Scientific Evidence Rule under the SPS Agreement
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
초록
In determining legitimacy of Members’ domestic SPS measures, particularly, in cases where the protection levels chosen by Members are higher than that of international standards, scientific evidence has been employed as an essential yardstick by the dispute settlement body. Generally, sufficient scientific evidences should include conducting of proper risk assessments that evaluate the degree of risks related to SPS measures and the rational or objective relationship between the risk assessment and the measure at issue. The judicial interpretation of the term of “scientific evidence” under the SPS Agreement has generally been attempted to be made liberally. The Appellate Body reviewed that “sufficient scientific evidence” is not a static or determined set of knowledge, but rather an integrated consideration of proportionality between Members’ SPS measures and the level of protection they prefer to adopt, as well as those non-scientific factors including economic situations and social values. However, those attempts of the Appellate Body directing to a liberal interpretation ended up with a fairly narrow and strict application in real disputes by adding other stringent requirements that is barely easy to meet. The current interpretation and application of the term “sufficient scientific evidence” has arguably been criticized to be too severe by the free-trade supporters, and at the same time, too obscure by the health-related environmental protectionisms. To make interpretation of the term “sufficient scientific evidence” truly liberal, providing Members with more deference on adopting their SPS measures, the Appellate Body shall clarify a point of equilibrium where it can properly realize the dual objectives of promotion of liberalized trade and the improvement of the public health of its Members at the same time, and then, to establish a set of detailed standards that would be helpful to achieve such objectives.
Abstract
In determining legitimacy of Members’ domestic SPS measures, particularly, in cases where the protection levels chosen by Members are higher than that of international standards, scientific evidence has been employed as an essential yardstick by the dispute settlement body. Generally, sufficient scientific evidences should include conducting of proper risk assessments that evaluate the degree of risks related to SPS measures and the rational or objective relationship between the risk assessment and the measure at issue. The judicial interpretation of the term of “scientific evidence” under the SPS Agreement has generally been attempted to be made liberally. The Appellate Body reviewed that “sufficient scientific evidence” is not a static or determined set of knowledge, but rather an integrated consideration of proportionality between Members’ SPS measures and the level of protection they prefer to adopt, as well as those non-scientific factors including economic situations and social values. However, those attempts of the Appellate Body directing to a liberal interpretation ended up with a fairly narrow and strict application in real disputes by adding other stringent requirements that is barely easy to meet. The current interpretation and application of the term “sufficient scientific evidence” has arguably been criticized to be too severe by the free-trade supporters, and at the same time, too obscure by the health-related environmental protectionisms. To make interpretation of the term “sufficient scientific evidence” truly liberal, providing Members with more deference on adopting their SPS measures, the Appellate Body shall clarify a point of equilibrium where it can properly realize the dual objectives of promotion of liberalized trade and the improvement of the public health of its Members at the same time, and then, to establish a set of detailed standards that would be helpful to achieve such objectives.
참고문헌 (23)
- Bhagwati, Jagdish N., "Fair Trade and Harmonization: Prerequisites for Free Trade? Vol. 2", MIT Press
- Matsushita, Mitsuo, "The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy", Oxford University Press, 38 (2003)
- Scott Joanne, "The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures", Oxford University Press, 1 (2007)
- Bohanes, Jan, "Risk Regulation in WTO Law: A Procedure-Based Approach to the Precautionary Principle", Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 40 (2002)
- Howse, Robert, "Democracy, Science, and Free Trade: Risk Regulation on Trial at the World Trade Organization", Michigan Law Review, 98 (2000)
- Gruszczynski, Lukasz, "Science in the Process of Risk Regulation under the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures", German Law Journal, 7(4) (2006)
- The Role of Science in Risk Regulation under the SPS Agreement, "Gruszczynski, Lukasz", EUI, ~, pp.EUI Working Papers 25 (2006)
- Peel, Jacqueline, "Science and Risk Assessment in International Environmental Law: Learning from the WTO SPS Experience", American Society of International Law Proceeding, 통권 : 98 (2004)
- Risk Regulation under the WTO SPS Agreement: Science as an International Normative Yardstick?, "Peel, Jacqueline", Jean Monnet, ~, pp.Jean Monnet Working Paper 11 (2002)
- Sykes, Alan O., "Domestic Regulation, Sovereignty, and Scientific Evidence Requirements: A Pessimistic View", Chicago Journal of International Law, 3 (2002)
- Walker, Vern R., "Keeping the WTO from Becoming the 'World Trans-science Organization': Scientific Uncertainty, Science Policy, and Fact-finding in the Growth Hormones Dispute", Cornell International Law Journal, 31 (1998)
- WTO Appellate Body Report, European Communities–Measures Concerning Meat and Products, "WTO", WTO, ~, pp.WT (1998), DS26[DOI]
- WTO Appellate Body Report, United States–Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, "WTO", WTO, ~, pp.WT (1998), DS58[DOI]
- WTO Appellate Body Report, Australia-Measures Affecting Importing of Salmon, "WTO", WTO, ~, pp.WT (1998), DS18[DOI]
- WTO Appellate Body Report, Japan-Measures Affecting Agriculture Products, "WTO", WTO, ~, pp.WT (1999), DS76[DOI]
- WTO Appellate Body Report, Japan-Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples, "WTO", WTO, ~, pp.WT (2003), DS245[DOI]
- WTO Dispute Settlement Panel Report, European Communities –Measures Concerning Meat and Products, "WTO", WTO, ~, pp.WT (1998), DS26[DOI]
- WTO Dispute Settlement Panel Report, Japan–Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples, "WTO", WTO, ~, pp.WT (2003), DS245[DOI]
- WTO Dispute Settlement Panel Report, European Communities-Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, "WTO", WTO, ~, pp.WT (2006), DS291[DOI]
- "Agreement on Implication of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Apr.15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex A1, Legal Instruments-Results of theUruguay Round", I.L.M., 33, pp.1125~ (1994)
- World Trade Organization, "Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Apr. 15, 1994, Legal Instruments-Results of the Uruguay Round", I.L.M., 33, pp.1125~ (1994)
- "Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 15, 1994, WTO Agreement, Annex 2, LEGAL INSTRUMENTS-RESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND", I.L.M., 31,33, pp.1226~ (1994)
- "Can Article 5.7 of the WTO SPS Agreement be a Model for the Precautionary Principle?"[URL]