Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many international trade and investment agreements address human rights by creating their own rules of governance or by referring to rules of international human rights treaties. The transparency rules of those agreements are often cited as evidence of the possible incorporation of human rights provisions into the international trade regime. This chapter focuses on the economic cooperation between two developing countries, China and Peru, and examines how their domestic transparency rules and related domestic laws evolved in the context of the implementation and enforcement of international transparency laws. It reflects on how institutions operating at various levels of governance facilitated two investments by Chinese companies in Peru’s extractive industry projects, and how they responded to public requests for greater transparency in the activities of governments and investors and for broader participation of private actors in decisions regarding the socio-economic impact of investments on local communities. This chapter further considers the proliferation of transparency rules in international law by applying the discourse of multilayered governance and demonstrates that the advancement of transparency rules in the trade regime produces spillover effects beyond trade policy towards fundamental human rights. It argues that the proliferation of international transparency rules found in international trade and investment agreements provides an opportunity for domestic good governance reforms. It shows the necessity for states to establish processes and institutions capable of coordinating interaction between international trade rules and domestic policies to allow individuals and communities not only to access information about government and business trade activities but also to allow them to participate in creating these policies and actions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".