Environmental Protection in Trans-Atlantic (CETA) and North-Atlantic (USMCA) Megaregional Agreements: Towards Greater Integration and Regulatory Convergence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States and Canada (“CETA”), and the recently adopted United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (“USMCA”) pro- vide for a great opportunity to reform in a more sustainable direction the eco- nomic domestic regulatory practices as well as the trade and investment relation- ships among some of the most influential states and regions of the world. This study analyzes how these agreements integrate environmental concerns with their still mainstream economic objectives. Fur- thermore, it shows the similarities and differences between the two treaties, in search of common, “transatlantic” rules for the protection of the environment. To draw a more comprehensive picture, it examines substantive standards as well as institutional and procedural aspects re- lating to environmental matters in light of their interdependent connection. After describing the rise of so-called “mega- regional” agreements, the second part looks at the environmental provisions in both CETA and USMCA. The third part examines the innovative chapter on good regulatory practices and cooperation that has important implications for environ- mental protection. The fourth part con- siders how these agreements clarify and narrow the scope of substantive stan- dards of investment protection and their effects on environmental matters. The fifth part addresses selected institutional and procedural matters relating to the enforceability of environmental obliga- tions and their relationship with inves- tor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The final section concludes by showing two trends: the first one is a still incomplete “top-down” harmonization of substantive environmental clauses and investment protection standards between the exam- ined regulatory regimes; the second one is an emerging, potentially promising and long-lasting “bottom-up” alignment on procedural aspects and cooperation on States Parties’ regulatory processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".