International regime conflict in trade and environment: The Biosafety Protocol and the WTO

World Trade Review

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 131-155

  Winham, Gilbert R ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84964618456     PISSN: 14747456     EISSN: 14753138     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S147474560300140X     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Abbott, K.W., R. Keohane, A. Moravcsik, A.M. Slaughter, and D. Snidal (2000), ‘The Concept of Legalization’, International Organization, 54: 401–419.
2. Bergsten, C. F. (1999), ‘America and Europe: Clash of the Titans?’, Foreign Affairs, 78(2): 20–34.
3. Bluthner, A. and R. Quick (1999), ‘Has the Appellate Body Erred? An Appraisal and Criticism of the Ruling in the WTO Hormones Case’, Journal of International Economic Law, 2: 603–639.
4. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994), ‘The Precautionary Principle in Germany-enabling Government’, in T. O’Riordan and J. Cameron (eds.), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, London: Earthscan Publications, pp. 31–60.
5. Cameron, J. and J. Abouchar (1996), ‘The Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law’, in D. Freestone and E. Hey (eds.), The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The Challenge of Implementation, The Hague: Kluwer Law International, pp. 29–52.
6. CPB (Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety) (2000a), Background, www.biodiv.org/biosafe/protocol/background.html, January 1.
7. CPB (Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety) (2000b), Press Release, www.biodiv.org/press/pr-2000-01-28-biosafety.html, 28 January.
8. Charnovitz, S. (1994), ‘The World Trade Organization and Environmental Supervision’, International Trade Reporter, 17: 89–93.
9. Codex Alimentarius (2000), ‘Communication of the European Commission on the Precautionary Principle’, Commission Document CX/GP 00/3-Added as of 2 March.
10. Coleman, W. D. and M. Gabler (2002), ‘Agricultural Biotechnology and Regime Formation: A Constructivist Assessment of the Prospects’, International Studies Quarterly, 46(4): 481–506.
11. Curzon, G. (1976), ‘The Management of Trade Relations in the GATT’, in Andrew Shonfield (ed.), International Economic Relations of the Western World 1959–1971. Vol. 1: Politics and Trade, London: Oxford University Press, pp. 141–283.
12. Eacott, E. (2000), ‘Are International Environmental Obligations under the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety Reconcilable with International Obligations under the WTO?’, Dalhousie Law School unpub. ms., 23 April.
13. Economist (1999), ‘Who’s afraid’, 19 June.
14. Eggers, B. and R. Mackenzie (2000), ‘The Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety’, Journal of International Economic Law, 3: 525–543.
15. Eichenwald, K., G. Kolata, and M. Petersen (2001), ‘Biotechnology Food: From the Lab to a Debacle’, New York Times, 25 January.
16. Gale, L. (2002), ‘Environmental NGOs’, in C. Bail, R. Falkner and H. Marquard (eds.), The Cartagena Protocol on Safety: Reconciling Trade in Biotechnology with Environment and Development, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, pp. 251–262.
17. GAO (2002), ‘Genetically Modified Foods: Experts View Regime of Safety Tests as Adequate, but FDA’s Evaluation Process Could Be Enhanced’, US General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters (GAO-02-566) in May.
18. GATT (1991), ‘United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna: Report of the Panel’, 3 September (DS21/R).
19. GATT (1994), ‘United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna: Report of the Panel’, 16 June (DS29/R).
20. Gibler, D. M. and J. A. Vasquez (1998), ‘Uncovering the Dangerous Alliances, 1498–1980’, International Studies Quarterly, 42: 785–807.
21. Haas, P.M. (ed.) (1992), ‘Special Issue: Knowledge, Power and International Policy Coordination’, International Organization, 46(1): 323–365.
22. Hagen, P. E. and J. B. Weiner (2000), ‘The Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety: New Roles for International Trade in Living Modified Organisms’, The Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 12: 697–716.
23. Haggard, S. and B. A. Simmons (1987), ‘Theories of International Regimes’, International Organization, 41(3): 491–517.
24. Hasenclever, A., P. Mayer, and V. Rittberger (1996), ‘Interests, Power, Knowledge: The Study of International Regimes’, Mershon International Studies Review, 40(2): 177–228.
25. Inside US Trade (2000), ‘US Asks EU to Clarify Precautionary Principle at Codex Meeting’, 7 April.
26. Inside US Trade (2001a), ‘Revision of EU Biotech Rules Threatens US Feed Exports’, 9 February.
27. Inside US Trade (2001b), ‘EU to Seek International Backing for Biotech Regulations’, 16 February.
28. James, C. (2002), ‘Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2001’, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, ISAAA Brief No. 24.
29. Keohane, R. and J. S. Nye (1989), Power and Interdependence, 2nd edn, Glenview, IL: Scott Forsman.
30. Keohane, R. and J. S. Nye (1984), After Hegemony, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31. Krasner, S. (1983), ‘Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables’, in Stephen Krasner (ed.), International Regimes, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
