본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Judicial Approach to Precautionary Principles under SPS Agreement

이은섭
법무부 (Ministry of Justice)|2009.12|국제법무연구 (Journal of International Legal Affairs)|제90호|pp. 44-85

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

과학적 증거scientific evidence사전예방원칙Precautionary principle과학적 불확실성scientific uncertaintyscientific obligationqualified exemption과학적 요건제한적인 면제
주제분류법학

초록

The precautionary principle representing environment protectionists’ viewpoints is to help regulatory authorities make policy decisions where claims of hazard are uncertain and decision-makers face the dilemma either to take immediate precautionary action or delay such action until scientific uncertainty concerning these hazards is eliminated or reduced. While there has been much academic commentary and debate on the status of the precautionary principle as a principle of international trade law, the role of the precautionary principle in international judicial society is as yet equally unclear. This paper reviews the judicial interpretation and application of the provisions concerned made by the WTO dispute settlement body in relation with the precautionary principle under the SPS Agreement to seek the more efficient and realistic approach to this principle for the proper application under the SPS agreement. Even though it is arguably possible for the gap between the provisional measures under SPS Agreement and the precautionary principle to be reduced through the judicial clarification of the provisional measures under Article 5.7, of the SPS Agreement introduced the precautionary principle to the trade sector with its own limited version, as a "qualified exemption" from the scientific obligation of the member countries requiring them to base their SPS measures on scientific principles and not to maintain such measures without sufficient scientific basis. This provision is to limit the abilities of member countries to maintain high levels of sanitary or phytosanitary measure without sufficient scientific evidence to support that measure. While Article 5.7 recognizes a member countries’ autonomy to enforce precautionary measures that may have restricting effect on market access in the face of insufficient scientific evidence, such more limited version of precautionary approach could block the chance of member countries’ abuse of the precautionary principle as a protectionist tools for the protection of domestic market by relying on scientific uncertainty. Adopting the limited version of precautionary principle to be applied and requiring positive risk assessment andscientific review of the pending risks, the WTO dispute settlement body seems to have made some contribution to materialize the dual objectives of the SPS Agreement, that is, to prohibit member countries from maintaining SPS measures lacking sufficient scientific justification, while simultaneously make them preserve the provisional right to limit market access until more relevant information is available. For the more proper incorporation of the precautionary principle into the WTO mechanism, considering the inherited ambiguity in the term “provisional measures”, it is essentially required to secure the stability and predictability in the application of the Article 5.7 without staining the spirits of the SPS Agreement, for which judicial interpretation and application of the ambiguous science-related terms and provisions which have been treated by the WTO adjudicators but not yet clarified should be established clarified soon.

Abstract

The precautionary principle representing environment protectionists’ viewpoints is to help regulatory authorities make policy decisions where claims of hazard are uncertain and decision-makers face the dilemma either to take immediate precautionary action or delay such action until scientific uncertainty concerning these hazards is eliminated or reduced. While there has been much academic commentary and debate on the status of the precautionary principle as a principle of international trade law, the role of the precautionary principle in international judicial society is as yet equally unclear. This paper reviews the judicial interpretation and application of the provisions concerned made by the WTO dispute settlement body in relation with the precautionary principle under the SPS Agreement to seek the more efficient and realistic approach to this principle for the proper application under the SPS agreement. Even though it is arguably possible for the gap between the provisional measures under SPS Agreement and the precautionary principle to be reduced through the judicial clarification of the provisional measures under Article 5.7, of the SPS Agreement introduced the precautionary principle to the trade sector with its own limited version, as a "qualified exemption" from the scientific obligation of the member countries requiring them to base their SPS measures on scientific principles and not to maintain such measures without sufficient scientific basis. This provision is to limit the abilities of member countries to maintain high levels of sanitary or phytosanitary measure without sufficient scientific evidence to support that measure. While Article 5.7 recognizes a member countries’ autonomy to enforce precautionary measures that may have restricting effect on market access in the face of insufficient scientific evidence, such more limited version of precautionary approach could block the chance of member countries’ abuse of the precautionary principle as a protectionist tools for the protection of domestic market by relying on scientific uncertainty. Adopting the limited version of precautionary principle to be applied and requiring positive risk assessment andscientific review of the pending risks, the WTO dispute settlement body seems to have made some contribution to materialize the dual objectives of the SPS Agreement, that is, to prohibit member countries from maintaining SPS measures lacking sufficient scientific justification, while simultaneously make them preserve the provisional right to limit market access until more relevant information is available. For the more proper incorporation of the precautionary principle into the WTO mechanism, considering the inherited ambiguity in the term “provisional measures”, it is essentially required to secure the stability and predictability in the application of the Article 5.7 without staining the spirits of the SPS Agreement, for which judicial interpretation and application of the ambiguous science-related terms and provisions which have been treated by the WTO adjudicators but not yet clarified should be established clarified soon.

