Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: science and risk regulation in international law
- 2 Global risk governance and its legitimacy
- 3 Scientific rationality and risk in international law
- 4 Competing risk regulatory paradigms: sound science and the precautionary principle
- 5 Science and WTO regulation of SPS risk
- 6 Case studies of science and risk regulation in international law
- 7 Democratising global risk governance
- 8 What role for science in international risk regulation?
- Index
- CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW
- References
6 - Case studies of science and risk regulation in international law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: science and risk regulation in international law
- 2 Global risk governance and its legitimacy
- 3 Scientific rationality and risk in international law
- 4 Competing risk regulatory paradigms: sound science and the precautionary principle
- 5 Science and WTO regulation of SPS risk
- 6 Case studies of science and risk regulation in international law
- 7 Democratising global risk governance
- 8 What role for science in international risk regulation?
- Index
- CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW
- References
Summary
Introduction
In recent years the interface between science and international risk governance has become an important topic of policy debate and scholarly analysis. This reflects the growing role of international requirements and global bodies in governing risk decision-making, displacing the once pre-eminent place of national authorities in this field. The lion's share of academic discussion concerning science and international risk regulation has taken place in respect of the SPS Agreement, addressed in the previous chapter. However, there are a number of other areas of international law where the role of science and expertise in risk regulation and ensuring environmental safety poses ongoing, complex issues. Beyond the sphere of the SPS Agreement, the social scientific literature has been far in advance of the legal scholarship in examining these questions. This literature has yielded many important insights, particularly concerning science–policy configurations in which scientific evidence and expertise can play their most effective role.
Despite this, there remains a pressing need for legal analysis in the area. Such analysis can add to wider understanding of the role of science in international risk regulation by providing an evaluation of the contribution of specific laws (such as treaty texts) and legal institutions (such as the interpretative work of the dispute settlement system of the WTO). Indeed, as the SPS jurisprudence discussed in the previous chapter illustrates, law may well represent a privileged and central venue for the constitution of regimes of knowledge.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Science and Risk Regulation in International Law , pp. 264 - 336Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
, Jill Jäger and Stacy VanDeveer, ‘Overview: Understanding Design Choices’, in Alexander Farrell and Jill Jäger (eds.), Assessments of Regional and Global Environmental Risks: Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science in Decisionmaking (Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 2006)Google Scholar
et al., Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006)Google Scholar
et al., Science and Politics in International Environmental Regimes: Between Integrity and Involvement (Manchester University Press, 2000)Google Scholar
, ‘Some Sociological Perspectives on International Institutions and the Trading System’, in , and (eds.), International Economic Law: The State and Future of the Discipline (Portland: Hart Publishing, 2008), pp. 86–7Google Scholar
and , ‘Parameters, Prediction, Post-normal Science and the Precautionary Principle – a Roadmap for Modelling for Decision-Making’, Ecological Modelling, 144 (2001), 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , ‘Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication’, Yale Law Journal, 107 (1997), 273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘A New World Order: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow’, Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, 4 (1994), 375Google Scholar
, Greening the GATT: Trade, Environment, and the Future (Washington DC: Center for International Environmental Law, 1994)Google Scholar
, ‘From Politics to Technocracy – and Back Again: The Fate of the Multilateral Trading Regime’, American Journal of International Law, 96 (2002), 95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Reflecting on “Linkage”: Cognitive and Institutional Change in the International Trading System’, Modern Law Review, 70(4) (2007), 546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , EC-Biotech: Overview and Analysis of the Panel's Interim Report (Washington DC: Center for International Environmental Law, 2006), p. 49Google Scholar
, ‘The Appellate Body Rulings in the Shrimp/Turtle Case: A New Legal Baseline for the Trade and Environment Debate’, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 27 (2002), 491Google Scholar
, ‘European Regulation of GMOs: Thinking About “Judicial Review” in the WTO’, in and (eds.), Uncertain Risks Regulated (Milton Park: Routledge-Cavendish, 2009) p. 295Google Scholar
, The Power to Protect: Trade, Health and Uncertainty in the WTO (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2004), pp. 29–37Google Scholar
and , ‘The WTO and Precaution: Sustainable Development Implications of the WTO Asbestos Dispute’, Journal of Environmental Law, 15 (2003), 289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , ‘Health Policy and the WTO’, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 31 (2003), 532CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and , ‘Courage You Can't Understand: How to Achieve the Right Balance Between Shaping and Policing Commerce in Disputes Before the World Trade Organization’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 42 (2004), 689Google Scholar
and , ‘European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products: The World Trade Organization on Trial for its Handling of Occupational Health and Safety Issues’, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 3 (2002), 120, 142Google Scholar
and , When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Foods (Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Role of Science in International Food Standards’, Food Control, 11(3) (2000), 182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , Implementing the Biosafety Protocol: Key Challenges (London: Chatham House, 2004), p. 2Google Scholar
et al., An Explanatory Guide to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 46, (Gland: IUCN, 2003), p. 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , ‘The Biosafety Protocol and the World Trade Organization: Can the Two Coexist?’, Pace International Law Review, 12 (2000), 107Google Scholar
, ‘Genetic Engineering and International Law: Conflict or Harmony? An Analysis of the Biosafety Protocol, GATT and the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement’, Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 20 (2001), 295Google Scholar
