Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is a debate in World Trade Organization (WTO) law about whether the right to regulate for public interest purposes is conditioned on a requirement to do so consistently. While the early Appellate Body (AB) jurisprudence eschewed consistency testing under the formal legal test, it refrained from explicitly rejecting the practice. Subsequent AB rulings have seemingly adopted a narrow type of consistency testing through the doctrine of ‘legitimate regulatory distinctions’. A case could also be made that WTO tribunals sometimes embrace consistency testing under Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, although this is not explicitly acknowledged or universally recognized. In Seals, Canada explicitly attacked the European Union’s (EU) seal products ban for its lack of consistency with the EU’s broader animal welfare settings. This dispute provided an opportunity – indeed, an obligation – for the AB to establish a clear doctrine on consistency testing. This article argues that the AB shirked its duty through reasoning techniques that avoided meaningful engagement with the substance of Canada’s argument. The AB did not truly reject consistency testing, but its precise views are hard to glean due to reasoning that is opaque, confused and even contradictory. This article argues that there is a compelling case for consistency testing, at least in certain ‘public morals’ disputes, and that the AB should provide clearer guidance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".