Federalism and Foreign Affairs in Canada and the European Union: The Search for Equal Autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines how two federal-type polities, Canada and the European Union, have addressed the tension between international law's fundamental value of State sovereignty and the constitutional value of federalism as it is professed in domestic settings. The paper argues that in both polities, federalism is still, to a large extent, put ‘on hold’ in the area of foreign affairs. Despite an increase in international activities by Canadian provinces since the 1960s, and despite the emergence of the European Union as a foreign policy actor of significance, in constitutional terms the authority to act internationally is still to a significant extent held or controlled by the order of government recognised as a sovereign State. In contrast to Canada, however, the dominance of the sovereign State in the area of EU foreign affairs is liable to spill over into the EU's domestic constitution. This observation calls for a recalibration of the federal balance in Europe's foreign affairs constitution. Such a recalibration, it is suggested, should start by critically reappraising the use of the technique of mixity.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".