MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2241917739

GMO Trade Wars: The Submissions in the EC-GMO Dispute in the WTO

2005· article· en· W2241917739 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacqueline Peel, Rebecca Nelson, Lee Godden

Notice bibliographique

RevueMelbourne journal of international law · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueWorld Trade Organization Law
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésContext (archaeology)International tradeWorld tradeInternational trade lawBusinessEnvironmental regulationDispute resolutionLawPolitical scienceEconomicsPublic economicsBiology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

[The release of the parties' submissions in the long-awaited EC--GMO dispute provides an opportunity to assess the likely implications of this important dispute for the relationship between international trade law and domestic health and environmental regulatory schemes. The dispute raises a myriad of legal questions, many of which have long been thorny issues in the 'trade and environment' context. However, the greatest significance of this dispute may ultimately lie in what it reveals about the capacity of global markets, through the instruments of the World Trade Organization agreements, to shape the way in which WTO Members regulate their own territories, issues of health and environmental risk associated with internationally traded products. We argue that the EC--GMO dispute can be conceived of as a clash between different approaches to the regulation of uncertain risks surrounding genetically modified organisms. Viewing the dispute in this way raises questions as to whether the WTO agreements, applied by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, are capable of accommodating legitimate regulatory diversity or whether global markets could become the means for harmonising domestic structures for the regulation of health and environmental risk, particularly in countries lacking the economic power to stand outside the WTO system on any one issue.] CONTENTS I Introduction II Overview of the Relevant WTO Agreements A GATT 1994 B TBT Agreement C SPS Agreement III EU Regulatory System for Approving GMOs A Evolution of GMO Regulation in the EU B Approval Process for GMOs IV The Submissions before the Panel A GMO Regulations as SPS Measures B 'Product/Process' Distinctions and Differences in 'Levels of Protection'. C Precautionary Delays or Protectionism? D Relevance of International Agreements to the WTO Regime E 'Sound Science' and Risk Assessment V Looking to the Future I INTRODUCTION Over the short history of dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization, (1) few cases have excited as much anxious anticipation as the current dispute between the United States, Canada, Argentina and the European Communities concerning the latter's 'measures affecting the marketing and approval of biotech products'. (2) The EC--GMO dispute, much like its predecessor regarding hormones in beef, (3) has been slowly simmering away for many years. It finally came to a head in May 2003 when the US, along with other large agricultural biotechnology producers, Argentina and Canada, (4) requested the initiation of formal dispute settlement proceedings against the EC in the WTO. (5) At the heart of the dispute lie fundamentally different regulatory approaches to the assessment and management of possible risks posed by the most controversial products of biotechnology--genetically modified organisms ('GMOs'). (6) At stake is not only the multi-billion dollar agricultural gene technology industry, (7) but also (depending on who you listen to) the viability of organic farming practices, future food security in developing countries, agricultural sustainability, global biodiversity, long-term human health, and national regulatory autonomy regarding health and environmental concerns. (8) The intense public interest in the EC--GMO dispute has prompted the parties to adopt an unprecedented level of transparency regarding their arguments and submissions to the WTO Panel that will initially decide the matter. Canada, the EC and the US have all released their first detailed written submissions, which together total some 470 pages in length. (9) The complainants' submissions are quite carefully framed; they do not purport to attack the EC's GMO regulatory regime as such--indeed Canada argues that all would be well if only the EC would follow its legislated assessment and approval processes. (10) Instead, the complainants argue that excessive delay in the EC approval process and/or bans on genetically modified ('GM') crops maintained by individual Members of the European Union violate the obligations of the EC under several WTO agreements. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,948
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,574

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,314
Écart entre enseignants0,296 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMelbourne journal of international lawMême sujetWorld Trade Organization LawTravaux en français237 207