Why Would International Administrative Activity Be Any Less Legitimate? - A Study of the Codex Alimentarius Commission

German Law Journal

Volumn 9, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 1693-1718

  Pereira, Ravi Afonso ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDADE NOVA DE LISBOA   (Portugal)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85178195596     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20718322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200000626     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. FAO and WHO, Understanding the Codex Alimentarius Commission, 7, available at: http://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/y7867e/y7867e00.pdf.
2. Eric Stein, International Integration and Democracy: No Love at First Sight, 95 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (AJIL) 489, note 2 (2001).
3. W. Bruce Trail et al., Report of the Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and Other FAO and WHO Food Standards Work, para. 76-77, available at: http://www.who.int/entity/foodsafety/codex/en/codex_eval_report_en.pdf.
4. CAC, ALINORM 07/30/REP, para. 138 and Appendix IV.
5. CAC, ALINORM 95/37, para. 25 and Appendix 2.
6. CAC, ALINORM 97/37, para. 28 and Appendix II.
7. Prior to January 2002, the Codex secretariat was not a clear separate unit within FAO and the Codex secretary was an FAO staff member with responsibilities also for FAO's other food standards work.
8. CAC, ALINORM 03/41, para. 150.
9. EC Council Decision 2003/822 of 17 November 2003, O.J. 2003 L 309.
10. CAC, ALINORM 03/41, paras. 19-24 and Appendix II.
11. In 1991, the European Community became a member of FAO alongside EC Member States.
12. CAC, ALINORM 04/27/41, para. 14 and Appendix II.
13. CAC, Rules of Procedure, Rule IX-1 and ALINORM 99/37, para. 71 and Appendix IV. However, they may not attend the sessions of the Executive Committee.
14. International Non-governmental Organizations in Observer Status with the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Report by the Secretariat (CAC/30 INF/2), available at: http://ftp.fao.org/Codex/CAC/CAC30/if30_02e.pdf.
15. CAC, ALINORM 99/37, para. 72 and Appendix IV. See List of Codex Contact Points, Report by the Secretariat (CAC/30 INF/1), available at: http://ftp.fao.org/Codex/CAC/CAC30/if30_01e.pdf.
16. Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch & Richard B. Stewart, The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, 68 LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS (LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS.) 15, 22 (2005).
17. Alexia Herwig, Transnational Governance Regimes for Foods Derived from Bio-Technology and their Legitimacy, in TRANSNATIONAL GOVERNANCE AND CONSTITUTIONALISM 199, 204 (Christian Joerges, Inger- Johanne Sand & Gunther Teubner eds., 2004).
18. José E. Alvarez, International Organizations: Then and Now, 100 AJIL 324, 333 (2006)
19. CAC, ALINORM 03/41, para. 30 and Appendix III and ALINORM 04/27/41, para. 14 and Appendix II.
20. CAC, Rules of Procedure, Rule VII-1, Rule V-3 and Rule XI-6.
21. CAC, Procedural Manual of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, 15th ed., Rome, available at: http://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/ProcManuals/Manual_15e.pdf.
22. Procedure (ALINORM 08/31/REP, Appendix VII, Part 1).
23. ALINORM 04/27/41, Appendix II. At its Thirty-first Session the Commission adopted nineteen standards with omission of steps 6 and 7 (ALINORM 08/31/REP, Appendix VII, Part 2).
24. CAC, Procedural Manual (note 27), 25. At its Thirty-first Session the Commission did not adopt any standard under the Accelerated Procedure (ALINORM 08/31/REP, Appendix VII).
25. Available at: http://www.codexalimentarius.net.
26. Thorsten Hüller & Matthias Leonhard Maier, Fixing the Codex? Global Food Safety Governance Under Review, in CONSTITUTIONALISM, MULTILEVEL TRADE GOVERNANCE AND SOCIAL REGULATION 267, 281-286 (Christian Joerges & Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann eds., 2006).
27. CAC, ALINORM 03/41, para. 146 and Appendix IV.
28. CAC, ALINORM 97/37, para. 28 and Appendix II.
29. FRANK H. KNIGHT, RISK, UNCERTAINTY AND PROFIT (1921).
30. Robert Howse, Democracy, Science and Free Trade: Risk Regulation on Trial at the World Trade Organization, 98 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 2329 (2000)
31. Dario Bevilacqua, The "EC-Biotech Case": Global v. Domestic Procedural Rules in Risk Regulation: The Precautionary Principle, 6 EUROPEAN FOOD AND FEED LAW REVIEW 331 (2006).
