A Right Unexercised Is a Right Lost? Abolishing Antidumping in Regional Trade Agreements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Note considers the six regional trade agreements (RTAs) in which antidumping is prohibited: the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, European Free Trade Association (EFTA)-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, EFTA-Chile Free Trade Agreement, and the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangements between China and Hong Kong and China and Macau. Using these agreements as case studies, the Note argues that, although antidumping provisions generally serve an important role in RTAs, in certain extraordinary cases, antidumping is neither necessary nor useful. These cases arise where the RTA parties have a very limited trading relationship, simply do not use trade remedies, or have an otherwise extraordinary relationship. In any case, antidumping has become an unexercised right as between the parties. The Note thus rejects alternative theories that look to decreased opportunities for arbitrage, trade “attrition,” or a “broader push for integration” to explain the parties’ willingness to prohibit antidumping. Finally, in these cases, competition law, although seldom utilized, serves an important function by serving as a backstop against potential future dumping activity.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it