The implications of WTO retaliation to private economic actors : to what extent state liability is accomplished?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The WTO dispute settlement system recognizes trade retaliation under Article 22 (2) of DSU to induce scofflaw party of WTO dispute to comply with the DSB Decision.However, trade retaliation under the DSU rules lacks any duty to mitigate the economic or social consequences to private economic actors who conduct their economic activities under the WTO Agreements.Many of these actors will be innocent of any responsibility for the WTO violation that underlies the case.Banana case (EU v. US) and FSC/ETI case (US v. EU) were example of WTO cases from where these actors bear the cost of trade damage caused by the retaliation.Trade damage that is borne by these actors substantially infringed their rights to gain benefits under the WTO Agreement.They therefore seek the possibility to obtain compensation by recourse to national litigations.State liability principle may be viewed as a feasible principle to ensure these actors to obtain redress when their rights are infringed by the disobedience of their governments to WTO rules.Hence, the national judicial body is obliged to perform the function of state liability to rectify and to compensate the damage accruing to these actors.This research is pertinent to seek the answer to what extent is state liability accomplished when the private economic actors are badly affected by the WTO retaliation.However the lack of direct-effect to WTO Law and DSB Decision prevent these actors to obtain compensation for trade damage caused to them.To this end, this research also seek alternative solution to induce national litigation to determine a sole concern on infringement of individual right in order to imply state liability principle
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".