참고문헌 (47)

  1. Issac, Grant, "Agricultural Biotechnology and Transatlantic Trade", Black’s Law Dictionary, ~ (2001)
  2. Button, Catherine, "The Power to Protect: Trade, Health and Uncertainty in the WTO", ~ (2004)
  3. Scott, Joanne, "The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 111", ~ (2007)
  4. Tim, O’riordan, "Reinterpreting the Precautionary principle", ~ (2001)
  5. Bentley Q.C., "A Re-assessment of Article XX, Paragraphs(B) and (G) of GATT 1994 in the Light of Growing Consumet and Environmental Concern about Biotechnology", 24 Fordham Int’l L. J. 107, ~ (2000)
  6. Bohanes, Jon, "Risk Regulation in WTO Law: A Procedure-Based Approach to the Precautionary Principle", 40 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 323, ~ (2002)
  7. Cameron, James, "The Precautionary Principle: A Fundamental Principle of Law and Policy for the Protection of the Global Environment", B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 1, ~ (1991)
  8. Chih, Niu Huei, "Can Article 5.7 of the WTO SPS Agreement be a Model for the Precautionary Principle?", 4 Scrpted 368, ~ (2007)
  9. Croley, Steven P, "WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Governments", 90 Am. J. Int’l L. 192, ~ (1996)
  10. Denise Prevost, "What Role For The Precautionary Principle in WTO Law after Japan-Apples?", 2(4) Econ. Pol’y & L. 1, ~ (2005)
  11. Eggers, Barbara, "The Precautionary Principle in WTO Law", Dissertation Zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades des Fachbereichs Rechtswissenschaft der Universität Hamburg, 1 (2001)
  12. E. Hickey, Jr., James, "Refining the Precautionary Principle in International Environmental Law", 14 Va. Envtl. L. J. 423, 431~ (1995)
  13. Fitzmaurice, M A, "The Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Case: The Law of Treatie", 11 Leiden J.Int’l L. 321, ~ (1988)
  14. Graham, John D, "Decision-Analytic Refinements of the Precautionary principle", 4 J. Risk Research, 127 (2001)
  15. Heavin, Heather D, "The Biosafety Protocol and the SPS Agreemet: Conficts and Dispute Resolution", 12 J. Env. L. & Prac. 373, ~ (2003)
  16. Lee, Eun Sup, "Protection of Health-related Environment under SPS Agreement", 78 Int’l Trade L. 11, 28 (2007)
  17. Mark Geistfeld, "Reconciling Cost-Benefit Analysis With The Principle That Safety Matters More Than Money", 76 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 114, ~ (2001)
  18. Peel, Jacqueline, "A GMO by any Other Name…Might be an SPS Risk!: Implications of Expanding the Scope of the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement", 17(5) The European J. Int’l L., 1009, ~ (2007)
  19. Stenzel, Paulette L, "Why and How the World Trade Organization Must Promote Environmental Protection", 13 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 1, ~ (2002)
  20. Sykes, Alan O, "Domestic Regulation, Sovereignty, and Scientific Evidence Requirements: A Pessimistic View", 3 Chi. J. Int’l L. 353, ~ (2002)
  21. Winickoff, David, "Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk, and Democracy in World Trade Law", 30 Yale J. Int’l L. 81, ~ (2005)
  22. Appellate Body Report, Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, , ~, pp.WT (1998), DS18[DOI]
  23. Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products(hormones), , ~, pp.WT (1998), DS26[DOI]
  24. Appellate Body Report, Japan-Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples, , ~, pp.WT (2003), DS245[DOI]
  25. Appellate Body Report, Japan Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, , ~, pp.WT (1999), DS76[DOI]
  26. Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, , ~, pp.WT (1998), DS58[DOI]
  27. Appellate Body Report, United States-Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, , ~, pp.WT (1997), DS33[DOI]
  28. Appellate Body Report, United States-Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-made Fiber Underwear, , ~, pp.WT (1997), DS24[DOI]
  29. Chairman of the Panel, "-Measures Affecting Agricultural products (Communication from Chairman of the Panel)", para. 4, WT, 4, pp.1998, ~
  30. Panel Report, Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, , ~, pp.WT (1998), DS18[DOI]
  31. Panel Report, EC-Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, , ~, pp.WT (2006), DS291[DOI]
  32. Panel Report, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products(Hormones) Complain by Canada, , ~, pp.WT (1997), DS48[DOI]
  33. Panel Report, EC-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products(Hormones) Complain by United States, , ~, pp.AB (1997), DS26[DOI]
  34. Panel Report, Japan-Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples, , ~, pp.WT (2003), DS245[DOI]
  35. Panel Report, Japan-Measures Affecting Agriculture Products, , ~, pp.WT (1998), DS76[DOI]
  36. WTO Settlement of Disputes, "Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures", WT, 9, pp.1999, ~
  37. "Agreement on Agreement on Agriculture, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, Legal Instruments-Results of the Uruguay Round", 33 I. L. M. 1125, ~ (1994)
  38. "Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, Legal Instruments-Results of the Uruguay Round", 33 I.L.M. 1125, ~ (1994)
  39. "General Agreement on Trade in Services, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1B, Legal Instruments-Results of the Uruguay Round", 33 I. L. M. 1125, ~ (1994)
  40. "Case C-157", 96, The Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture, ex parte National Farmers’ Union, 1998 ECR I-2211, 1998
  41. "Case C-180", 96, United Kingdom v. Commission, 1998 ECR I-2265, 1998
  42. "Case Concerning the Gabçikovo Nagymaros Project (Hungary", Slovakia), ICJ Reports 1997, 1-241, 1997
  43. "Case T-70", 99, Alpharma Inc. v. Council of the European Union, 1999 ECR II-2027, 1999
  44. "Case T-199", 96, Bergaderm SA and Goupil v. Commission, 1998 ECR-II 2805, 1998
  45. "Biosafety Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity"[URL]
  46. "Rio Declaration on Environment and Development", Principle 15, U.N. Doc. A, 26(14 Jun. 1992), 31 I.L.M. 874, pp.1992, ~
  47. "Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri in his letter of 19 April 2000"[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

