The International Court of Justice: A Proper Forum for the Balanced Adjudication of Trade-Environment Disputes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) sometimes adjudicates cases with environmental undertones while hearing trade disputes. Considering that the DSB is mainly responsible for the application of WTO international trade rules to these cases, it is arguable whether the DSB is the most appropriate adjudicatory forum on cases with environmental undertones. The article analyses four cases decided by the DSB: (1) The United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna (Tuna-Dolphin I), (2) the United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna (Tuna-Dolphin II), (3) the European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (Biotech Product’s case), and (4) the United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (the US Shrimp case). It also analyses four cases with trade and environment considerations decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ): (1) Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan), (2) Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (Hungary v Slovakia), (3); Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua)/Construction of a road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica); and (4) Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay). From the analysis, this article finds that the ICJ, rather than the DSB, would be the appropriate arbiter of trade cases with environmental undertones. This article finds that, unlike the DSB, the ICJ has a history of balanced adjudication of cases with trade-environment conflict and appears a better fit to decide cases with elements of trade and environment. As such, this option would guarantee a more neutral avenue for the adjudication of trade-environment conflicts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".