European Economic Constitutionalism: Constitutional Approaches to Sustainable Development?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chapter 5 describes Europe’s multilevel constitutionalism, which emerged in response to long-standing constitutional failures and ongoing struggles to protect human rights, democracy, and rule of law in the relations among the now forty-seven member states of the Council of Europe. Europe’s twenty-first-century constitutionalism aims at limiting market failures (like abuses of corporate power, social injustices), governance failures (like inadequate fiscal and debt policies, insufficient proportionality balancing), and constitutional failures (e.g. in protecting rule of law) by linking external policy reforms (e.g. for realizing climate change mitigation) to internal EU reforms (like decarbonizing the economy, strengthening health infrastructures, and human rights remedies). Constitutional approaches enable more effective protection of human rights, rule of law, and other sustainable development goals. For instance, the EU common market constitution is embedded into the European human rights constitution protecting multilevel guarantees of human rights, constitutional rights, proportionality of governmental restrictions, and judicial remedies not only inside all twenty-seven EU member states but also in the external relations of the EU. These multilevel judicial remedies were invoked by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) for confirming the legal obligations of the twenty-seven EU member states to replace investor–state arbitration in intra-EU relations among EU member states by the multilevel judicial remedies and institutional guarantees of EU law. EU constitutional law requires public law restraints on investment arbitration also in the external relations of the EU, as provided for in the EU free trade agreements with Canada, Mexico, Singapore, and Vietnam.
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 | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".