Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:58:46.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Implications of recent SPS dispute settlement cases

from PART I - The multilateral rules under WTO

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2013

Gavin Goh
Affiliation:
Department of Foreign Affairs
Andreas Ziegler
Affiliation:
Development Economics Research Group
Kym Anderson
Affiliation:
University of Adelaide
Cheryl McRae
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in Canberra, Australia
David Wilson
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in Canberra, Australia
Get access

Summary

The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (hereafter, the SPS Agreement) imposes science-based disciplines on quarantine risk management. Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement provides a basic obligation that SPS measures be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, be based on scientific principles and are not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. This is given specific application by Article 5.1 which requires that measures be based on a scientific risk assessment. Given its “science-based” focus, to what extent can economic considerations be incorporated into quarantine decision-making under the SPS Agreement?

In this chapter we show that the SPS Agreement, as interpreted by WTO panels and the Appellate Body in the disputes EC – Hormones, Japan – Varietals and Australia – Salmon, permits and indeed requires economic analysis in quarantine decision-making. Any risk assessment must evaluate the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of the pest or disease, as well as the associated potential biological and economic consequences. Moreover, a Member's appropriate level of protection reflects its optimal balance between the economic benefits of trade and the potential biological and economic impact of pest or disease establishment.

Economic considerations are also relevant to the capacity of Members to adopt WTO-consistent measures. Under Article 5.6, Members are only required to take less trade-restrictive alternative measures where these are demonstrated to be technically and economically feasible.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: The University of Adelaide Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×