Extrapolating purpose from practice: rebalancing or inducing compliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars continue to debate over the aim of WTO remedies in light of the ambiguity of the legal texts. As Joost Pauwelyn writes, the goal of WTO remedies remains “murky and confused.” Some commentators contend that the overarching objective is, and should be, to induce compliance with WTO obligations. Others maintain that the central goal is, and should be, rebalancing – that is, to ensure that the overall balance of concessions is maintained. Rebalancing is to be achieved by permitting the successful complainant to suspend concessions in an equivalent amount. This chapter confronts the question inductively through an assessment of WTO members' practice. One method of discerning purpose is by examining members' practice, constituting the law-in-action of WTO remedies. State practice implicates, at least in part, how WTO complainants view the primary objective of WTO remedies, and, in particular, whether they focus on rebalancing or compliance. This chapter's conclusions are supported by the five case studies in this volume regarding complainants' use of retaliation, respectively covering the United States, the European Union (EU), Mexico, Canada, Brazil, and other developing country members. Our conclusions are necessarily tentative given the few cases of authorized retaliation under Article 22 of the DSU (nine disputes involving eighteen nations in 13 years), and the even smaller number actually implemented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".