Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:49:02.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The EC–Biotech dispute and applicability of the SPS Agreement: are the panel's findings built on shaky ground?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2007

CHRISTIANE R. CONRAD
CHRISTIANE R. CONRAD
Affiliation:
Research Fellow at the Collaborative Research Centre, University of Bremen, Germany Email: christiane.conrad@sfb597.uni-bremen.de
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
Special GMO Symposium
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , July 2007 , pp. 233 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Christiane R. Conrad 2007

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

Christoforou, Theofanis (2004), ‘The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms in the European Union: The Interplay of Science, Law and Politics’, Common Market Law Review, 41: 637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Covelli, Nick and Victor, Cohots (2003), ‘The Health Regulation of Biotech Foods under the WTO Agreements’, Journal of International Environmental Law, 6: 773–795.Google Scholar
Garcia, Frank J. (2006), ‘The Salmon Case. Evolution of Balancing Mechanisms for Non-Trade Values in WTO’, in Petros, Mavroidis and George, Bermann, Trade and Human Health and Safety, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 133–152.Google Scholar
Goh, Gavin (2006), ‘Tipping the Apple Cart: The Limits of Science and Law in the SPS Agreement after Japan – Apples’, Journal of World Trade, 40: 655–687.Google Scholar
Hudec, Robert E. (2003), ‘Science and “Post-Discriminatory” WTO Law’, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 26: 185–195.Google Scholar
Marceau, Gabrielle and Joel, P. Trachtman (2002), ‘The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade’, Journal of World Trade, 36: 811–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNair, Arnold Duncan (1986), The Law of Treaties, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, Joost (1999), ‘The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures as Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes. EC–Hormones, Australia–Salmon and Japan–Varietals’, Journal of International Economic Law, 2: 641–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauwelyn, Joost (2003), ‘Does the WTO Stand for “Deference to” or “Interference with” National Health Authorities When Applying the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement)?’, in Thomas, Cottier and Petros, Mavroidis, The Role of the Judge in International Trade Regulation, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 175–192.Google Scholar
Scott, Joanne (2003), ‘European Regulation of GMOs and the WTO’, Columbia Journal of European Law, 9: 213.Google Scholar
Stökl, Lorenz (2003), ‘WTO und Gentechnik’, in Martin, Nettesheim and Gerald, Sander, WTO-Recht und Globalisierung, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 73–101.Google Scholar
Zedalis, Rex J. (2004), ‘The United States/European Communities Biotech Products Case: Opportunity for World Trade Organization Consideration of Whether Internally Applied Non-Tax Measures Fall Within the Scope of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Article XI(1)'s Reference to “Other Measures”’, Journal of World Trade, 38(4): 647–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar