Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article gives an introduction on the potential impact of CETA on environmental law. CETA – The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement negotiated between Canada, the European Union and its 28 Member States, still awaiting ratification – is likely to have an impact on environmental law, even if it cannot be categorized as an environmental treaty. CETA provides a definition of what environmental law means, it mentions that “it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening the levels of protection afforded in their environmental law,” it establishes a panel of experts which must have specialized knowledge or expertise in environmental law, it reaffirms “the rights of the Parties to regulate to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of public health and the environment,” it mentions that “Parties are committed to high levels of protection for the environment” but also adds that this is “in accordance to the TBT Agreement, the SPS Agreement, the GATT 1994, the GATS and this Agreement,” it contains a whole chapter on ‘Trade and Sustainable Development’ and a whole chapter on ‘Trade and Environment.’ But the question must be asked of whether it sufficiently captures and accommodates the possible confrontation between a trade vision and an investment-protection vision. In that regard, scholarship and UNEP have been long quite clear that the transition towards a greener economy, even if fully WTO-consistent, could include considerable drawbacks from the application of investment disciplines – through the possible award of substantial amounts in damages. CETA seeks definitely to carve out more space for environmental regulation within investment disciplines, but does it go far enough?
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.014 |
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".