To what extent does the EU usefully promote economic and social rights through human rights clauses in its trade agreements?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis evaluates the extent to which the EU usefully promotes economic and social rights (ESR) through human rights clauses (HRC) in its trade agreements. HRC establish respect for human rights as an essential element of the parties’ agreements and enable the parties to take appropriate measures in response to breaches of their obligations under HRC. HRC further provide a legal reference point for the parties’ positive measures which promote ESR within the framework of trade agreements. Given that ESR tend to be given less priority than civil and political rights (CPR) in the international community, and given that EU trade agreements have developed in a manner which has strengthened the link between trade and ESR, it is necessary to examine whether the EU is making use of the opportunities provided by HRC in its trade agreements to usefully promote ESR. Two case studies have been undertaken for this purpose, in order to analyse the measures taken by the EU to promote ESR through HRC in practice. The first case study focuses on the EU’s trade agreement with Korea, and the second case study focuses on the EU’s trade agreement with Colombia and Peru.
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 | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".