MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285476749 · doi:10.54648/trad2021014

Labelling Settlement Products: When EU Consumer Law Meets Public International Law (But Ignores International Trade Law)

2021· article· en· W4285476749 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guy Harpaz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of World Trade · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSettlement (finance)Political scienceInternational lawMunicipal lawContext (archaeology)Public lawEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How should products produced in occupied territories be labelled for export? In recent years, Courts in the UK and Canada addressed this technical yet politically-charged question, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More recently, the Court of Justice of the EU was asked to determine the mandatory requirements under EU consumer law of indication of origin of products produced in settlements situated in territories occupied by the State of Israel, namely the Golan Heights, theWest Bank and East Jerusalem. In Organisation juive européenne the Court of Justice established that although EU consumer law refers to the need to supply information regarding the country of origin or the place of provenance, those provisions should be interpreted as requiring that foodstuffs originating in an occupied territory must bear not only the indication of that territory but also the indication of that provenance (i.e. indication that it comes from an ‘Israeli settlement’). In imposing broad labelling requirements, the Court heavily relied on both the notion of ‘ethical considerations’ under EU consumer law and on international law, boldly addressing some of the contentious legal and political issues at stake. In adopting this approach, the Court contributed to the harmonious reading of EU consumer law and public international law. Yet its heavy reliance on public international law should be contrasted with its failure to rely on international trade law, a neglect that contributed to selective and discriminatory treatment of Israeli settlement products. Moreover, in imposing broad labelling requirements, the Court shifted its focus from the EU and its Member States to the ultimate EU consumers, thereby advancing the private enforcement of international law in lieu of public enforcement. settlement products; interface between public international law and international trade law, EU-Israel relations

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.043
Scholarly communication0.0330.028
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0310.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of World TradeSame topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207