The Jurisprudence of the World Trade Organization in 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The year 2013 was less busy than previous years for WTO dispute settlement. WTO Members filed 20 notifications of “requests for consultations”, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established twelve new dispute settlement panels, adopted three panel reports and one Appellate Body report. While few in number, the cases adjudicated in 2013 are of considerable importance. For the first time, a panel and the Appellate Body in Canada – Feed-In Tariff Program ventured into the uncharted waters of trade in energy, in particular the legal status of renewable energy and measures of support to enhance its contribution to the energy mix. Secondly, the panel in EC – Seal Products recognized that public morals of an importing country relating to processing products in the country of origin is a legitimate concern, which may restrict imports. It will be interesting to see how the Appellate Body rules on the point in 2014. It will be crucial in assessing so-called production and process methods (PPMs), which are also essential for environmental and human rights protection. It is noteworthy in the context of this report that both panels were chaired by Swiss nationals. Thirdly, the 2013 case law on anti-dumping, in the panel reports China – X-Ray Equipment and China – Broiler Products, had its focus on China, strengthening the rule of law in Chinese anti-dumping determinations and procedures.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".