Duty Evasion in Free Trade Agreements: Norm Emergence and Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the failure of states to adopt multilateral rules to address the circumvention of anti-dumping and countervailing duties, efforts have more recently been deployed by the United States to focus on the issue of ‘duty evasion’. After failed attempts to discuss the issue at the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) specifically addresses cooperation between Parties regarding information sharing and duty evasion verification requests with a view to ensuring the enforcement of trade remedy laws. Can the elaboration of duty evasion provisions in regional trade agreements facilitate the negotiation of rules to address the issue of anti-circumvention at the multilateral level? This article argues that the motivations and inherent limits underlying the USMCA duty evasion provisions are most likely to impede broad adoption at the multilateral level. It proceeds in two steps. First, while the United States is playing a pivotal role as a norm entrepreneur in the emergence of these duty evasion provisions, the article demonstrates a clear evolution in its strategy toward a populist approach to international economic policy. Second, after identifying similarities with other provisions, the article addresses the lacunae in the USMCA duty evasion provisions from a legal perspective. duty evasion, anti-circumvention, anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties, United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, World Trade Organization, norm entrepreneur, populism
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 | 0.028 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".