Market freedoms and 'democratically sound' re-embedding of markets?: The example of CETA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Economic globalisation and international economic constitutions are increasingly perceived to be in tension with democratic constitutional requirements. This applies particularly to the new trade and investor protection agreements of the EU, such as the ‘Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement’ (CETA) with Canada. This chapter assesses the provisions on regulatory cooperation of CETA with regard to the balance between fostering market access and enhancing the democratically legitimate consideration of other interests, such as environmental protection. To that end, it first introduces the CETA Agreement and its framework on regulatory co-operation, the institutional set-up, competences and substantive principles. Drawing from EU experience, the chapter then elaborates on legitimacy requirements for transnational economic agreements and presents relevant approaches towards achieving this aim, such as representation, horizontal legitimacy and deliberation, as well as crucial challenges, before it applies these legitimacy considerations to the CETA Agreement and its provisions on regulatory cooperation and analyses the prospects for a democratically sound re-embedding of the transatlantic market. The chapter concludes that there are serious concerns with regard to both democratic representation and precaution-oriented deliberation in regulatory committees.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".