MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2492725761

Throwing Caution to the Wind: The Precautionary Principle, NAFTA and Environmental Protection in Canada

2004· article· en· W2492725761 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Paul Guy

Bibliographic record

VenueDalhousie journal of legal studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecautionary principleGovernment (linguistics)Supreme courtCorporationLawEconomicsArbitrationEnvironmental lawDamagesPolitical scienceLaw and economicsInternational trade
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the precautionary principle, the lack of full scientific certainty should not preclude measures to prevent environment degradation. This principle has been incorporated into numerous international instruments and is approaching the status of customary international law. Moreover, the Canadian government has embraced the principle and the Supreme Court of Canada recently confirmed it as a basis of environmental policy in 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société dʼ’arrosage) v. Hudson (Town). This paper examines the ability of the precautionary principle to actually function as a guide for environmental policy in light of Canadaʼs international trade obligations. In particular, it considers Canadaʼs commitments under NAFTA. Under NAFTA a wide array of possible government activity can be deemed a “trade barrier” and, under the Chapter 11 investment provisions, governments who enact such barriers are subject to binding commercial arbitration. The author critically analyzes the reasoning and implications that follow from two recent Chapter 11 cases: Ethyl Corporation v. Canada and Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico. Overall, the author concludes that despite its embrace by the international community, the Canadian government and the Supreme Court, Canada’s commitments under NAFTA effectively undercut the ability of the precautionary principle to serve as a basis of environmental policy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.208 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDalhousie journal of legal studiesSame topicInternational Arbitration and Investment LawFrench-language works237,207