Reconstructing science: The hormone conflict between the EU and United States

European Foreign Affairs Review

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 563-582

  Perez, Oren ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937261655     PISSN: 13846299     EISSN: 18758223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.54648/eerr1998037     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. see: www.wto.org.
2. For a detailed account of the history of the dispute see: H. Hammonds, 'A US perspective on the EC Hormone Directive', 11 Michigan Journal of International Law (1990) 840-844;
3. W. P. Meng, 'The Hormone conflict between the EEC and the United States within the context of GATT', ibid.: 819-839.
4. see Case 68/86 United Kingdom v. Council [19881 ECR 855.
5. R. E. Hudec, Enforcing International Trade Law: The Evolution ofthe Modern GATTLegal System (Butterworth Legal Publishers, Salem, NH 1993), 545.
6. See the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization,Art. II:4.
7. see E.-U. Petersmann, 'The transformation of the world trading system through the 1994 Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization', 6 European Journal oflnternational Law (1995) 161-221.
8. See J. Pelkrnans, 'The new approach to technical harmonization and standadization' 25 Journal of CommonMarket Studies (1987) 249-269.
9. See H. L. Feldman, 'Science and uncertainty in mass exposure litigation' 74 Texas Law Review (1995) 1-48 at 9-16.
10. See: B. Wynne, 'May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide' in S. Lash et a1 . (eds.) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology (Sage, London 1996), 44-83.
11. See K. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (Penguin Books, London 1991) 761-800;
12. M. Douglas, 'Risk as a forensic resource' 119(4) Daedalus (1990) 1-16 at 48 .
13. See for example: A. Giddens, 'Risk society: the context of British politics' in J. Franklin (ed.) The Politics of Risk Society (Polity Press, Cambridge 1998), 23-34 at 24;
14. N. Luhmann, Risk: A Sociological Theoly (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1993), 28.
15. See E. Ohanian et al.,'Risk characterization: a bridge to informed decision making', 39 Fundamental and Applied Toxicology (1997) 81-88 at 83.
16. See Feldman 1995, op. cit.;J. V .Rodricks and S. H. Rieth, 'Toxicological risk assessment in the courtroom: are available methodologies suitable for evaluating toxic tort and product liability claims?' 27 Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (1998) 21-31.
17. See G. Teubner, "'Global Bukowina": Legal Pluralism in the World Society', in G. Teubner (ed.) Global Law Without a State (Dartmouth, Aldershot 1997), 3-30.
18. For a more detailed account of the EC's bilateral strategy see Community external trade policy in the field of standards and conformity assessment, Commission Communication, COM (96) 564 final, 13November 1996.
19. See, for example, J. H. Weiler, 'Does Europe need a constitution? Reflections on demos, telos and ethos in the German Maastricht decision' in Gowan and Anderson (eds.) The Question of Europe (Verso, London 1997),265-294.
20. See, for example: R. Grove-White 'Environmental knowledge and public policy needs: on humanising the research agenda' in Lash et a1 (eds.), op. cit., 269-286;
21. B. Wynne 'Frameworks of rationality in risk management: towards the testing of naive sociology' in J. Brown (ed.) Environmental Threats: Perception, Analysis and Management (Belhaven, London 1989), 3347 .
22. For a critique of pluralism in this context see: M. Angel], Science on Trial: the Clash ofikfedical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case (W.W. Norton and Co, New York 1996) 177-209;
23. P. W. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science In the Courtroom (Basic Books, New York 1991) 198-204.
24. see: G. Teubner, Law as an Autopoietic System (Blackwell, Oxford 1993), 13-24.