32. David G. Victor, The Sanitary and Phitosanitary Agreement of the WTO: An Assessment After Five Years, 32 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS 865, 886 (2000).
33. Christine Chinkin, Normative Development in the International Legal System, in COMMITMENT AND COMPLIANCE: THE ROLE OF NON-BINDING NORMS IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM 21, 31-34 (Dinah Shelton ed., 2000).
34. AB Report, EC - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/R, para. 165
35. Dario Bevilacqua, Il principio di trasparenza come strumento di accountability nella Codex Alimentarius Commission, 57 RIVISTA TRIMESTRALE DI DIRITTO PUBBLICO 651, 657 (2007).
36. AB Report, EC - Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/AB/R, para. 227.
37. Joost Pauwelyn, Non-Traditional Patterns of Global Regulation: Is the WTO 'Missing the Boat'?, in CONSTITUTIONALISM, MULTILEVEL TRADE GOVERNANCE AND SOCIAL REGULATION (note 36), at 199, 208- 215.
38. EC Regulation 852/2004 of 29 April 2004, O.J. 2004 L 139.
39. Sara Poli, The European Community and the Adoption of Food Standards within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, 10 EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 613, 616-617 (2004).
40. Case C-236/01, Monsanto Agricoltura Italy and others, 2003 ECR I-8105, para. 79.
41. Case C-196/05, Sachsenmilch, 2006 ECR I-5161, paras. 29 and 34.
42. Case 286/86, Ministère public v. Deserbais, 1988 ECR 4907, para. 15.
43. Case 192/01, Commission v. Denmark, 2003 ECR I-9693, para. 27.
44. Available at: http://www.codexalimentarius.net.
45. Ruth W. Grant & Robert O. Keohane, Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics, 99 AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW 29, 34 (2005).
46. Daniel C. Esty, Global Governance at the Supranational Scale: Globalizing Administrative Law, 115 YALE LAW JOURNAL 1490 (2006);
47. Robert D. Putnam, Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games, 42 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 427, 440 (1988)
48. THOMAS C. SCHELLING, THE STRATEGY OF CONFLICT 19-28 (1960).
49. CAC, ALINORM 99/37, para. 71 and Appendix IV.
50. Bevilacqua (note 58), at 663-664.
51. CAC (note 19). Only 9 out of 157 are consumer representatives.
52. FAO, WHO, OIE, the World Bank and the WTO have established a global program in capacity building and technical assistance called the Standards and Trade Development Facility, available at: http://www.standardsfacility.org/.
53. FAO and WHO, Enhancing developing country participation in FAO/WHO scientific advice activities, available at: http://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0873e/a0873e.pdf.
54. FAO and WHO, FAO/WHO Framework for the Provision of Scientific Advice on Food Safety and Nutrition, available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGN/agns/files/Final_Draft_EnglishFramework.pdf, 18-19.
55. Herwig (note 22), at 220.
56. FAO and WHO (note 87), 22.
57. Kingsbury, Krisch & Stewart (note 21);
58. Joanne Scott, International Trade and Environmental Governance: Relating Rules (and Standards) in the EU and the WTO, 15 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (EJIL) 307, 311-312, 330-333 (2004);
59. Michael Livermore, Authority and Legitimacy in Global Governance: Deliberation, Institutional Differentiation and the Codex Alimentarius, 81 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 766, 789 (2006).
60. Armin von Bogdandy, Law and Politics in the WTO - Strategies to Cope with a Deficient Relationship, 5 MAX PLANCK YEARBOOK OF UNITED NATIONS LAW 609, 633-641 (2001)
61. Robert Howse, From Politics to Technocracy-And Back Again: The Fate of the Multilateral Trading Regime, 96 AJIL 94, 109-112 (2002)
62. Martii Koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, available at: http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/6371023.html, 143.
63. Markus Böckenförde, Zwischen Sein und Wollen - Über den Einfluss umweltvölkerrechtlicher Verträge im Rahmen eines WTO-Streitbeilegungsverfahrens, 63 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES ÖFFENTLICHES RECHT UND VÖLKERRECHT 971 (2003)
64. Joost Pauwelyn, The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go?, 95 AJIL 535, 561-562 (2001)
65. Lorand Bartels, Applicable Law in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings, 35 JOURNAL OF WORLD TRADE 499 (2001)
66. JERRY L. MASHAW, DUE PROCESS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE 16-24 (1985).
67. Michael Stolleis, Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft und Verwaltungslehre 1866-1914, 15 DIE VERWALTUNG (DV) 45, 49-50 (1982).