Scientific Evidence Rule under the SPS Agreement주주, 이은섭법무부 · 국제법무연구2010 · 제92호식품안전 관련 통상분쟁에 있어 사전주의원칙의 적용성최승환법무부 · 국제법무연구2009 · 제87호SPS협정상 사전예방원칙의 적용가능성이은섭, 이주영법무부 · 국제법무연구2007 · 제76호WTO 위생검역협정의 원활한 이행을 위한 위험평가 및 규제채택절차의 해석과 적용박주근, 윤기관한국국제통상학회 · 국제통상연구2009 · 제14권 제1호The WTO’s Response to International Trade and Environment이은섭, FENGDONGXU법무부 · 국제법무연구2013 · 제110호Interpretation of “Necessity Test” under GATT Article XX and Regulation Autonomy after Brazil-Tyres Case주주, 이은섭법무부 · 국제법무연구2010 · 제96호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (3건)

WTO 분쟁해결제도 15년의 평가와 향후과제박덕영pp. 8-43디지털 시대의 새로운 지적재산권 집행 관련 이슈 - 위조 및 불법복제 방지협약(ACTA)과 관련하여 -박준석pp. 86-117TRIPS협정상 의약품 특허의 강제실시에 대한 최근 동향이로리pp. 118-141
원문 보기