Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Trade Organization (WTO), once central to fostering global integration and growth, now faces profound challenges. Trade negotiations are paralyzed: the Doha Round collapsed, and members remain divided on pressing issues such as climate, digital trade, and subsidies. Since 2020, the Appellate Body has been defunct, leaving disputes unresolved and undermining trust in the system. The United States, historically the WTO’s main supporter, now disregards its rules with unilateral tariffs, while regional and bilateral agreements proliferate, fragmenting the multilateral order and disadvantaging weaker economies. The article argues that the WTO’s survival depends on moving beyond its current dysfunctions. The reliance on consensus as the basis of decision-making has become a recipe for paralysis. The author calls for greater use of multilateral agreements to break deadlock. The trade rulebook is also outdated and must be modernized, especially regarding subsidies and new challenges like digital trade and climate. Finally, the dispute settlement must be restored, whether through reforming the Appellate Body or reinforcing alternatives like the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Agreement . Ultimately, the WTO’s future hinges on its ability to adapt. This paper argues that without institutional renewal and a willingness to abandon rigid practices that no longer serve, the organization risks irrelevance in a world where trade is increasingly governed by power dynamics rather than rules.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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".