Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-44467 Total loading time: 0.166 Render date: 2021-06-19T06:37:46.559Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Externalities and Agricultural Import Bans: Evaluating Regionalization Measures in Light of the Russia–Pigs Dispute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2019

EMILY BLANCHARD
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College
MARK WU
Affiliation:
Harvard Law School

Abstract

Article 6 of the SPS Agreement presents a series of interlinked obligations for importing and exporting countries of diseased agricultural products. The Russia–Pigs dispute raises the question of when an importing country is justified in imposing a ban on products from exporting countries unaffected by the disease, on the basis of the fact that the country is part of the same customs union as another country inflicted with the disease. This Article contends that four distinct classes of cross-border and cross-product externalities ought to play an important role when assessing this question in the future. It discusses the possible roles to be played by bilateral, sequential, pass-through, and supply chain externalities in propagating the transmission of agricultural disease across borders through trade.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Emily Blanchard and Mark Wu 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

For helpful comments and discussion, we thank Maria Alcover, Chad Bown, Colette van der Ven, and the other participants at the 2017 WTO Case Law Conference held at the European University Institute, June 2018.

References

Bown, C. and Hillman, J. (2017), ‘Bird Flu, the OIE, and National Regulation: The WTO's India–Agricultural Products Dispute’, World Trade Review, 15(2): 235257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietze, K., Beltran-Alcrudo, D., Khomenko, S., Seck, B., Pinto, J., Diallo, A., Lamien, C., Lubroth, J., Martin, V., and Rozstalnyy, A. (2012), ‘African Swine Fever (ASF) Recent Developments and Timely Updates – Worrisome Dynamics: Steady Spread Towards Unaffected Areas Could Have Disastrous Impact’, Focus on, 6: 16.Google Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (2010), ‘Scientific Opinion on African Swine Fever’, EFSA Journal, 8(3): 1556.Google Scholar
Jazdzewski, K. and Popiolek, M. (2014), ‘African Swine Fever in Poland: Situation and Implemented Actions’, Presentation to SCFCAH meeting, 4–5 March, Brussels.Google Scholar
Khomenko, S., Titov, I., Tsybanov, S., Gogin, A., and Malogolovkin, A. (2013), ‘African Swine Fever in the Russian Federation: Risk Factors for Europe and Beyond’, EMPRES Watch, 28: 114.Google Scholar
Kolbasov, D., Titov, I., Tsybanov, S., Gogin, A., and Malogolovkin, A. (2018), ‘African Swine Fever Virus, Siberia, Russia, 2017’, Emerging Infectious Diseases, 24(4): 796798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, M. and Shogren, J. (2012), ‘Disguised Protectionism, Global Trade Rules and Alien Invasive Species’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 51(1):105118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinas, R. (2017), ‘Romania Reports African Swine Fever in Farm Pigs’, Reuters, 2 July.Google Scholar
Mueller, R. (2017), ‘African Swine Fever Detected in Wild Boars in Czech Republic’, Reuters, 27 June.Google Scholar
Nurmoja, I., Schulz, K., Staubach, C., Sauter-Louis, C., Depner, K., Conraths, F. J., and Viltrop, A. (2017), ‘Development of African Swine Fever Epidemic among Wild Boar in Estonia – Two Different Areas in the Epidemiological Focus’, Scientific Reports, 7: 12562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OECD (2018), ‘Meat Consumption (Indicator), doi: 10.1787/fa290fd0-en (accessed on 17 July 2018).Google Scholar
OIE (2013), African Swine Fever, Paris: OIE.Google Scholar
Ojsevkis, E., Guberti, V., Seržants, M., Westergaard, J., Gallardo, C., Rodze, I., and Depner, K. (2016), ‘African Swine Fever Virus Introduction Into the EU in 2014: Experience of Latvia’, Research in Veterinary Science, 105: 2830.Google Scholar
Saggi, K. and Wu, M. (2017), ‘Trade and Agricultural Disease: Import Restrictions in the Wake of the India–Agricultural Products Dispute’, World Trade Review, 16(2): 279302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokstad, E. (2017), ‘African Swine Fever Outbreak Alarms Wildlife Biologists and Veterinarians’, Science, 20 December.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ter Beek, V. (2012), ‘Russia: ASF Spread to Ukraine Due to Inadequate Transport Rules’, Pig Progress, 2 August.Google Scholar
United Nations Commodity Trade Statistic Database, https://comtrade.un.org.Google Scholar
Vorotnikov, V. (2013), ‘Russia Bans Pork Imports From Belarus’, Pig Progress, 2 September.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Externalities and Agricultural Import Bans: Evaluating Regionalization Measures in Light of the Russia–Pigs Dispute
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Externalities and Agricultural Import Bans: Evaluating Regionalization Measures in Light of the Russia–Pigs Dispute
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Externalities and Agricultural Import Bans: Evaluating Regionalization Measures in Light of the Russia–Pigs Dispute
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *