Prêt-à-ratifier: The CETA Decision of the French Conseil constitutionnel of 31 July 2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case note analyses the French Conseil constitutionnel's CETA decision of 31 July 2017 (ECLI:FR:CC:2017:2017.749.DC). The Conseil was the first national court to reach a substantive judgment on whether CETA was compatible with an EU Member State’s constitution, concluding that there was nothing in CETA that was at odds with French constitutional law. Given that CETA will also be subject to ex ante review at the European Court of Justice requested by Belgium, the Conseil constitutionnel’s decision is another milestone in the judicial saga surrounding CETA, but not the end of the road. The note argues that the Conseil employed a dynamic and cooperative interpretation of sovereignty and showed a strong attitude of deference both to France’s political branches and to the EU in terms of international treaty-making. There are, however, some aspects where the decision would have benefited from greater clarity. Nonetheless, instead of undermining France’s constitutional order, the Conseil confirmed the fundamental commitment of France to European integration and international cooperation. More particularly, it refrained from unduly interfering with the ability of the EU and its Member States to continue operating as a collective international actor.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".