Social Science Experts and Amicus Curiae Briefs in International Courts and Tribunals: The WTO Biotech Case

Netherlands International Law Review

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 433-459

  Foster, Caroline E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78049480664     PISSN: 0165070X     EISSN: 17416191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0165070X0500433X     Document Type: Review

References (120)

1. Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Canada (Canada's Request), 8 August 2003, WT/DS292/17;
2. Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Argentina (Argentina's Request), 8 August 2003, WT/DS292/19;
3. Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States (US Request), 8 August 2003, WT/DS291/17.
4. G.C. Umbricht, 'An "Amicus Curiae Brief" on Amicus Curiae Briefs at the WTO', 4 Journal of International Economic Law (2001) p. 773.
5. D. Shelton, 'The Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings', 88 AJIL (1994) p. 611.
6. see also A. Bjorklund, 'The Participation of Amici Curiae in NAFTA Chapter Eleven Cases', 22 March 2002, in Essay papers on investment protection - Ad Hoc Experts Group on Investment Rules, www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/participate-en.asp.
7. United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Panel, 15 May 1998, WT/DS58/R.
8. United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, 12 October 1998, WT/DS58/AB/R.
9. Australia - Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, Report of the Panel, 18 February 2000, WT/DS18/RW.
10. see G. Marceau and M. Stilwell, 'Practical Suggestions for Amicus Curiae Briefs before WTO Adjudicating Bodies', 4 Journal of International Economic Law (2001) p. 155.
11. P. Sutherland, et al., The Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium, Report by the Consultative Board to the Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi World Trade Organisation (2004) p. 57.
12. South West Africa cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa) (Second Phase), Judgment of 18 July 1966, ICJ Rep. (1966);
13. 37 ILR 243.
14. Shrimp-Turtle case, supra n. 4.
15. M. Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues: A Study on Evidence before International Tribunals (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1996) pp. 172-173.
16. WT/DSB/M/155.
17. WT/DS291/24, WT/DS292/18, WT/DS293/18, 5 March 2004.
18. Canada's Request; Argentina's Request; US Request, supra n. 1.
19. EC Directive 2001/18 of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, OJ L 106, 17 April 2001, p. 1
20. EEC Directive 90/220 of 23 April 1990, OJ L 117, 8 May 1990, p. 15
21. as amended by Directive 94/15, OJ L 103, 22 April 1994, p. 20
22. Directive 97/35, OJ L 169, 27 June 1997, p. 72
23. EC Regulation 258/97 of 27 January 1997, OJ L 043, 14 February 1997, p. 1
24. Canada's Request, Annex I; Argentina's Request, Annex I; US Request, Annexes I and II.
25. Argentina's Request.
26. Canada's Request; US Request.
27. Canada's Request, Annex II; Argentina's Request, Annex II; US Request, Annex III.
28. see Annex A to the Agreement, para. 1.
29. L. Busch, R. Grove-White, S. Jasanoff, D. Winickoff, B. Wynne, 'Amicus Curiae Brief: Submitted to the Dispute Settlement Panel of the World Trade Organisation in the case of EC: Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products', 30 April 2004, available on the website of the Institute for Environmental Philosophy and Public Policy (IEPPP), Furness College, Lancaster University, www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/ieppp/wtoamicus/amicus.brief.wto.pdf.
30. D. Winickoff, et al., 'Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk, and Democracy in World Trade Law', 30 Yale Journal of International Law (2005) p. 81.
31. 'Amicus Curiae Brief' submitted on 1 June 2004 by Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Friends of the Earth - United States (FOE-US), Defenders of Wildlife, Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and the Organic Consumers Association - United States (OCA-USA).
32. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at p. 8.
33. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at pp. 5, 6, 7, 8.
34. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at p. 38.
35. citing National Research Council, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (Washington, DC, National Academy Press 1996) p. ix;
36. Building Consensus through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program (Washington, DC, National Academy Press 1994) p. 26;
37. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment (Washington, DC, National Academy Press 1994) p. 267.
38. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at pp. 17-18.
