MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379622980 · doi:10.1353/iur.2014.a838560

Focus: Labour rights and trade: raising standards for workers?

2014· article· en· W4379622980 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Union Rights · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Labor and Employment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnforcementTrade unionEuropean unionHuman rightsInternational tradeLabour lawWork (physics)DeclarationPolitical scienceSocial partnersCommitEconomicsBusinessLaw and economicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 3 Volume 21 Issue 3 2014 FOCUS ❐ TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THE LABOUR MOVEMENT Labour Rights and Trade: Raising Standards for Workers? Labour rights provisions in trade agreements have become more commonplace JEFFREY S. VOGT is Legal Advisor in the Department for Human and Trade Union Rights with the International Trade Union Confederation in Brussels imposed if a country fails to take the actions recommended by the arbitration panel. The approach taken by the EU in recent agreements is markedly different. While EU trade agreements include somewhat stronger standards than US agreements, EU ‘enforcement’ mechanisms are based entirely on dialogue and contain no dispute mechanism should that fail. The labour provisions in recent EU trade agreements, such as the EU-Korea FTA or the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (‘CETA’) between the EU and Canada require each party to ‘seek to ensure that those laws and policies provide for and encourage high levels of … labour protection, consistent with the internationally recognised standards or agreements’ and ‘shall strive to continue to improve those laws and policies ’. The concept of ‘labour’ is broader than in the US, as it also refers to the ILO Decent Work Agenda, which also contemplates social protection , social dialogue and job creation. The parties also ‘reaffirm the commitment’ under the 2006 Ministerial Declaration of the UN Economic and Social Council on Full Employment and Decent Work, as well as to commit, in accordance with their membership in the ILO and the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work to ‘respect, promote and realise’ in their laws and practices the principles concerning the ILO fundamental rights. The parties also reaffirm their commitment to effectively enforce those ILO conventions that each party has already ratified and commits to ‘make efforts’ to ratify the fundamental and ‘up-to-date’ conventions. As to implementation and enforcement, the EU-Korea FTA, for example, requires the parties to commit to ‘reviewing, monitoring and assessing the impact of the implementation’ of the agreement. It also requires a civil society forum to be convened each year including representatives from ‘domestic advisory groups’, which include labour representatives. A party may request consultations and parties are to ‘make every attempt to arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution’. If the party wants to press the matter further, it may request that the Committee on Trade and Sustainable Development be convened to find a resolution. If that fails, a panel of experts may be convened, which will examine the matter and issue a report with recommendations . However, if the party complained against refuses to act, there is no enforcement mechanism under the agreement to compel compliance. Under the CETA, a provision is included to review the effectiveness of the implementation of the trade and labour chapter, including a possible review of the measures for settling disputes. For good reason, trade unions in the US, EU and Canada continue to criticise the labour proI n 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (between Canada, Mexico and the United States) entered into force, marking the first ‘free’ trade agreement to include enforceable labour standards in addition to the numerous commercial provisions. The labour side agreement , the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation (‘NAALC’), was a last-minute deal brokered by the Clinton White House in an effort to bring sceptical Democrats in the US Congress to support the agreement. It did not require countries to raise their labour standards to a common floor, but instead to enforce one’s own laws as they related to a number of principles, which include what are now defined by the International Labour Organisation (‘ILO’) as fundamental labour rights, and to ‘strive’ to improve those laws over time. The enforcement mechanism is also limited and only violations related to occupational safety and health, child labour or minimum wage technical labour standards can be taken all the way through the dispute settlement process. No case has ever advanced beyond the first step, ministerial consultations, though public hearings have been convened to allow the parties to present evidence and establish a record after which a public report is issued with recommendations . The rationale for the NAALC was to attempt to avoid unfair...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.309 · 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