Whither Science in WTO Dispute Settlement?

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 823-846

  Herwig, Alexia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

genetically modified organisms; legitimate risk regulation; non scientific factors; precautionary principle; scientific validity; SPS Agreement; WTO law

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009568103     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156508005402     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. J. Steele, Risks and Legal Theory (2004), 6-7, at 18-21.
2. A. Giddens, ‘Risk andResponsibility’, (1999) 62 Modern Law Review 1, at 3
3. M. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture (1982).
4. B. Wynne, ‘Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventative Paradigm’, (1992) 2 Global Environmental Change 111
5. N. Luhmann, ‘Die Beschreibung der Zukunft’, in N. Luhmann, Beobachtungen der Moderne (1992), 129, at 140-146
6. N. Luhmann, ‘Risiko und Gefahr’, in N. Luhmann, Soziologische Aufklärung 5 Konstruktivistische Perspektiven (2005), 126-128, at 130-152.
7. Luhmann, ‘Risiko und Gefahr’, 5, at 155.
8. N. Luhmann, ‘Risiko und Gefahr’, 5, at 142, 152.
9. A. Herwig, ‘The Precautionary Principle in Support of Practical Reason: An Argument against Formalistic Interpretations of the Precautionary Principle’, in C. Joerges and E. U. Petersmann (eds.), Multilevel Trade Governance, Social Regulation and the Constitutionalization of International Trade Law (2006), 301, at 314-17.
10. G. Goh, ‘Tipping the Apple Cart: The Limits of Science and Law in the SPS Agreement after Japan-Apples’, (2006) 40 Journal of World Trade 655.
11. A. Arcuri, ‘The Post-discriminatory Era of the WTO: Toward World-Wide Harmonization of Risk Law?’, working paper, 2005
12. Appellate Report, EC —Hormones, Journal of World Trade 17, at paras. 104, 172.
13. D. Victor, ‘The Sanitary and PhytosanitaryAgreement of the World Trade Organization: An Assessment after Five Years’, (2000) 32 New York University Journal of International Law and Policy, 865, at 872, 879-80, 913, 926
14. J. Söderbom, ‘Balancing National Sovereignty against Disguised Protectionism’, World International Community Experts Report, 2004
15. L. Gruszczynski, ‘The Role of Science in Risk Regulation under the SPS Agreement’, EUI Working Paper Law No. 2006/03, 2006
16. R. Howse, ‘Democracy, Science, and Free Trade: Risk Regulation on Trial at the World Trade Organization’, (2000), 98, Michigan Law Review, 2329, at 2330, 2334-8, 2341-4.
17. C. Joerges, ‘Juridification Patterns for Social Regulation and the WTO: A Theoretical Frame work’, Transstate Working Paper 17, 2005
18. C. Joerges and C. Godt, ‘Free Trade: The Erosion of National and the Birth of Transnational Governance’, in M. Zürn and S. Leibfried (eds.), Transformation of the State (2005), 93, at 111.
19. T. Makatsch, Gesundheitsschutz im Recht der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO): Die WTO und das SPS-Übereinkommen im Lichte vonWissenschaftlichkeit, Verrechtlichung und Harmonisierung (2004), passim.
20. I. Cheyne, ‘Risk and Precaution in World Trade Organization Law’, (2006) 40 Journal of World Trade 837, at 841.
21. J. Peel, ‘Risk Regulation under the WTO/SPS Agreement: Science as an International Normative Yardstick’, New York University School of Law Jean Monnet Working Paper, New York, 02/04, 2004
22. M. Echols, Food Safety and the WTO: The Interplay of Culture, Science and Technology (2001), at 3 ff. and 148
23. D. G. Mayo and R. D. Hollander (eds.), Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management (1991), 99, at 104-7.
24. D. Mayo, ‘Sociological versus Metascientific Views of Risk Assessment’, in Mayo and Hollander, 37, 252-3, at 257, 267-8.
25. D. Prévost, ‘Opening Pandora's Box: The Panel's Findings in the EC —Biotech Dispute’, (2007) 34 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 67, at 85
26. A. Herwig and T. Hüller, ‘Zur normativen Legitimität der Welthandelsordnung’, in M. Hilf and T. Niebsch (eds.), Perspektiven des internationalen Wirtschaftsrechts (2008), 117, at 154
27. G. Marceau, ‘A Call for Coherence in International Law —Praises for the Prohibition against “Clinical Isolation”in WTO Dispute Settlement’, (1999) 33 Journal of World Trade 87, at 110
28. J. Pauwelyn, ‘A Typology of Multilateral Treaty Obligations: Are WTO Obligations Bilateral or Collective in Nature?’, (2003) 14 EJIL 907, at 925-41.
29. J. Pauwelyn, ‘The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far CanWe Go?’, (2001) 95 AJIL 535, at 573-6
30. C.-D. Ehlermann and L. Ehring, ‘Decision Making in the World TradeOrganization: Is the Consensus Practice of the World Trade Organization Adequate for Making, Revising and Implementing Rules on International Trade?’(2005) 8 Journal of International Economic Law 51
31. L. Busch ‘Amicus Curiae Brief Submitted to the Dispute Settlement Panel in the Case of EC: Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products’, at 5
32. E. Millstone, E. Brunner, and S. Mayer, ‘Beyond “Substantial Equivalence”’, (1999) 401 Nature 525
33. A. O. Sykes, ‘Domestic Regulation, Sovereignty, and Scientific Evidence Requirements: A Pessimistic View’, repr. in p.C. Mavroidis and A. O. Sykes (eds.), The WTO and International Trade Law/Dispute Settlement (2005), 178, at 189.
34. D. Winickoff ‘Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk and Democracy in World Trade Law’, (2005) 30 Yale Journal of International Law 81, at 85, 93
35. P. Slovic, The Perception of Risk (2000)
36. P. Slovic, ‘Perception of Risk’, (1987) 236 Science 280.
37. O. Perez, ‘Anomalies at the Precautionary Kingdom: Reflections on the GMO Panel's Decision’, (2007) 6 World Trade Review 265, at 279
38. S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (1990), 42, 77-79
39. V. R. Walker, ‘Keeping the WTO from Becoming the “World Trans-science Organization”: Scientific Uncertainty, Science Policy and Fact-Finding in the Growth Hormones Dispute’, (1998) 31 Cornell International Law Journal 251, 280
40. K. Lehrer, A Theory of Knowledge (2000), at 97-121.
41. M. Pollack and G. Shaffer, ‘The Challenge of Reconciling Regulatory Differences: Food Safety and GMOs in the Transatlantic Relationship’, in M. Pollack and G. Shaffer (eds.), Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy (2001), 153, at 168.