The Inclusion of Sustainable Development into New-Generation FTAS – What Can be Expected in Reserving Nations’ Rights to Regulate?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The last decade has seen a growing trend towards the combination of sustainability, in which environmental protection is the most important, with trade in both regional and international forums. Indeed, the term “sustainable development”, which rarely appeared in “traditional” trade or investment agreements, is easy to be found in many new-generation agreements such as CP-TPP or a series of FTAs recently signed by the EU with its partners such as Canada, Singapore and Vietnam. It has been observed that the interaction between sustainable development and trade-investment, especially via dispute settlement activities, has been intensively studied. However, as the combination of sustainability in FTA has just been promoted recently with the aim to tackle the abovementioned issue. The provisions on sustainable and environmental protection are included in the new generation FTA, i.e. CP-TPP, EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, EU-Singapore FTA and EU-Vietnam’s FTA. These sustainability-support regulations help to confirm the right of the hosting state to set its own levels of domestic protection in the environmental and social areas as well as to build and follow its own environmental policies. However, these provisions are still general compared to the set of trade-investment rules/obligations under the trade-investment agreements. The aim of this paper is to find out the meaning and status of the sustainability-support regulations under trade-investment agreements. It examines these provisions in light of maintaining countries’ right to protect the environment under abovementioned preferential trade-investment agreements in order to critically evaluate the effect of these rules on future measures of relevant countries to protect the environment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".