MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769123614

Constitutional Restrictions on Regulation by American States

2008· article· en· W2769123614 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel A. Farber

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationGeneral partnershipJurisdictionEuropean unionPolitical scienceBusinessInternational tradeEconomicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constitutional Restrictions on Regulation by American States Daniel Farber Today, both our economy and our ecosystem increasingly must be seen as global. Devoting equal attention to both, the 1992 Rio Declaration called for sustainable development on a global level. More specifically, Principle 12 of the Declaration endorses an open international economic system. Principle 7 requires all states to “cooperate in a spirit of global partnership” to preserve the ecosystem. Inevitably, the regulatory policies of economically important political jurisdictions, such as California and the European Union, have extra-territorial impacts. These impacts include direct effects on the practices of firms based in one jurisdiction seeking to do business in the other, and indirect effects through policy emulation, learning and coordination. These policies can also impose differential costs on local and outside firms, changing the terms of economic competition and potentially causing economic distortions. At the same time, policies may also have environmental effects in other jurisdictions, making coordination desirable. Explicit forms of cooperation between American States and other nations have also now begun to emerge. New England Governors have entered an agreement with Eastern Canadian Premiers to set goals for reducing CO2 emissions and monitor progress. 1 California has also begun a collaborative effort with the United Kingdom to aggressively pursue energy diversity and greenhouse gas limits by investigating and implementing common market-based approaches and sharing technical information and strategies. 2 In seeking to further cooperation with the EU, California legislation may encounter a variety of constitutional barriers. The purpose of this paper is to explore the constitutional restrictions on state legislation that might limit California cooperation with the EU. For instance, an otherwise desirable innovation may be inconsistent with federal law. California also may be precluded from entering into certain kinds of agreements with the EU because doing so would invade the foreign policy prerogatives of the federal government. American states are subject to three constitutional restrictions that are relevant to environmental and social regulation. The first is called the dormant commerce clause doctrine. It prohibits states from engaging in regulation that discriminates against interstate or foreign commerce or that unduly burdens such commerce. As we will see, this doctrine is analogous to EU mandates governing the free movement of goods or to WTO trade disciplines. WTO rules may themselves be a limitation on state legislation, See Eleanor Stein, Regional Initiatives to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in Michael B. Gerrard, Global Climate Change and U.S. Law 326-327 (2007). Id. at 331.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.007

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.192 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207