Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:31:45.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ADDRESSING THE TURN TO SCIENCE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW - Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals: Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality by Caroline E Foster [Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011, 375pp, ISBN 978-0-521-51326-5, £77 (h/bk); ISBN 978-1-107-66903-1, £25.99 (p/bk)] - Science and Risk Regulation in International Law by Jacqueline Peel [Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010, 398pp, ISBN 978-0-521-76863-4, £71 (h/bk); ISBN 978-1-107-62533-4, £27.99 (p/bk)]

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2014

Christopher A Thomas
Christopher A Thomas*
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Law, London School of Economics and Political Science. C.A.Thomas@lse.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 236 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2014 

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.)

References

1 Foster, CE, Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals: Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011) 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 ibid 129.

3 ibid 131.

4 ibid 102–6.

5 The book provides a comprehensive assessment of the WTO SPS jurisprudence predating Australia—Apples: see Australia—Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New Zealand, WTO Doc WT/DS367/AB/R (29 November 2010). See also Peel, Jacqueline, ‘Of Apples and Oranges (and Hormones in Beef): Science and the Standard of Review in WTO Disputes under the SPS Agreement’ (2012) 61(2) ICLQ 427CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Peel, J, Science and Risk Regulation in International Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010) 332CrossRefGoogle Scholar (emphasis in original).

7 ibid; see also 383.

8 ibid 5.

9 See also J Peel, ‘Risk Regulation under the WTO SPS Agreement: Science as an International Normative Yardstick?’ (2004) Jean Monnet Working Paper 02/04 available at <http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/04/040201.pdf>.

10 Peel, Science and Risk Regulation (n 6) 108.

11 ibid 185–90.

12 Foster (n 1) 3.

13 ibid 5 (citations omitted); see also 77.

14 ibid 5–6.

15 ibid 31.

16 ibid 134 and 154. See also Foster, CE, ‘Public Opinion and the Interpretation of the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’ (2008) 11 JIEL 427CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Peel, Science and Risk Regulation (n 6) 238; see also 98–102.

18 ibid 58–66.

19 ibid 54.

20 ibid 53.

21 ibid 55.

22 Foster (n 1) 182.

23 ibid 240.

24 ibid 244.

25 ibid 6.

26 As Foster herself acknowledges: ibid 192–3 and 275–6.

27 ibid 168.

28 ibid.

29 EC—Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, Report of the Panel, WTO Docs WT/DS291-3/R (29 September 2006); see discussion of this precise issue in Foster (n 1) 141–3.

30 United States—Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC—Hormones Dispute, Report of the Panel, WTO Doc WT/DS321/R (31 March 2008).

31 Jasanoff, S, ‘Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science’ (2003) 41(3) Minerva 223CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 240, cited in Peel, Science and Risk Regulation (n 6) 341.

32 Peel, Science and Risk Regulation (n 6) 338.

33 ibid 372.

34 ibid 375.

35 See eg Foster (n 1) 84 and 90–1.

36 ibid 207–9.

37 Peel, Science and Risk Regulation (n 6) 13; see also 30 and 64–5.

38 ibid 301–2.

39 Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, ICJ Reports 2010 (Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Al-Khasawneh and Simma) 110.

40 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan: New Zealand Intervening), ICJ, Counter-Memorial of Japan (9 March 2012), 415n1104 and Annex 202, available at <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/17384.pdf>.