Survival of the World Trade Organization through Efficient Reforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Trade Organization (WTO) plays a vital role in the international trade community. As of 30 May 2020, 164 states signed the WTO agreement, i.e. USA, China, India, Japan, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Newzealand. WTO holds 98% of world trade within the international trade sector. The birth of the World Trade Organization may be traced back to the end of the Second World War. During the Second World War, for economic growth, International Trade Organization (ITO) was formed with the other two intergovernmental organizations (i.e. the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank). ITO could not succeed due to nonratification of the Havana Charter by the United States Congress. After unsuccessful of ITO, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was established to overcome the problems as observed in the ITO. However, the GATT was not free from criticisms due to different factors, i.e. misusing the rules of GATT, 80% of trade transactions were conducted through bypassing the GATT rules among the GATT member states, by not putting the contractual parties on equal footings, providing discriminatory measures towards developing and least developed countries by the developed countries etc). To overcome these obstacles of GATT, WTO came into effect on 1 January 1995. However, the USA claimed that the DSB of the WTO has performed its functions ultra vires and provided judgments against the notion of Article 3.2 of the DSU. Thus, the existence of the WTO is at risk now. Legal scholars, world leaders in G20 Osaka Summit 2019, UNCITRAL’s report and the WTO suggested for necessary and efficient reforms of the WTO. This research will examine how efficient reforms of WTO may be achieved from legal and policy perspectives for sustainable economic growth around the world.
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".