Mobilising scientific expertise against trade restrictions. A case of dispute over the regulation of gmos at the world trade organization

The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement procedure is a key area for establishing global legal standards for what is considered relevant knowledge. As a high-profile case, the WTO trade dispute over GMOs mobilized and appropriated scientific knowledge in somewhat novel ways. The Panel i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Levidow, Les, Bonneuil, Cristophe
Formato: Artículo revista
Lenguaje:Español
Publicado: Instituto de Investigación y Formación en Administración Pública (IIFAP-FCS-UNC) 2019
Materias:
regulación basada en la ciencia
transgénicos
organización mundial de comercio
WTO
Risk assesment
GMO
Science based regulation
Acceso en línea:https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/APyS/article/view/24542
Aporte de:
Administración Pública y Sociedad (APyS) de Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
id I10-R357-article-24542
record_format ojs
institution Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
institution_str I-10
repository_str R-357
container_title_str Administración Pública y Sociedad (APyS)
language Español
format Artículo revista
topic regulación basada en la ciencia
transgénicos
organización mundial de comercio
WTO
Risk assesment
GMO
Science based regulation
spellingShingle regulación basada en la ciencia
transgénicos
organización mundial de comercio
WTO
Risk assesment
GMO
Science based regulation
Levidow, Les
Bonneuil, Cristophe
Mobilising scientific expertise against trade restrictions. A case of dispute over the regulation of gmos at the world trade organization
topic_facet regulación basada en la ciencia
transgénicos
organización mundial de comercio
WTO
Risk assesment
GMO
Science based regulation
author Levidow, Les
Bonneuil, Cristophe
author_facet Levidow, Les
Bonneuil, Cristophe
author_sort Levidow, Les
title Mobilising scientific expertise against trade restrictions. A case of dispute over the regulation of gmos at the world trade organization
title_short Mobilising scientific expertise against trade restrictions. A case of dispute over the regulation of gmos at the world trade organization
title_full Mobilising scientific expertise against trade restrictions. A case of dispute over the regulation of gmos at the world trade organization
title_fullStr Mobilising scientific expertise against trade restrictions. A case of dispute over the regulation of gmos at the world trade organization
title_full_unstemmed Mobilising scientific expertise against trade restrictions. A case of dispute over the regulation of gmos at the world trade organization
title_sort mobilising scientific expertise against trade restrictions. a case of dispute over the regulation of gmos at the world trade organization
description The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement procedure is a key area for establishing global legal standards for what is considered relevant knowledge. As a high-profile case, the WTO trade dispute over GMOs mobilized and appropriated scientific knowledge in somewhat novel ways. The Panel interpreted the Sanitary and Phitosanitary Agreement (SPS)framework as a requirement for "risk assessment", i.e. the quantification of probabilities and consequences, and the imposition of additional burdens on the defendant for the production of evidence. By imposing "the most restricted applications to date of the notion of SPS risk assessment" (Peel, 2010: 244), the WTO Panel further globalized a "science-based risk assessment" that had emerged during the Reagan administration of the United States (Jasanoff, 2011).From the outset, the Panel placed the dispute under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) through a new legal ontology; classified transgenes as potential pests; and limited all environmentalissues to the category of "plant and animal health. Within the SPS framework, which focused on the respondent's regulatory procedures, the Panel organized scientific expertise specifically to establish how the experts were to be questioned, the answers they would give, their specific role in the legal arena, and how their statements would complement the Panel's findings.In addition, the Panel gave a procedural twist to WTO jurisprudence by presenting its findings as a purely legal-administrative judgment on whether EC regulatory procedures violated the SPS Agreement. In the meantime, the Panel implicitly maintained its own judgments on substantive risk issues. As this case illustrates, the WTO dispute settlement process creates new scientific experience for the main task of challenging trade restrictions as overly cautious.
