IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v24y2004i2p471-481.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Asbestos Case: A Comment on the Appointment and Use of Nonpartisan Experts in World Trade Organization Dispute Resolution Involving Health Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Russellyn S. Carruth
  • Bernard D. Goldstein

Abstract

The World Trade Organization is currently evolving its approach to incorporating scientific and technological evidence into its dispute‐resolution process. In European Communities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos‐Containing Products, the Panel was faced with a large amount of complex and conflicting scientific evidence presented by the partisan experts. The Asbestos Panel's solution was to appoint independent, nonpartisan experts to help it understand and evaluate the scientific evidence. While this was far better than trying to unravel the conflicting scientific evidence on its own, two aspects of the Panel's adopted procedure merit scrutiny. First, the expert‐selection process used by the Panel may not assure that the collective expertise of the appointed experts is broad enough when the dispute involves multidisciplinary scientific issues. Second, the process adopted by the Panel for consulting the appointed experts—which involved individual consultation rather than a consensus process—may leave a panel with a distorted or confused picture of the science. A consensus approach is the best means of obtaining scientific advice from appointed experts; it is most calculated to provide a clear and accurate report of the scientific information needed by a panel to make a fair and informed decision on the dispute before it. The underlying principle of world trade agreements is that it is beneficial to all of us to have free trade. Among other things, this requires an effective means of resolving disputes, and increasingly that includes disputes involving complex scientific and technological issues. This can be achieved only if the parties have confidence that their disputes will be decided in a fair and informed manner, based on the best science available. To achieve this goal, we suggest that future WTO panels depart in certain respects from the procedures utilized by the Asbestos Panel.

Suggested Citation

  • Russellyn S. Carruth & Bernard D. Goldstein, 2004. "The Asbestos Case: A Comment on the Appointment and Use of Nonpartisan Experts in World Trade Organization Dispute Resolution Involving Health Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 471-481, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:2:p:471-481
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00450.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00450.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00450.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:wly:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:2:p:471-481. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.