Chapter 18. Shrimp And Turtles: What About Environmental Embargoes Under Nafta?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As in the Tuna-Dolphin and Shrimp-Turtle cases, the critical North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) environmental issue relates to productive processes. To what extent does NAFTA allow the United States to impose environmental embargoes or sanctions on Mexican or Canadian goods for process-related reasons? And to what extent is that an improvement over World Trade Organization (WTO) jurisprudence as developed by the Tuna panels and the Appellate Body in the Shrimp-Turtle decision? These crucial questions determine whether NAFTA is, as claimed, truly an environmentally friendly agreement. This chapter states that, despite the impassioned pleas to the contrary by NAFTA proponents during the debate leading to the treaty's adoption by the U.S. Congress, NAFTA's advantages on environmental issues are illusory-including the much-heralded founding of the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). Keywords: Appellate Body; Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC); environmental embargoes; North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); Shrimp-Turtle case; Tuna-Dolphin case; United States; World Trade Organization (WTO)
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".