Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics

2019 Edition
| Editors: David M. Kaplan

WTO GMO Dispute: Implications for the SPS Agreement

  • Les LevidowEmail author
  • Christophe Bonneuil
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1179-9_360

Synonyms

 GMO

Introduction

In recent decades, global flows – whether of goods, services, capital, pests, chemicals, or greenhouse gases – have expanded together with new technologies, norms, and institutions that govern these flows. Several processes tend to denationalize what had been constructed as national in the modern era – policies, markets, capital, culture, and etc. – and to establish new global powers.

The World Trade Organization (WTO), which superseded the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1995, is a central node of this newly emerging global order. Established to police trade barriers for compliance with internationally agreed rules, it also sets global norms, such as standards of intellectual property and risk assessment for health and environmental issues. An agile institution, the WTO Secretariat is a relatively small bureaucracy linking hundreds of country representatives in Geneva.

While many international institutions have suffered a significant...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Boisson de Chazournes, L., Mbengue Makane, M., & Thomas, U. (2009). Réflexions sur la relation entre la science, l’incertitude scientifique et l’Accord sur les mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires (SPS). In R. Trigo Trindade et al. (Eds.), Liber Amicorum – Anne Petitpierre-Sauvain: Economie, environnement, éthique: de la responsabilité sociale et sociétale (pp. 43–56). Genève: Schulthess.Google Scholar
  2. Busch, L., Grove-White, R., Jasanoff, S., Winickoff, D., & Wynne, B. (2004). Amicus Curiae brief submitted to the dispute settlement panel of the WTO in the case of EC-Biotech (WT/DS291, 292 and 293). http://www.ecolomics-international.org/biosa_ec_biotech_amicus_academic2_ieppp_lancasteru_coord_0404.pdf. Accessed 23 Sept 2011.
  3. Christoforou, T. (2000). Settlement of science-based trade disputes in the WTO: A critical review of the developing case law in the face of scientific uncertainty. New York University Environmental Law Journal, 8(3), 622–649.Google Scholar
  4. Edmond, G. (2002). Legal engineering: Contested representations of law, science (and non-science) and society. Social Studies of Science, 32(3), 371–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jasanoff, S. (1995). Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Jasanoff, S. (2011). The practices of objectivity in regulatory science. In C. Camic, N. Gross, & M. Lamont (Eds.), Social knowledge in the making (pp. 307–337). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Leclerc, O. (2007). Scientific expertise and judicial decision-making: Comparative insights. In J. Ferrer Beltrán & S. Pozzolo (Eds.), Law, politics, and morality: European perspectives III. Ethics and social justice (pp. 15–26). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  8. Levidow, L., & Carr, S. (2010). GM food on trial: Testing European democracy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Pauwelyn, J. (2002). The use of experts in WTO dispute settlement. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 51, 325–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Peel, J. (2006). A GMO by any other name … might be an SPS risk!: Implications of expanding the scope of the WTO sanitary and phytosanitary measures agreement. European Journal of International Law, 17, 1009–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Peel, J. (2010). Science and risk regulation in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. USTR. (2004a, April 21). First submission of the United States. Office of the United States trade representative. http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/184. Accessed 23 Sept 2011.
  13. USTR. (2004b, November 15). Supplementary rebuttal submission of the United States. Office of the United States trade representative. http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/180. Accessed 23 Sept 2011.
  14. Walker, V. R. (1998). 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, 251–320.Google Scholar
  15. WTO. (1994). The WTO agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Geneva: World Trade Organization.Google Scholar
  16. WTO. (1998) Appellate body report, European communities – Measures concerning meat and meat products. Geneva: World Trade Organization. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds48_e.htm. Accessed 23 Sept 2011.
  17. WTO. (2006). European communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products, Reports of the panel. Geneva: World Trade Organization http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm.
  18. WTO. (2008). United States – Continued suspension of obligations in the EC – Hormones dispute. Report of the appellate body (16 Oct 2008, WT/DS320/AB/R). http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/ab_reports_e.htm. Checked 23 Oct 2011.
  19. Yerxa, R. H., & Wilson, B. (Eds.). (2005). Key issues in WTO dispute settlement: The first ten years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.Centre Alexandre KoyréHistory of Science and TechnologyParisFrance