Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente artigo visa analisar a temática da influência do Parlamento Europeu na orientação do processo negocial do Acordo Económico e Comercial Global entre a União Europeia e o Canadá, vulgarmente denominado de CETA. Em particular, destaca-se uma matéria em que a pressão exercida pelo Parlamento Europeu foi determinante: a exigência da eliminação do sistema de arbitragem privada (doravante, ISDS). O ISDS trata-se de um mecanismo para a resolução de litígios entre os investidores e os Estados que data de finais da década de 60, tendo, entretanto, generalizado-se a ideia de que este sistema padecia de vários problemas. Assim, após a conclusão das negociações do CETA, e em virtude da pressão do Parlamento Europeu e da opinião pública, o “velho ISDS” foi substituído por um sistema público de arbitragem, designado de Investment Court System. Para se compreender o motivo de a larga maioria dos deputados europeus ter considerado este acordo merecedor de um voto favorável, importa ter presente que a versão final do texto submetido a votação é substancialmente diferente daquele que constava das suas versões iniciais. Na introdução, o artigo em referência apresenta o enquadramento jurídico do papel do Parlamento Europeu na negociação e ratificação dos acordos comerciais celebrados pela União Europeia e descreve, de seguida, os termos da intervenção do Parlamento Europeu no caso concreto do CETA. No contexto deste último ponto, o artigo aborda, num primeiro momento, os temas da transparência e da participação da sociedade civil e, num segundo momento, relata o processo de eliminação do sistema privado de ISDS no CETA. Por último, conclui-se com a avaliação sumária das oportunidades que o acordo CETA representa para a União Europeia e, sobretudo, para Portugal. | CETA: The European Parliament made the difference. This article examines the influence of the European Parliament in driving forward the negotiation process of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the European Union and Canada (CETA). In particular, it highlights that it was the pressure of the European Parliament that made all the difference on a crucial point: the request to remove the private arbitration system (ISDS). The ISDS is an Investor-State dispute settlement mechanism that dates back to the late 1960’s. However, there is, and rightly so, a growing awareness of problems stemming from these kind of systems. After the formal conclusion of the CETA negotiations, and in reaction to pressure from the European Parliament and public opinion, the "old ISDS", that was included in the preliminary versions of the agreement, was replaced by a public arbitration system, called Investment Court System (ICS). As a consequence, the final text put to a vote in the European Parliament was substantially different from the initial versions, which is why a clear majority of MEPs supported the final agreement. In the introduction, this article starts by setting out the legal rules guiding the role of the European Parliament in the negotiation and ratification of trade agreements concluded by the European Union. Subsequently, it describes the terms of the European Parliament's intervention in the case of CETA. Here, the article focuses firstly on the topics of transparency and participation of civil society. Secondly, it sets out how the private ISDS system was removed and it was replaced by the ICS in CETA. Finally, a brief assessment is made of the opportunities that the CETA agreement represents for the European Union and, above all, Portugal.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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 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".