Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issuing of Opinion 2/13 on the European Union’s (EU’s) accession to the European Convention on Human Rights by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), followed by Case C- 284/16 Achmea and Opinion 1/17 on the compatibility with EU law of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union (CETA), brought the concept of the autonomy of the EU legal order to the persistent limelight of scholarly attention. An important yet unanswered question that arises in the light of the CJEU’s case law is to what extent the concept of the autonomy of the EU legal order or its specific application by the CJEU has been outlived in the context of EU external relations. Closely connected to the expansion of the EU’s normative influence globally and in its neighbourhood is the necessity to set up effective institutional and procedural frameworks, including judicial protection mechanisms. The keen protection of the autonomy of the EU legal order in such instances conflicts sharply with the Union’s interests and foreign policy strategies and may well warrant a review of the current paradigm of the autonomy of the EU legal order. This article provides a critical account of the compatibility of the concept of autonomy as developed by the CJEU over the past several decades with the Union’s aspirations as a normative superpower. Autonomy, EU legal order, Opinion 2/13, Achmea, Opinion 1/17, unity, effectiveness, norms export, EU external action, European Economic Area
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".