Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The main objective of this article is to explore the background of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) crisis using Marxist, neo-Marxist or, at least, Marxist-influenced theories of political economy and international relations. Its purpose is twofold. First, to propose an interpretation of the actual WTO crisis that will address alternative interpretations’ gaps. Second, to advance theoretical inputs founded on Marxist or Marxist-influenced writing in political economy, inputs which could be useful elsewhere in critical studies in international law. At the root of the crisis lies the functioning of neoliberalism (understood as the regime of accumulation promoted by US-dominant classes) and the institutions it uses to regulate itself, to deal with contradictions that hurt its capacity to produce profit, and to allow capital accumulation. One of the most important of these institutions, at the international level, is the WTO. We argue that neoliberalism’s incapacity to continuously provide, since the Asian crisis in 1997, a satisfying rate of profit to US capitalists (and to Western capitalists in general, even if our argument focuses on the former) lured it into a crisis. Since the WTO’s main function is to prevent neoliberalism from being hurt by contradictions that would limit its capacity to provide profits allowing capital accumulation, it was inevitable that one day or another, the struggle faced by the latter would also drag the former down in an institutional crisis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".