The EU-Canada CETA and the diversity of cultural industries: hegemony or resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), between Canada and the European Union (EU), was leaked to the public opinion in August 2014 after five years of negotiations. The consolidated CETA text was not released until the end of last September, raising deeper issues about the secrecy and democratic deficit surrounding the agreement. \nAs some have already noted (notably civil society organizations), this treaty is about much more than trade. Even though the preamble states that it aims to streghthen though the preamble states that it though the preamble states though that the preamble states that it aims to strengthen economic relationships, the text includes an explicit reference to the commitments of both Parties to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions andunderlies their right to preserve, develop and implement their cultural policies, and to support their cultural industries for the purpose of strengthening the diversity of cultural expressions and preserving their cultural identity (including the use of regulatory measures and financial support). Beyond these intentions enunciated in the preamble, there are only five chapters containing articles exempting culture (Subsidies, Investment, Cross--‐ Border Trade in Services, Domestic Regulation and Government Procurement). Therefore, the text lacks a general exception clause protecting culture. \nThe question about the capacity of this free trade agreement to actually protect and promote the diversity of culture is therefore valid because, for example, whereas for the EU the exception applies only to audiovisual services, for Canada it covers all Cultural industries (as usually defined in its trade agreements). Is this a missed opportunity for both Canada and the EU to safeguard culture from trade, to reconcile rules of free trade and cultural policies? Can the inclusion of the UNESCO Convention in the CETA text help counterbalance and resist those of free trade that undermine necessary and legitimate cultural policies and regulations aiming to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions? \nThis contribution will aim to explore answers to these questions taking the consolidated CETA text as a point of departure. After providing contextual information about the agreement itself and its evolution, key points concerning cultural exemptions will be examined with a political economy perspective to clarify up to what extent there will be room for manoeuvre to political actually protect and promote the diversity of cultural industries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".