Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the financial collapse, after Al-Qaida and Abu Ghraib, after the Arab Spring, it is easy to forget how central the WTO once was to debates about globalisation and justice. Throughout the 1990s, organisations and movements concerned with social and environmental well-being focused many of their critiques on the WTO. This opposition culminated in the protests that filled the streets of Seattle on the eve of the millennium. Scholars and policy-makers, including many lawyers, debated whether the WTO’s mandate could be reconciled with human rights or with sustainable development. Together, these diverse actors mounted a broad challenge to the legitimacy of international trade law and its institutions. This turn-of-the-millennium legitimacy crisis provides the starting point for Andrew Lang’s inquiry in World Trade Law after Neoliberalism. However, Lang’s analysis of this crisis—and of responses to it—has a significance that extends beyond trade law: it represents an important demonstration of how legal analysis can contribute to a better understanding of contemporary global governance. Moreover, Lang’s account of changing legal theories and methods enables him to offer normative suggestions for the renewal of the trade regime. Lang situates his analysis of this legitimacy crisis within a historical account of ideational changes in and around the world trading system. Central to Lang’s historical account is the shift, beginning in the 1970s, from postwar ‘embedded liberalism’ to neoliberalism. Lang emphasises how this shift brought about an expansion of the scope of trade disciplines. The postwar GATT had mainly focused on the elimination of ‘border’ barriers, such as tariffs and quotas, or other measures with an evidently discrimina-
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".