IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jieclw/v11y2008i2p427-458.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Opinion and the Interpretation of the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline E. Foster

Abstract

The WTO system is increasingly finding itself undermined by intractable disputes that involve high levels of public concern about the safety of proposed imports, in particular as seen in the EC-Hormones and the EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products cases. This indicates a systemic problem in the interpretation and application of the SPS Agreement. In addressing this problem, a new starting point needs to be adopted. A democratic approach would suggest that where a Member's population simply does not want to run a given risk, this risk should not be imposed on the population. A careful consideration of the central provisions of the SPS Agreement reveals that there remains considerable scope for greater recognition within SPS jurisprudence of the significance of public opinion in decision-making about risks to human health and the environment, in a way that combines scientific and non-scientific aspects of decision-making about risk. Adopting such an approach will help ensure consistency between international economic law and broader public international law, including international human rights treaties and international environmental law. , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline E. Foster, 2008. "Public Opinion and the Interpretation of the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 427-458, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:11:y:2008:i:2:p:427-458
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiel/jgn011
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:11:y:2008:i:2:p:427-458. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiel .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.