From CPTPP to US–Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade: The Evolution of Good Regulatory Practices and Its Implications for Taiwan
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
This paper examines the evolution and implications of Good Regulatory Practices (GRP) – otherwise known as ‘regulatory coherence’ in international trade agreements, focusing on the US-Taiwan Initiative on twenty-first-Century Trade. By comparing GRP frameworks in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), and the US–Taiwan Initiative, the paper highlights the challenges of integrating GRP into Taiwan’s legal system. The analysis reveals significant disparities between GRP requirements and Taiwan’s existing Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in key areas such as public consultation, regulatory impact assessments (RIAs), and sunset review mechanisms. The paper also explores potential ramifications for Taiwan’s export control regime, particularly for dual-use technologies like semiconductors, revealing tensions between GRP’s transparency and public consultation demands and confidentiality needs. While GRP aims to enhance regulatory quality and facilitate trade, its implementation in Taiwan necessitates complex legislative adjustments. This paper provides a foundation for future research on aligning Taiwan’s legal framework with GRP principles, considering its unique blend of US and German legal influences. The findings have broader implications for understanding the complexities of implementing GRP across diverse legal and administrative systems globally.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it