International Regulatory Cooperation in CETA: Application of the Theory of Public International Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The provisions aiming at reducing non-tariff barriers and notably regulatory differences are the main innovation in CETA and the one that presents most important economic gains. In order to promote compatibility and convergence of their regulations, the EU and Canada have established cooperation mechanisms that, for the first time, integrate guidelines regarding good regulatory policies within a trade agreement but also set up permanent institutional schemes with the objective of facilitating and promoting regulatory cooperation between the parties. Even though these regulatory cooperation mechanisms included in the new generation of trade agreements such as CETA, do not modify directly the legislative and regulatory procedures of the EU and its Members states and are presented as voluntary for the parties, the European civil society is very much concerned about them. It fears that these mechanisms will endanger European democratic principles and restrict the regulatory autonomy of the parties and notably their right to adopt rules in order to follow socio-environmental objectives. This article aims at taking these worries seriously and putting forward an analysis of the regulatory cooperation provisions within CETA which is firstly descriptive and then evaluative. This analysis follows the framework established by the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public and International Law in the context of the development of an international public law theory.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".