Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005, the former Director of the WTO Appellate Body Secretariat convened a roundtable of leading experts on WTO dispute settlement to evaluate its performance in the first ten years and recommend areas for reform. This article is the chair’s synthesis of those deliberations. While the mandated review of the DSU by WTO Members concluded that the system was working well, it nonetheless generated a large number of proposals for improvements. The systemic issues addressed in this article are: reform of the WTO panel system, approaches to the interpretation of WTO agreements, implementation and compliance, and relationship between regional and multilateral trade agreements. Topics covered under these headings include inter alia: the pros and cons of a permanent panel body, provision of Secretariat advice to panels, rules of procedure and evidence, standard of review, ‘gap filling’, remedies, retaliation and its alternatives, the economics of retaliation, and is reform possible?
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 | 0.230 | 0.299 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".