The European Community and the International Trading System: A Judicial Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main focus of study in this paper is to explain why the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the various Agreements which form an integral part of the Agreement establishing the WTO raise problems and are challenges for the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ). In section II, we will see that the EC's specific problems and challenges for the European Court of Justice are related to the EC's position in the WTO. In this sense, the opinion of Advocate General Tesauro regarding Hermes International v FHT Marketing Choice is helpful for understanding the unitary character of the EC external trade relations: The Community legal system is characterized by the simultaneous application of provisions of various origins, international, Community and national; but it nevertheless seeks to function and to represent itself to the outside world as a unified system. Section III is devoted to the question of the status of international agreements in EC Law, while section IV deals with the status of the WTO in the EC legal system. The EC has been a major player in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) both before and after the creation of the WTO. It played major role in the shaping of the GATT/WTO and is a common player in dispute resolutions. The EC, together with the U.S., Japan and Canada, is one of the four major players of international trade law. The new mechanisms introduced by the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, while are not comparable to the full judicial system within the EU, have changed both the rules and legal culture concerning adjudication and enforcement obligations. Although the WTO is still an intergovernmental organization, powerful private actors have already learned to manipulate the system to reach legal adjudication under the guise of intergovernmental disputes. All these issues will be analyzed throughout this paper.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".