The International Regulation of Living Modified Organisms

  • Alberto do Amaral Junior
  • Luciane Klein VieiraEmail author


This chapter focuses on the contradictory regulation of living modified organisms in contemporary international law. Specifically, it analyses the consequences that emerge from this collision of rules. Our conclusion mainly involves two assertions. The first is that this situation results, on the one hand, from the fragmentation of International Law and, on the other, from opposing state interests in different regulatory domains. The second section discusses the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, whose peculiarity is the requirement of scientific evidence as a condition for unilateral restrictions on international trade by WTO Member States. The most salient features of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which covers transboundary movements of living modified organisms—largely founded on the precautionary principle—are also brought to bear. Opposing logics and rules govern the two treaties and reveal a dilemma at the heart of modern international law.


  1. Amaral A Jr (2011) Comércio internacional e a Proteção do Meio Ambiente. Atlas, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  2. Balassa B (1978) The new protectionism and the international economy. J World Trade Law 12(5):409–436Google Scholar
  3. Biosafety Clearing-House (2018) Welcome to the BCH central portal. Accessed 10 May 2018
  4. European Communities (2006) Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: reports of the panel. WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R. Accessed 12 Dec 2018
  5. Falkner R, Jaspers N (2012) Regulating nanotechnologies: risk, uncertainty and the global governance gap. Global Environ Polit 12(1):30–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gayathri PG, Kurup RR (2009) Reconciling the bio safety protocol and the WTO regime: problems, perspectives and possibilities. Am J Econ Bus Admin 1(3):236–242Google Scholar
  7. Glasse JA (2001) The merits of ratifying and implementing the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety. Northwestern J Int Law Bus 21(2):491–518Google Scholar
  8. Gupta A (2010) Transparency as contested political terrain: who knows what about the Global GMO Trade and why does it matter? Global Environ Polit 10(3):34–38Google Scholar
  9. Hagen PE, Weiner JB (2000) The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: new rules for international trade in living modified organisms. Georgetown Int Environ Law Rev 12(3):697–716Google Scholar
  10. Jacob T (2001) The Cartagena protocol—a first step to a global biosafety structure? Trans Lawyer 14(1):79–90Google Scholar
  11. Kelemen R, Knievel T (2015) The United States, the European Union, and international environmental law: the domestic dimensions of green diplomacy. I CON 13(4):945–965. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lefeber R (2012) The legal significance of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur supplementary protocol: the result of a paradigm evolution. In: Amsterdam Law School. Legal studies research paper no 2012–87. Accessed 14 Feb 2018
  13. Pavoni R (2010) Mutual supportiveness as a principle of interpretation and law-making: a watershed for the ‘WTO-and-Competing-Regimes’ debate? Eur J Int Law 21(3):649–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Phillips PWB, Kerr WA (2000) Alternative paradigms: the WTO versus the biosafety protocol for trade in genetically modified organisms. J World Trade 34(4):63–75Google Scholar
  15. Redick TP (2007) The Cartagena protocol on biosafety: precautionary priority in biotech crop approvals and containment of commodities shipments. Colorado J Int Environ Law Policy 18(1):51–116Google Scholar
  16. Sampson G (2005) The WTO and sustainable development. United Nations University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Schoenbaum TJ (2001) International trade in living modified organisms. In: Francioni F (ed) Environment, human rights and international trade. Hart, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Scott J (2007) The WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures: a commentary. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Shaffer G (2012) International law and global public goods in a legal pluralist world. Eur J Int Law 23. Accessed 10 Jan 2018
  20. Telesetsky A (2011) The 2010 Nagoya-Kuala Lumper supplementary protocol: a new treaty assigning transboundary liability and redress for biodiversity damage caused by genetically modified organisms. Insights 15(1):1–11Google Scholar
  21. Trujillo E (2013) A dialogical approach to trade and environment. Legal studies research paper series 13–6. Accessed 5 Jan 2018
  22. Winham GR (2003) International regime conflict in trade and environment: the biosafety protocol and the WTO. World Trade Rev 2(2):131–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. World Trade Organization (1998a) EC measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones) AB-1997-4: report of the Appellate Body. WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R. Accessed 25 Nov 2017
  24. World Trade Organization (1998b) Japan—measures affecting agricultural products: report of the panel. WT/DS76/R. Accessed 10 Jan 2018
  25. World Trade Organization (2008) Japan—measures affecting the importation of apples—AB-2003-4—report of the Appellate Body WT/DS245/AB/R. Accessed 25 May 2019
  26. Zarrilli S (2001) International trade in genetically modified organisms and multilateral negotiations: a new dilemma for developing countries. In: Francioni F (ed) Environment, human rights and international trade. Hart, PortlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alberto do Amaral Junior
    • 1
  • Luciane Klein Vieira
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.University of São Paulo (USP)São PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS)São LeopoldoBrazil

Personalised recommendations