Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Genetically modified rules: the awkward rule–exception–right distinction in EC–Biotech

  • TOMER BROUDE (a1)

Abstract

The arcane distinction between ‘rules’, ‘exceptions’, and ‘autonomous rights’ has troubled WTO dispute settlement since its earliest days, primarily with respect to procedural burden-of-proof questions. Yet in its report, the EC–Biotech panel relied on a techno-textual understanding of this distinction to interpret the substantive applicability of Articles 2.2, 5.1, and 5.7 SPS – the WTO’s fundamental rules on the degree of scientific certainty of risk required to allow a state to restrict imports of goods due to human, animal, or plant health or life concerns. This article critiques the panel’s approach on the backdrop of WTO jurisprudence and deontic logic, arguing that the norm-category of ‘autonomous rights’ does not actually exist; that the Article 2.2–5.1/5.7 SPS relationship should be more straightforwardly construed than the panel’s analysis would suggest; and that the disorderly and incoherent outcome of the panel’s analysis serves as a cautionary tale against excessive textualism in WTO dispute settlement.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Bartels, Lorand (2003), ‘The WTO Enabling Clause and Positive Conditionality in the EC's GSP Program’, Journal of International Economic Law, 6: 507.
Boella, Guido and Lendert van der, Torre (2003), Permissions and Obligations in Hierarchical Normative Systems, Procs. of ICAIL 03, Edinburgh: AMC Press, p. 109.
Droege, Cordula (2007), ‘International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: A Legal Framework for Complementarity’, Israel Law Review (forthcoming).
Grando, Michelle T. (2006), ‘Allocating the Burden of Proof in WTO Disputes: A Critical Analysis’, Journal of International Economic Law, 9: 615.
Horn, Henrik and Joseph, H. H. Weiler (2005), ‘EC–Trade Description of Sardines: Textualism and its Discontent’, in Henrik, Horn and Petros, Mavroidis, The WTO Case Law of 2002, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 248.
Hurst, David R. (1998), ‘Decisions of the Appellate Body of the WTO – Hormones: European Communities – Measures Affecting Meat and Meat Products’, European Journal of International Law, 9(1): 182.
Lennard, Michael (2005), ‘Navigating by the Stars: Interpreting the WTO Agreements’, Journal of International Economic Law, 5(1): 17.
Marceau, Gabrielle and Conelis, Reiman (2001), ‘When and How is a Regional Trade Agreement Compatible with the WTO?’, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 28(3): 297.
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.
Martha, Rustel S. J. (1997), ‘Presumptions and Burden of Proof in World Trade Law’, Journal of International Arbitration, 14: 67.
Ortino, Federico (2006), ‘Treaty Interpretation and the Appellate Body in US–Gambling: A Critique’, Journal of International Economic Law, 9: 117.
Ross, A. (1968), Directives and Norms, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Tan, Pei-San (1998), ‘Decisions of the Appellate Body of the WTO – Shirts and Blouses: United States Measures Affecting Imports of Woven Shirts and Blouses’, European Journal of International Law, 9(1): 182.
von Wright, Georg H. (1951), ‘Deontic Logic’, Mind, 6: 1.
von Wright, Georg H. (1963), Norm and Action: A Logical Inquiry, London: Routledge.

Genetically modified rules: the awkward rule–exception–right distinction in EC–Biotech

  • TOMER BROUDE (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed