지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper analyzes WTO Panel's decision on European Communities-Measures affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Product. The Panel's decision of EC-Biotech case have three key implications for trade-related measures on GMOs in the future.
First, the Panel concluded that the Biosafety Protocol is not applicable in the relations between the complaining parties to this dispute and the EC because America, Canada and Argentina ar not parties to the Biosafety Protocol. The Panel, in addition to, refrained from expressing a view on whether or not the precautionary principle is a recognized principle of general or customary international law. The Panel's approach showed that the WTO lacked much consideration of the concepts of mutual supportiveness in the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements and the WTO.
Second, the Panel did not review whether or not EC approval legislations of GMOs are consistent with the WTO rules. However, the Panel concluded that the way of applying and operating the approval procedures set out in the EC approval legislation was inconsistent with its obligations, undertaking and completing in approval procedures without undue delay, under Article 8 and Annex of the SPS Agreement. The Panel's approach suggests that the WTO does not infringe on the right of each WTO member country to adopt nation-specific trade-related laws of GMOs but that the approval procedures have to be applied or operated in accordance with the WTO rules.
Finally, the Panel recognized the right of EC Member States to take safeguard measures. However, the Panel stated, if Member could delay a final approval decision on the ground that available scientific evidence is sufficient, that Member could avoid the requirement of risk assessment set out in Annex A(4) of the SPS Agreement. The Panel's narrow interpretation of the notion of 'risk assessment' in the SPS Agreement could not show whether or not each WTO member country could take trade restrictive measures for safety on GMOs based on precautionary principle.
First, the Panel concluded that the Biosafety Protocol is not applicable in the relations between the complaining parties to this dispute and the EC because America, Canada and Argentina ar not parties to the Biosafety Protocol. The Panel, in addition to, refrained from expressing a view on whether or not the precautionary principle is a recognized principle of general or customary international law. The Panel's approach showed that the WTO lacked much consideration of the concepts of mutual supportiveness in the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements and the WTO.
Second, the Panel did not review whether or not EC approval legislations of GMOs are consistent with the WTO rules. However, the Panel concluded that the way of applying and operating the approval procedures set out in the EC approval legislation was inconsistent with its obligations, undertaking and completing in approval procedures without undue delay, under Article 8 and Annex of the SPS Agreement. The Panel's approach suggests that the WTO does not infringe on the right of each WTO member country to adopt nation-specific trade-related laws of GMOs but that the approval procedures have to be applied or operated in accordance with the WTO rules.
Finally, the Panel recognized the right of EC Member States to take safeguard measures. However, the Panel stated, if Member could delay a final approval decision on the ground that available scientific evidence is sufficient, that Member could avoid the requirement of risk assessment set out in Annex A(4) of the SPS Agreement. The Panel's narrow interpretation of the notion of 'risk assessment' in the SPS Agreement could not show whether or not each WTO member country could take trade restrictive measures for safety on GMOs based on precautionary principle.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 법적 쟁점
Ⅲ. WTO 패널 결정내용
Ⅳ. 요약 및 시사점
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (10)
참고문헌 신청
1. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 성봉석 / 2005 / 산업과 경제, 그리고 생명공학기술
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 성봉석 / 2006 / 생명공학제품과 관련된 이해관계자 압력과 시장접근성 31 (2) : 65 ~ 83
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Kuhn / 1982 / The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Massey, A / 2006 / Guide to Biotechnology, Biotechnology Industry Organization
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Nelson / 1987 / In Search of a Useful Theory of Innovation
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 성봉석 / 2006 / 생명공학제품과 관련된 이해관계자 압력과 시장접근성 31 (2) : 65 ~ 83
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Kuhn / 1982 / The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
4. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Massey, A / 2006 / Guide to Biotechnology, Biotechnology Industry Organization
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Nelson / 1987 / In Search of a Useful Theory of Innovation
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
EC-Biotech 사건에 대한 소고 : WTO 패널의 법해석의 협소함에 주목하며
한양법학
2008 .10
-
EC-GMO 사건의 법적 평가 : 자유무역의 승리인가?
국제법학회논총
2007 .08
-
WTO체제에서의 유전자 변형식품에 대한 무역규제의 적법성
무역학회지
2006 .06
-
SPS협정의 적용범위에 관한 연구 : EC-Biotech 사건의 패널판결을 중심으로
무역학자 전국대회 발표논문집
2008 .08
-
SPS협정의 적용범위에 관한 연구 : EC-Biotech 사건의 패널판결을 중심으로
통상정보연구
2008 .12
-
GMOs 패널판정이 MEAs와 WTO협정간의 관계에 미치는 영향
무역학회지
2007 .02
-
WTO 위생검역협정상 사전주의 원칙의 적용과 의미: EC-GMOs 사례분석
무역연구
2015 .01
-
미국-EU간 GMOs마찰에 대한 WTO의 분쟁조정 방향에 관한 연구
무역학회지
2003 .09
-
WTO의 나아갈 길
통상법률
1997 .10
-
GMOs의 무역규제와 WTO - 갈등의 근본이유
국제법학회논총
2005 .04
-
WTO세이프가드의 問題點
산업경제연구
1998 .11
-
WTO 의사결정절차의 문제점과 해결방안
통상법률
2014 .06
-
WTO 분쟁해결절차에서의 규범 충돌의 해결 : WTO 협정과 非 통상 조약과의 관계를 중심으로
통상법률
2013 .02
-
A Note on Evidentiary Scope of Review in WTO Anti-Dumping Disputes
통상법률
2004 .12
-
두려움으로 내딛은 첫걸음 : WTO 韓·美 農産物 檢査 및 檢疫 紛爭의 敎訓
통상법률
2004 .12
-
세이프가드의 파편화와 WTO의 역할
강원법학
2008 .06
-
U.S. TRADE POLICY UNDER THE WTO
한국무역학회 국제학술대회
1995 .02
-
다자간환경협약과 WTO협정과의 관계 : 교통의정서를 중심으로
국제경제법연구
2005 .12
-
WTO 체제 개혁과 한국의 다자통상정책 방향
[KIEP] 연구보고서
2018 .12
-
WTO 분쟁해결제도 15년의 평가와 향후과제
통상법률
2009 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-326-002848328