, ‘The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: What will Decisions Regarding GMOs have to be Based On?’, International Legal Perspectives, 13 (2002), 22Google Scholar
, ‘Splitting Genes: The Future of the Genetically Modified Organisms in the Wake of the WTO/Cartagena Standoff’, Pennsylvania State Environmental Law Review, 16 (2008), 367Google Scholar
, ‘Biosafety Protocol, SPS Agreement and Export and Import Control of LMOs/GMOs’, Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 7(3) (2008), 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Problem Framing in Assessment Processes: The Case of Biosafety’, in et al. (eds.), Global Environmental Assessment: Information and Influences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), p. 57Google Scholar
, Genetically Modified Crops: The Social and Ethical Issues (London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999)Google Scholar
, The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries (London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2003)Google Scholar
, ‘Governing Trade in Genetically Modified Organisms: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety’, Environment, 42(4) (2000), 24Google Scholar
, ‘Agricultural Biotechnology and the Negotiation of the Biosafety Protocol’, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 12 (2000), 811Google Scholar
, ‘Non-state Actors and the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety’, in and (eds.), NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007), p. 67Google Scholar
, ‘The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and Shifts in the Discourse of Precaution’, Global Environmental Politics, 5(4) (2005), 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and , ‘Risk Assessment and Precaution in the Biosafety Protocol’, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 13(3) (2004), 269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Advanced Informed Agreement: A Shared Basis for Governing Trade in Genetically Modified Organisms’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 9 (2001), 277–8Google Scholar
, ‘Traveling Toxics: The Science, Policy, and Management of Persistent Organic Pollutants’, Environment, 43(7) (2001), 26–7Google Scholar
, ‘The ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution: from Common Cuts to Critical Loads’, in Steinar Andresen, Tora Skodvin and Arild Underdal (eds.), Science and Politics in International Environmental Regimes: Between Integrity and Involvement (Manchester University Press, 2000), p. 95Google Scholar
and , ‘The Role of Science in Environmental Regimes: The Case of LRTAP’, in (ed.), International Environmental Governance (Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing, 2008), p. 211Google Scholar
, ‘From Regional to Global Information: Assessment of Persistent Organic Pollutants’, in et al. (eds.), Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), p. 178Google Scholar
and , ‘Science, Politics, and Persistent Organic Pollutants: The Role of Scientific Assessments in International Environmental Cooperation’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 3 (2003), 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, Climatic Change, 39 (1998), 614Google Scholar
et al, ‘Emissions in the Platinum Age: the implications of rapid development for climate change mitigation’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(2) (2008), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Expanding the Participation of Developing Country Scientists in International Climate Change Research’, Environmental Practice, 9(4) (2007), 225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Science or Salience: Building an Agenda for Climate Change’, in et al. (eds.), Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), p. 51Google Scholar
and , ‘Relevant but not Prescriptive? Science Policy Models Within the IPCC’, Philosophy Today, 48(5) (2004), 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Changing Role of Nation States in International Environmental Assessments– the Case of the IPCC’, Global Environmental Change, 13 (2003), 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘An Overview of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Its Process of Science Assessment’, Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, 17 (2002), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet, 2nd edn (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998)Google Scholar
, ‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, in Steinar Andresen et al. (eds.), Science and Politics in International Environmental Regimes: Between Integrity and Involvement (Manchester University Press, 2000), pp. 173–4Google Scholar
, ‘Can Assessments Learn, and If So, How?’, in and (eds.), Assessments of Regional and Global Environmental Risks: Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science in Decisionmaking (Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 2006), p. 166Google Scholar
, A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: the Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, Climatic Change, 39 (1998), 621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Lots of Science, Not Much Law: Why Knowledge Has Not (Yet) Been Power Over Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, in , Jr, , and (eds.), Global Warming: A Reader (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, forthcoming 2010)Google Scholar
, ‘The Design and Management of International Scientific Assessments: Lessons from the Climate Change Regime’, in and (eds.), Assessments of Regional and Global Environmental Risks: Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science in Decisionmaking (Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 2006), p. 193Google Scholar
, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2001), p. 22Google Scholar
, ‘Transnational Locals: Brazilian Experiences of the Climate Regime’, in and (eds.), Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), p. 151Google Scholar
, Saving the Mediterranean: the Politics of International Environmental Cooperation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990)Google Scholar
, and , ‘Information and Influence’, in et al. (eds.), Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), p. 312Google Scholar
, and , ‘Evaluating the Influence of Global Environmental Assessments’, in et al. (eds.), Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), p. 1Google Scholar
, ‘From Bali to Poznan: An Assessment of Australia's Response to Climate Change in 2008’, Environmental And Planning Law Journal, 26 (2009), 194–5Google Scholar
, ‘The Role of Science in the Analysis of Climate Change: A Perspective Based on Recent Research’, in and (eds.), Climate Change Law: Comparative, Contractual and Regulatory Considerations (Sydney: Thomson Reuters, 2009), p. 1Google Scholar
and (eds.), Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004)
and , ‘Conclusion: Knowledge and Governance’, in Sheila Jasanoff and Marybeth Long Martello (eds.), Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), p. 338Google Scholar