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
The Panel report of the EC-Biotech Case, GMO dispute before the WTO, contains many noteworthy findings. The most extraordinary and potentially far-reaching are those regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement. The Panel report of the case has vividly illustrated that its interpretation of international treaties can be problematic in the process of judicial review in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. What is critically important point is that the Panel has ignored the external sources of public international law beyond narrowly or strictly defined WTO law or has consciously avoided possible applicability of relevant international rules and principles of treaty interpretation in reviewing the case. The Panel found that the SPS Agreement extends to trade-restrictive measures addressed to a range of health and environmental risks, even where those risks only indirectly relate to the introduction of pests into a Member’s territory.
The Panel could not escape the criticism that it has not taken into account the normative importance of multilateral environmental agreements, which have remarkably developed since the entry into force of most of the WTO agreements. This negative approach of the Panel to the possible applicability of non-WTO sources of international law in reviewing trade disputes (or GMO disputes) could contribute to deepening of crisis of external legitimacy of the WTO. Granted that international trade law can be in conflict with international environmental law in respect of normative considerations, employing teleological interpretation of relevant international treaties on the basis of integrative and organic methods beyond narrowly or strictly defined WTO agreements in reviewing GMO disputes would be beneficial to mutual supportiveness of international trade law and international environmental law. This approach would also eventually contribute to upgrading external and internal legitimacy of the WTO, as an international organization.
The Panel has expanded the scope of the SPS Agreement by employing the ‘constrained’ interpretation of relevant provisions, which is only confined to literal understanding of the SPS Agreement devoid of social and cultural considerations. More concretely, the Panel has limited the scope of the risk management under Article 5.1 and approached the requirements of Article 5.7 narrowly. This is even more serious in that the normative status of precautionary principle, as a critical principle under international environmental law, may be devalued in reviewing GMO disputes. The Panel did not consider the significance of the development of international environmental law, such as Biosafety Protocol which has institutionalized the precautionary principle. The consequences of the Panel’s strict and narrow construction of the WTO law illustrated in EC-Biotech Case would be serious in the overall structure of contemporary international law, as it will be likely to facilitate the fragmentation of international law.
The Panel could not escape the criticism that it has not taken into account the normative importance of multilateral environmental agreements, which have remarkably developed since the entry into force of most of the WTO agreements. This negative approach of the Panel to the possible applicability of non-WTO sources of international law in reviewing trade disputes (or GMO disputes) could contribute to deepening of crisis of external legitimacy of the WTO. Granted that international trade law can be in conflict with international environmental law in respect of normative considerations, employing teleological interpretation of relevant international treaties on the basis of integrative and organic methods beyond narrowly or strictly defined WTO agreements in reviewing GMO disputes would be beneficial to mutual supportiveness of international trade law and international environmental law. This approach would also eventually contribute to upgrading external and internal legitimacy of the WTO, as an international organization.
The Panel has expanded the scope of the SPS Agreement by employing the ‘constrained’ interpretation of relevant provisions, which is only confined to literal understanding of the SPS Agreement devoid of social and cultural considerations. More concretely, the Panel has limited the scope of the risk management under Article 5.1 and approached the requirements of Article 5.7 narrowly. This is even more serious in that the normative status of precautionary principle, as a critical principle under international environmental law, may be devalued in reviewing GMO disputes. The Panel did not consider the significance of the development of international environmental law, such as Biosafety Protocol which has institutionalized the precautionary principle. The consequences of the Panel’s strict and narrow construction of the WTO law illustrated in EC-Biotech Case would be serious in the overall structure of contemporary international law, as it will be likely to facilitate the fragmentation of international law.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 패널과 상소기구: 분쟁해결절차의 내적 및 외적 타당성 확보 문제
Ⅲ. EC-Biotech 사건 패널보고서 비판
Ⅳ. 결론
【참고문헌】
【Abstract】
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Biotech 제품의 무역 분쟁에 관한 WTO 패널결정 분석
무역학회지
2007 .02
-
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
-
최근 WTO 분쟁해결절차에서 확인된 국제법 기본원칙 및 법리
국제법학회논총
2010 .12
-
WTO체제에서의 유전자 변형식품에 대한 무역규제의 적법성
무역학회지
2006 .06
-
WTO 분쟁해결절차에서의 규범 충돌의 해결 : WTO 협정과 非 통상 조약과의 관계를 중심으로
통상법률
2013 .02
-
국제통상과 국제인권의 관계에 관한 소고 : 규범조화적 관점에 주목하며
한양법학
2013 .08
-
WTO協定의 國內的 實施에 있어서 自己執行性의 限界
국제법학회논총
2005 .08
-
WTO체제의 장래적 구제방식에 대한 비판적 고찰 : 소급적 구제의 필요성 및 당위성을 중심으로
서울국제법연구
2015 .06
-
WTO 위생검역협정상 사전주의 원칙의 적용과 의미: EC-GMOs 사례분석
무역연구
2015 .01
-
미국-EU간 GMOs마찰에 대한 WTO의 분쟁조정 방향에 관한 연구
무역학회지
2003 .09
-
WTO분쟁해결절차에서 적용가능한 법 간 충돌의 해결 : 비WTO규범과의 충돌논의를 중심으로
국제법학회논총
2016 .06
-
WTO의 나아갈 길
통상법률
1997 .10
-
GMOs 패널판정이 MEAs와 WTO협정간의 관계에 미치는 영향
무역학회지
2007 .02
-
EC-GMO 사건의 법적 평가 : 자유무역의 승리인가?
국제법학회논총
2007 .08
-
WTO협정과 지속가능한 개발
국제경제법연구
2008 .12
-
세이프가드의 파편화와 WTO의 역할
강원법학
2008 .06
-
｢WTO협정｣ 헌법화에 대한 서론적 고찰 : 분쟁해결에 대한 논의를 중심으로
미국헌법연구
2018 .04
-
EC법체계상 국제법의 지위
국제법학회논총
2005 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-000705822