publisher Instituto de Investigación y Formación en Administración Pública (IIFAP-FCS-UNC)
publishDate 2019
url https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/APyS/article/view/24542
work_keys_str_mv AT levidowles mobilisingscientificexpertiseagainsttraderestrictionsacaseofdisputeovertheregulationofgmosattheworldtradeorganization
AT bonneuilcristophe mobilisingscientificexpertiseagainsttraderestrictionsacaseofdisputeovertheregulationofgmosattheworldtradeorganization
AT levidowles movilizandopericiacientificacontrarestriccionescomercialesuncasodedisputaporlaregulaciondelosogmenlaorganizacionmundialdelcomercio
AT bonneuilcristophe movilizandopericiacientificacontrarestriccionescomercialesuncasodedisputaporlaregulaciondelosogmenlaorganizacionmundialdelcomercio
first_indexed 2024-09-03T22:22:12Z
last_indexed 2024-09-03T22:22:12Z
_version_ 1809215266430648320
spelling I10-R357-article-245422021-10-01T17:27:55Z Mobilising scientific expertise against trade restrictions. A case of dispute over the regulation of gmos at the world trade organization Movilizando pericia científica contra restricciones comerciales. Un caso de disputa por la regulación de los OGM en la Organización Mundial del Comercio Levidow, Les Bonneuil, Cristophe regulación basada en la ciencia transgénicos organización mundial de comercio WTO Risk assesment GMO Science based regulation The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement procedure is a key area for establishing global legal standards for what is considered relevant knowledge. As a high-profile case, the WTO trade dispute over GMOs mobilized and appropriated scientific knowledge in somewhat novel ways. The Panel interpreted the Sanitary and Phitosanitary Agreement (SPS)framework as a requirement for "risk assessment", i.e. the quantification of probabilities and consequences, and the imposition of additional burdens on the defendant for the production of evidence. By imposing "the most restricted applications to date of the notion of SPS risk assessment" (Peel, 2010: 244), the WTO Panel further globalized a "science-based risk assessment" that had emerged during the Reagan administration of the United States (Jasanoff, 2011).From the outset, the Panel placed the dispute under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) through a new legal ontology; classified transgenes as potential pests; and limited all environmentalissues to the category of "plant and animal health. Within the SPS framework, which focused on the respondent's regulatory procedures, the Panel organized scientific expertise specifically to establish how the experts were to be questioned, the answers they would give, their specific role in the legal arena, and how their statements would complement the Panel's findings.In addition, the Panel gave a procedural twist to WTO jurisprudence by presenting its findings as a purely legal-administrative judgment on whether EC regulatory procedures violated the SPS Agreement. In the meantime, the Panel implicitly maintained its own judgments on substantive risk issues. As this case illustrates, the WTO dispute settlement process creates new scientific experience for the main task of challenging trade restrictions as overly cautious. El proceso de solución de diferencias de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) es un ámbito clave para establecer normas jurídicas mundiales para lo que se considera conocimiento científicamente relevante. Como caso de alto perfil, la disputa comercial de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) sobre los Organismos Genéticamente Modificados (OGM) movilizó y se apropió de los conocimientos científicos de maneras un tanto novedosas. El panel de expertos interpretó el marco del acuerdo Sanitario y Fitosanitario como un requisito para la "evaluación del riesgo", es decir, la cuantificación de las probabilidades y consecuencias, y la imposición de cargas adicionales al demandado para la presentación de pruebas. Al imponer "las aplicaciones más restringidas hasta la fecha de la noción de evaluación del riesgo en materia sanitaria y fitosanitaria" (Peel, 2010: 244), el panel de expertos de la OMC globalizó aún más una "evaluación del riesgo basada en la ciencia" que había surgido durante la administración Reagan de los Estados Unidos (Jasanoff, 2011).Desde el principio, el Panel pusola disputa bajo el Acuerdo Sanitario y Fitosanitario (SPS, por sus siglas en inglés) a través de una nueva ontología legal; clasificó los transgenes como plagas potenciales y limitó todas las cuestiones ambientales a la categoría de "sanidad vegetal y animal". En el marco de las SPS, que se centraba en los procedimientos de regulación del demandado, el panel organizó la pericia científica de manera específica para establecer la forma en que se interrogaba a los expertos, las respuestas que darían, su función específica en el ámbito jurídico y la forma en que sus declaraciones complementarían las conclusiones del grupo.Además, el Panel dio un giro de procedimiento a la jurisprudencia de la OMC al presentar sus conclusiones como un juicio puramente jurídico-administrativo sobre si los procedimientos reglamentarios de la Comunidad Europea violaban el Acuerdo SPS. Mientras tanto, el panel mantuvo implícitos sus propios juicios sobre cuestiones sustantivas de riesgo(y por lo tanto menos escrutables). Como ilustra este caso, el proceso de solución de diferencias de la OMC crea una nueva experiencia científica parala tarea principal, a saber, cuestionar las restricciones comerciales por ser excesivamente cautelosas. Instituto de Investigación y Formación en Administración Pública (IIFAP-FCS-UNC) 2019-07-04 info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion application/pdf https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/APyS/article/view/24542 Administración Pública y Sociedad (APyS); Núm. 7 (2019): Enero - Junio; 119-129 2524-9568 spa https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/APyS/article/view/24542/24163 Derechos de autor 2019 Les Levidow http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0

Ejemplares similares