68. MAX WEBER, WIRTSCHAFT UND GESELLSCHAFT 565 (1921).
69. Gerald E. Frug, The Ideology of Bureaucracy in American Law, 97 HARVARD LAW REVIEW (HARV. L. REV.) 1276 (1984)
70. Richard B. Stewart, The Reformation of American Administrative Law, 88 HARV. L. REV. 1669, 1675 (1975).
71. ARMIN VON BOGDANDY, GUBERNATIVE RECHTSETZUNG (1999).
72. Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Demokratie als Verfassungsprinzip, in I HANDBUCH DES STAATSRECHTS 887 (Josef Isensee & Paul Kirchhof eds., 1987).
73. EBERHARD SCHMIDT-AßMANN, DAS ALLGEMEINE VERWALTUNGSRECHT ALS ORDNUNGSIDEE 89 (2006)
74. Hans-Heinrich Trute, Die demokratische Legitimation der Verwaltung, in I GRUNDLAGEN DES VERWALTUNGSRECHTS 307, 311-317 (Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem, Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann & Andreas Voßkuhle eds., 2006).
75. Ulrich R. Haltern, Franz C. Mayer & Christoph R. Möllers, Wesentlichkeitstheorie und Gerichtsbarkeit. Zur institutionellen Kritik des Gesetzesvorbehalts, 30 DV 51 (1997).
76. Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem, Gesetz und Gesetzesvorbehalt im Umbruch - Zur Qualitäts-Gewährleistung durch Normen, 120 AöR 5 (2005);
77. Karl-Heinz Ladeur & Tobias Gostomzyk, Der Gesetzesvorbehalt im Gewährleistungsstaat, 36 DV 141 (2003).
78. JAMES M. LANDIS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS (1938).
79. STEPHEN G. BREYER AND OTHERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND REGULATORY POLICY 347-357 and 383-384 (2006).
80. STEPHEN G. BREYER, BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE: TOWARD EFFECTIVE RISK REGULATION (1993).
81. David Estlund, Beyond Fairness and Deliberation: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority, in DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY, 173, 181 (James Bohman & William Rehg eds., 1997).
82. Christian Joerges & Jurgen Neyer, Transforming Strategic Interaction into Deliberative Problem-Solving, 4 JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY 609 (1997).
83. Martin Shapiro, "Deliberative," "Independent" Technocracy v. Democratic Politics: Will the Globe Echo the E.U.?, 68 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 341, 351 (2005).
84. CASS R. SUNSTEIN, AFTER THE RIGHTS REVOLUTION. RECONCEIVING THE REGULATORY STATE 40-41 (1990).
85. MASHAW (note 97), at 18;
86. Andreas Voßkuhle, Sachverständige Beratung des Staates, in III HANDBUCH DES STAATSRECHTS 425, 437-438 (Josef Isensee & Paul Kirchhof eds., 2005).
87. DAVID B. TRUMAN, THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS (1951).
88. Stewart (note 100), at 1760-1813.
89. Richard B. Stewart, U.S. Administrative Law: A Model for Global Administrative Law?, 68 L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. 63, 75 (2005).
90. MARTIN SHAPIRO, WHO GUARDS THE GUARDIANS? - JUDICIAL CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATION 74-75 (1988);
91. Stewart (note 100), at 1770-1781.
92. Nico Krisch, The Pluralism of Global Administrative Law, 17 EJIL 247, 262-274 (2006).
93. Eyal Benvenisti & George W. Downs, The Empire's New Clothes: Political Economy and the Fragmentation of International Law, 60 STANFORD LAW REVIEW 595 (2007)
94. MIGUEL POIARES MADURO, WE THE COURT - THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC CONSTITUTION 103-149 (1998);
95. Miguel Poiares Maduro, Europe and the constitution - What if this is as Good as it Gets?, in EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONALISM BEYOND THE STATE 74 (Joseph H. H. Weiler & Marlene Wind eds., 2003).
96. NEIL K. KOMESAR, IMPERFECT ALTERNATIVES. CHOOSING INSTITUTIONS IN LAW, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC POLICY (1994) (developing the framework for comparative institutional analysis).
97. KOMESAR (note 121), at 255.