Mediation and Arbitration in Political-Economic Relations Using the Example of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) 2020–2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consultation, mediation or arbitration are important elements of the dispute resolution system in the international environment. Both world wars of the 20th century taught societies and governments that a lack of willingness to agree and giving vent to aggression in international relations usually leads to collapse and huge losses for all participants in the conflict. Therefore, it is not surprising that after the Second World War an atmosphere of understanding developed for a series of political and economic agreements and the creation of international organisations. Organisations and agreements of a defence, political, economic, financial, cultural nature, as well as integration groupings, were created. Within the latter, free trade zones and customs unions began to gain popularity. The end of the twentieth century with its gradually increasing globalisation has further intensified the expectations of states. However, the lack of success in the area of transatlantic economic agreement did not prevent the search for free trade agreements on the North American continent. Thus was born the success of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its new incarnation, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). All of these agreements and organisations presuppose the need to implement a dispute settlement system, preferably in a non-judicial manner. Member states of these agreements, as well as economic operators acting on their behalf, can thus seek assistance in resolving disputes. The purpose of this study is to examine the dispute settlement mechanism of the USMCA. A working hypothesis can be made that the functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism avoids the escalation of economic conflicts so characteristic of the first half of the 20th century. The analysis of dispute resolution mechanisms will emphasise the identification of informal and amicable methods, such as consultation, mediation or arbitration, as it is these methods that minimise the cost of proceedings. The research carried out uses a document analysis method, a literature review and a comparative method involving case studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".