Advertisement

The Appellate Body’s Quest for Middle Ground

  • Michael Burkard
Chapter
Part of the Philosophy, Public Policy, and Transnational Law book series (PPPTL)

Abstract

In this chapter of the book ‘Conflicting Philosophies and International Trade Law—Worldviews and the WTO’, it is established that the Appellate Body, by rejecting the Panel’s differentiation between risk assessment and risk management, also rebutted a notion of risk characterised as quantitative, i.e. probabilistic.

References

  1. Button, Catherine. “The Power to Protect. Trade, Health, and Uncertainty in the WTO”. Hart Publishing, 2004.Google Scholar
  2. Cho, Sungjoon. “From Control to Communication: Science, Philosophy and World Trade Law”. Cornell International Law Journal, forthcoming. Available at SSRN. Accessed December 5, 2010. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1583023.
  3. Davis, Sue. “A Consumers’ Association’s Perspective on the Governance Framework”. Published in Marion Dreyer and Ortwin Renn (eds.), Food Safety Governance. Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement. Springer-Verlag, 2009, 223–231.Google Scholar
  4. Fisher, Elizabeth. “Beyond the Science/Democracy Dichotomy: The World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement and Administrative Constitutionalism”. Published in Christian Joerges and Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (eds.), Constitutionalism, Multilevel Trade Governance and Social Regulation. Hart Publishing, 2006, 327–349.Google Scholar
  5. Gruszczynski, Lukasz. “Regulating Health and Environmental Risks under WTO Law. A Critical Analysis of the SPS Agreement”. Oxford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
  6. Scott, Joanne. “The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures”. Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

WTO Cases

  1. EC—Hormones: EC—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products. Google Scholar
  2. —Panel Report WT/DS26/R/USA, WT/DS48/R/CAN, final report circulated August 18, 1997;Google Scholar
  3. —Appellate Body Report WT/DS26/AB/R/USA, WT/DS48/AB/R/CAN, adopted February 13, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. Australia—Salmon: Australia—Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon. Google Scholar
  5. —Panel Report WT/DS18/R, final report circulated June 12, 1998;Google Scholar
  6. —Appellate Body Report WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted November 6, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. United States—Continued Suspension: United States/Canada—Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC—Hormones Dispute. Google Scholar
  8. —Panel Reports, WT/DS320/R, WT/DS321/R, final reports circulated March 31, 2008;Google Scholar
  9. —Appellate Body Reports, WT/DS320/AB/R, WT/DS321/AB/R, adopted November 14, 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Burkard
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of European and International Economic LawUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations