Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ambiguity still remains around the legal effects of a Member State’s withdrawal from the eu in relation to the new generation of Free Trade Agreements (‘ftas’), which are concluded as bilateral mixed agreements. Such withdrawal may have secondary implications in relation to the international obligations towards the other party of the ratified agreement. According to article 70(1)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (‘ vclt ’), the termination of a treaty under its provision releases the parties from the obligation further to perform the treaty. However, mixed agreements that are signed by both the Member State and the eu may cause complications. The obligation of sincere cooperation could play a large role in respect of the Member State’s compliance with its commitments under the agreement. Indeed, there are many concerns regarding the effect of the withdrawal on the eu and the withdrawing Member State in respect to mixed ftas. Could a withdrawal lead to an automatic termination or renegotiation of a trade agreement? Would it be possible to argue for fundamentally changed circumstances? Or could the principle of continuity in the vclt in the context of succession of states affect the outcome? This contribution aims to clarify the legal situation in regard to bilateral mixed ftas that are ratified or provisionally applied—such as the eu-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (‘ ceta ’)—in the event of a Member State’s withdrawal from the eu. It considers the Member State’s responsibilities and obligations when the withdrawal has been effectuated. Additionally, it explores the rights of the non-eu party to the agreements, as well as the consequences that the eu might face as a remaining party to the agreement.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".