Implementation of the EU's geographical indications in CETA and JEFTA: EU‐Phoria or GI‐mmick?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the last two decades, the EU's foreign trade strategy shifted diametrically from the multilateral World Trade Organization to the bilateral free trade agreements (FTA) route. Accompanying this shift, the EU's regulatory ambitions became more apparent, as can be gleaned from its strategy documents. The main question is whether the EU is succeeding in effectively exporting or promoting its regulations. In this paper, we combine the two disciplines of law and international relations to gauge the EU's success in achieving its external regulatory goals through FTAs. The EU is described in the political science literature as a regulatory power which is trying to promote or export its regulations outside its own jurisdiction. Using two case studies of the recent EU FTAs with Canada and Japan, we conduct a rigorous legal analysis of these FTA texts as well as their implementation in the local jurisdiction by focusing on the area of Geographical Indications (GI). These regulations are compared with the EU's goals mentioned in its strategy documents and from interviews with EU representatives involved in the FTA negotiations. Our results show that the EU has been moderately successful in both FTAs in achieving its general goals such as equal protection for foodstuffs and alcoholic drinks, ex officio protection, and the clawback of some generic names. Overall, the EU was most successful in getting Japan to embrace an EU‐inspired sui generis GI system, whereas Canada showed less leniency and favoured its trademark system.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 it