39. Australia - Measures affecting importation of salmonReport of the Panel12 June, WT/DS18/R1998
40. Report of the Appellate Body, 20 October 1998, WT/DS18/AB/R.
41. European Communities - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Complaint by Canada, Report of the Panel, 18 August 1997, WT/DS48/R/CAN;
42. Complaint by the United States, Report of the Panel, 18 August 1997, WT/DS26/R/USA;
43. Report of the Appellate Body, 16 January 1998, WT/DS48/AB/R, WT/DS26/AB/R.
44. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at p. 15,
45. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at p. 44.
46. See in particular the Amicus Curiae Brief submitted on 1 June 2004, supra n. 27.
47. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at pp. 5, 44.
48. E. Fisher and R. Harding, 'The Precautionary Principle: Towards a Deliberative, Transdisciplinary Problem-solving Process', in R. Harding and E. Fisher, eds., Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle (Sydney, The Federation Press 1999) p. 290;
49. J. Cameron, 'The Precautionary Principle: Core Meaning, Constitutional Framework and Procedures for Implementation', in Harding and Fisher, ibid., at p. 56;
50. A. Klinke and O. Renn, 'Precautionary Principle and Discursive Strategies: Classifying and Managing Risks', 4 Journal of Risk Research (2001) p. 159.
51. A. Stirling, 'Risk, Uncertainty, and Precaution: Some Instrumental Implications from the Social Sciences', in F. Berkhout, et al., eds., Negotiating Environmental Change (Aldershot, Edward Elgar 2003).
52. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at p. 6.
53. citing Codex Alimentarius Commission, Report of the Twenty-Sixth Session (Rome 30 June-7 July 2003) pp. 125-129 at Art 14.
54. Hormones case, supra n. 39,
55. Appellate Body Report, paras. 193, 253(l)
56. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at pp. 20-22.
57. See also the Amicus Curiae Brief submitted on 1 June 2004, supra n. 27,
58. Amicus Coalition, supra n. 26, at pp. 30-31
59. Hormones case, supra n. 39,
60. Report of the Appellate Body, para. 124.
61. Complaint by Canada, Report of the Panel, para. 8.160;
62. Report of the Appellate Body, para. 125.
63. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at p. 37.
64. Including D. Wirth, 'The Role of Science in the Uruguay Round and NAFTA Trade Disciplines, 27 Cornell International Law Journal (1994) p. 817.
65. see: J. Scott, European Regulation of GMOs: Thinking about 'Judicial Review' in the WTO, Jean Monnet Working Paper 04/04 (New York, NYU School of Law 2004);
66. J. Peel, Risk Regulation Under the WTO SPS Agreement: Science as an International Normative Yardstick?, Jean Monnet Working Paper 02/04 (New York, NYU School of Law 2004);
67. C.E. Foster, Delineating the Competence of International Tribunals in Disputes involving Scientific Uncertainty: Proportionality in WTO and EC Law, paper presented to Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law 11th Annual Meeting, Wellington, 4 July 2003;
68. M. Trebilcock and J. Soloway, 'International Trade Policy and Domestic Food Safety Regulation: The Case for Substantial Deference by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body under the SPS Agreement', in D. Kennedy, et al., eds., The Political Economy of International Trade Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2002);
69. S.P. Croley and J.H. Jackson, 'WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Governments', 90 AJIL (1996) p. 193.
70. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at p. 28.
71. European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos - Containing Products, Report of the Panel, 18 September 2000, WT/DS135/R;
72. Report of the Appellate Body, 12 March 2001, WT/DS135/AB/R.
73. Report of the Appellate Body, para. 192(b)(c)(d)(e).
74. The EC strongly, but unsuccessfully, objected to this view in the Hormones case (Complaint by Canada, Panel Report, paras. 5.4, 5.12;
75. Appellate Body Report, para. 148),
76. and again in Asbestos (Panel Report, paras. 5.1, 5.4, 5.12, 5.17, 5.18, 8.10).
77. see T. Christoforou, 'WTO Panels in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty', in F. Weiss, ed., Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: Issues and Lessons from the Practice of other International Courts and Tribunals (London, Cameron May 2000) p. 243.
78. see also J. Pauwelyn, 'The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures As Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes: EC-Hormones, Australia-Salmon and Japan-Varietals', 2 Journal of International Economic Law (1999) p. 641 at p. 661.
79. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at p. 41.
80. Hormones case, Complaint by Canada, Report of the Panel, supra n. 39;
