WTO Members agreed in July 2006 on a new mechanism on transparency that draws specific guidelines for reporting RTAs to the CRTA, and outlines clear timetables for that purpose. The effectiveness of this new transparency mechanism has not been tested yet. This article which was published in the North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation, attempts to analyze the legal and factual status quo of RTAs. Simply put, the purpose of my paper is three-fold: first, to review certain developments in the proliferation of RTAs around the world; second, to offer a comparative legal analysis of major concerns that RTAs pose; third, to highlight the need to recognize and critically examine the link between the various factors that contribute in the proliferation of RTAs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".