32. Kreppel, A. (2002), The European Parliament and Supranational Party System: A Study in Institutional Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Matthee, M. and D. Vermersch (2000), ‘Are the Precautionary Principle and the International Trade of Genetically Modified Organisms Reconcilable?’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12: 59–70.
34. McHughen, A. (2000), Pandora’s Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. McNeil, D. G. Jr. (2001), ‘Europe Approves Strict Food Rules’, New York Times, 15 February.
36. McNelis, N. (2000), ‘EU Communication on the Precautionary Principle’, Journal of International Economic Law, 3: 545–551.
37. McNiel, D. E. (1998), ‘The First Case Under the WTO’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement: The European Union’s Hormone Ban’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 39(4): 89–134.
38. Meyer, J. W., D. J. Frank, A. Hironaka, E. Schofer, and N. B. Tuma (1997), ‘The Structuring of a World Environmental Regime, 1870–1990’, International Organization, 51(4): 623–651.
39. Miles, E. L. et al. (2002), Environmental Regime Effectiveness: Confronting Theory with Evidence, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Moore, J. (2002), ‘China’s Double Standards over GM Foods’, Wall Street Journal, 22 July.
41. Orellana, M. (2001), ‘The EU and Chile Suspend the Swordfish Case Proceedings at the WTO and the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea’, American Society of International Law Insights, February.
42. Paarlberg, R. (2000), ‘The Global Food Fight’, Foreign Affairs, 79(3): 24–38.
43. Paarlberg, R. (2002), ‘African Famine, Made in Europe’, Wall Street Journal, 23 August.
44. Petersmann, E. (1998), ‘From the Hobbesian International Law of Coexistence to Modern Integration law: the WTO Dispute Settlement System’, Journal of International Economic Law, 1(2): 175–198.
45. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2001), Guide to US Regulations of Genetically Modified Food and Agricultural Biotechnology Products, 7 September. www.pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs>
46. Phillips, P. W. B. and W. A. Kerr (2000), ‘Alternative Paradigms: The WTO Versus the Biosafety Protocol for Trade in Genetically Modified Organisms’, Journal of World Trade, 34: 63–75.
47. Quick, R. and A. Bluthner (1999), ‘Has the Appellate Body Erred? An Appraisal and criticism of the Ruling in the WTO Hormones Case’, Journal of International Economic Law, 2: 603–639.
48. Raustiala, K. (1997), ‘Domestic Institutions and International Regulatory Cooperation: Comparative Responses to the Convention on Biological Diversity’, World Politics, 49 (July): 482–509.
49. Rosendal, G. K. (2001), ‘Impacts of Overlapping International Regimes: The Case of Biodiversity’, Global Governance, 7: 95–117.
50. Skogstad, G. (2001a), ‘Internationalization, Democracy and Food Safety Measures: The (Il)Legitimacy of Consumer preferences?’, Global Governance, 7: 293–316.
51. Skogstad, G. (2001b), ‘The WTO and Food Safety Regulatory Policy in the EU’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(3): 485–505.
52. USDA (2001), ‘Genetically Modified Foods/Novel Foods’, Office of Agricultural Affairs, US Mission to the European Union, 3 August, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
53. Winham, G. R. (1998), ‘The World Trade Organisation: Institution-Building in the Multilateral Trade System’, The World Economy, 21: 349–368.
54. WTO (1994), ‘Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’, The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: The Legal Texts, Geneva: World Trade Organization.
55. WTO (1996), ‘United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (Gasoline): Report of the Appellate Body’, WT/DS2/AB/R of 29 April, World Trade Organization, Geneva.
56. WTO (1997), ‘EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones): Report of the Panel’, WT/DS26/R/USA of 18 August, World Trade Organization, Geneva.
57. WTO (1998a), ‘EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones): Report of the Appellate Body’, WT/DS26/AB/R of 16 January, World Trade Organization, Geneva.
58. WTO (1998b), ‘United States–Import Prohibitions of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products: Report of the Panel’, WT/DS58/R of 15 May; and ‘Report of the Appellate Body’, AB-1998–4 of 12 October, World Trade Organization, Geneva.
59. WTO (1999a), ‘Japan-Measures Affecting Agricultural Products: Report of the Appellate Body’, WT/DS76/AB/R of 19 March, Geneva: World Trade Organization.
60. WTO (1999b), Trade and Environment, Special Studies 4, Geneva: World Trade Organization.
61. WTO (2000), ‘Egypt-Import Prohibition On Canned Tuna With Soybean Oil: Request for Consultations by Thailand’, WT/DS205/1 of 27 September 27, World Trade Organization, Geneva.
62. WTO (2003), ‘Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples: Report of the Appellate Body’, WT/DS245/AB/R of 26 November, World Trade Organization, Geneva.
63. Wynter, M. (1999), ‘The Use of Market Mechanisms in the Shrimp–Turtle Dispute: The WTO’s Response’, in K. Bosselmann and B. J. Richardson (eds.), Environmental Justice and Market Mechanisms, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
64. Zarrilli, S. (2000), ‘International Trade in Genetically Modified Organisms and Multilateral Negotiations: A New Dilemma for Developing Countries’, UNCTAD/DITC/TNCD/1, 5 July, UNCTAD, Geneva.