81. Complaint by United States, Report of the Panel, supra n. 39.
82. see C. Foster, 'Case study: EC Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)', in 'Evidence before International Courts and Tribunals, a pilot project carried out by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law', British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2002.
83. Hormones case, Complaint by Canada, Transcript of the Joint Meeting with Experts, to be found in the Report of the Panel, supra n. 39, at para. 170.
84. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at pp. 24, 25, 26
85. Hormones case, Report of the Appellate Body, supra n. 39, at para. 187.
86. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at p. 24.
87. S. Jasanoff, 'Introduction: Learning from Disaster', in S. Jasanoff, ed., Learning from Disaster: Risk Management after Bhopal (Philadelphia, University of Pennysylvania 1994) ch. 1.
88. see P. Van den Bossche, 'Appellate Review in WTO Dispute Settlement', in Weiss, op. cit. n. 76, at p. 305.
89. Supra n. 73.
90. G.M. White, The Use of Experts by International Tribunals (Syracuse, NY, Syracuse University Press 1965).
91. see G.A. Zonnekeyn, 'The Appellate Body's Communication on Amicus Curiae briefs in the Asbestos Case: An Echternach Procession?', 35 Journal of World Trade (2001) p. 553;
92. A.E. Appleton, 'Amicus Curiae Submissions in the Carbon Steel Case: Another Rabbit from the Appellate Body's Hat?', Journal of International Economic Law (2000) p. 691.
93. In United States - Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom, WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted 7 June 2000
94. The Appellate Body has continued to show itself prepared to accept amicus briefs, including European Communities - Export Subsidies on Sugar, Report of the Appellate Body, 28 April 2005, WT/DS265/AB/R; WT/DS266/AB/R; WT/DS283/AB/R.
95. The five-person brief, supra n. 25, at p. 41.
96. Report of the Appellate Body, supra n. 39, at para. 253(j).
97. Rosenne's the World Court: What It is and how It Works, edited, revised, and updated by Terry D. Gill, with the assistance of Harm Dotinga, Erik Jaap Molenaar, Alex Oude Elferink, (Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff 2003) p. 122.
98. see P.V. Eijsvoogel, ed., Evidence in International Arbitration Proceedings (London, Graham and Trotman 1994) p. 22;
99. P. Sanders, 'Commentary on UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules', 2 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (1997) p. 172.
100. R. Plender, 'Procedure in the European Courts: Comparisons and Proposals', 267 Receuil des Cours (1997) p. 154;
101. K.P.E. Lasok, Law and Institutions of the European Union, 7th edn. (London, Butterworths 2001) p. 297.
102. The Corfu Channel case (United Kingdom v. Albania), Order of 17 December 1948, ICJ Rep. (1947-1948) p. 124;
103. Judgment of 9 April 1949, ICJ Rep. (1949) p. 2.
104. Behring Fur-Seal Arbitration (Great Britain v. United States of America), 1 Moore International Arbitrations p. 945.
105. UNCC Expert Report Claims Against Iraq (Category 'C' Claims) (Report and Recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners concerning the First Instalment of Individual Claims up to US $100 000), 2 September 1994, 109 ILR p. 205 at p. 425.
106. Case concerning certain German interests in Polish Upper Silesia, 25 May 1926, [1926] PCIJ Ser. A, No. 7, pp. 13, 51 et seq.;
107. N.H. Alford, 'Fact Finding by the World Court', 4 Villanova Law Review (1958) p. 68;
108. D.V. Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals (Charlottesville, NY, University Press of Virginia 1975) p. 332.
109. South West Africa cases, supra n. 6.
110. Sandifer, op. cit. n. 102, at p. 468.
111. ICJ Pleadings, South West Africa cases, Vol. X, p. 341 at pp. 345, 346.
112. For further discussion, see P. Jessup, 'Foreword', in Sandifer, op cit. n. 102, at p. x;
113. Sandifer, ibid., at pp. 340-341;
114. G. Schwarzenberger, International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (London, Stevens and Sons 1986) pp. 648, 649;
115. K. Highet, 'Evidence, the Chamber, and the ELSI Case', in R.B. Lillich, ed., Fact-Finding before International Tribunals: Eleventh Sokol Colloquium (Ardsley-on-Hudson, NY, Transnational Publishers 1991) p. 33 at pp. 360-361.
116. ITLOS/PV.99/20, 18 August 1999, p. 38, line 27;
117. Southern Bluefin Tuna cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Order of 27 August 1999, 38 ILM (1999) p. 1624, para. 25.
118. M. Damaska, Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven, Yale University Press 1997) p. 96.
119. (Ireland v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Final Award, 2 July 2003, 42 ILM (2003) p. 1116,
120. Oral proceedings, Day 1, pp. 84 et seq.