Environmental Risk, Precaution, and Scientific Rationality in the Context of WTO/NAFTA Trade Rules

Risk Analysis

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 461-469

  Crawford Brown, Douglas ^a   Pauwelyn, Joost ^b   Smith, Kelly ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; INTERNATIONAL TRADE; PUBLIC POLICY;

SCIENTIFIC RATIONALITY; WTO;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL RISK; NAFTA; RISK ASSESSMENT; WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH HAZARD; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION;

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES; INTERNATIONALITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 2442530915     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00449.x     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Atik, J. (1996, 1997). Science and international regulatory convergence. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, Winter-Spring, 736.
2. Pauwelyn, J. (1999). The WTO Agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures as applied in the first three SPS disputes: EC-hormones, Australia-Salmon and Japan-Varietals. Journal of International Economic Law, 2, 641.
3. WTO. (1995). WTO agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. In The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, vol. 69 (p. 69). WTO Secretariat.
4. NAFTA. (1993). Sanitary and phytosanitary measures. International Legal Materials, 32, ch. 7, sec. B, p. 605.
5. Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. Crawford-Brown, D. (1999). Risk-Based Environmental Decisions: Methods and Culture. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
7. Appellate Body Report. (1998). EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products. WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R. Adopted February 13, 1998, DSR 1998:I, 135.
8. Commission of European Communities. (2000). Communication on Precautionary Principle. Available at http:// www.europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/press/press38_en.html.
9. National Academy of Sciences. (1994). Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington: National Academy Press.
10. Appellate Body Report. (1998). Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon. WT/DS18/AB/R. Adopted November 6, 1998.
11. Toulmin, S. (1961). Foresight and Understanding. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
12. Bunge, M. (1987). Seven desiderata for rationality. In J. Agassi & I. Jarvie (Eds.), Rationality: The Critical View (pp. 5-16). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
13. Alston, W. (1985). Concepts of epistemic justification. Monist, 68, 57-89.
14. Pauwelyn, J. (2002). The use of experts in WTO dispute settlement. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 51, 325-364.
15. Jasanoff, S. (1991). Acceptable evidence in a pluralistic society. In D. Mayo & R. Hollander (Eds.), Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management. (pp. 31-47).
16. Appellate Body Report. (1999). Japan-Measures Affecting Agricultural Products ("Japan-Varietals"). WT/DS76/AB/R. Adopted March 19, 1999.
17. Pauwelyn, J. (1998). Evidence, proof and persuasion in WTO dispute settlement, who bears the burden? Journal of International Economic Law, 1, 227-258.
18. Appellate Body Report. (1997). United States-Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India. WT/DS33/AB/R and Corrollary1. Adopted May 23, 1997, DSR 1997:I, 323.
19. Loevinger, L. (1995). Standards of proof in science and law. Jurimetrics, 32, 323, 333.
20. Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.