Border carbon adjustment compliance and the WTO: the interactional evolution of law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract International law and its understanding can evolve outside of treaties, but little is known about the elements that can explain these changes. This paper looks at the debate on border carbon adjustment (BCA) compatibility with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and argues that international law depends on the actors’ perceptions, which can change over time. It applies an interactional international law framework to explain how a policy that was once deemed incompatible with WTO rules is now considered ‘WTO-compliant’ by the European Union. A discourse network analysis is conducted based on debates from the WTO and the literature over 24 years. Results show that since 2012, the legal literature has increasingly been more confident that BCA could be WTO-compatible, despite the absence of significant changes in WTO case law during the same period. This increase in support was sustained by an expanded practice of legality and a perceived lack of legality of applicable WTO rules. This research offers new insights into the dynamics of international law. It provides new methodological avenues for scholars seeking to trace the evolution of law and legal understanding through formal and informal processes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".