IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/sfb597/18.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk regulation, trade and international law: debating the precautionary principle in and around the WTO

Author

Listed:
  • Gerstetter, Christiane
  • Maier, Matthias Leonhard

Abstract

The precautionary principle is one of the most contested principles in international law. In the context of trade regulation in particular, it has been a source of concern to those who fear that it might help to justify existing non-tariff barriers to trade or create addi-tional ones. Proponents of the principle, in turn, argue that it is needed to fend off un-warranted health and environmental risks in situations where scientific uncertainty pre-vails, even if this works against the liberalisation of trade. In these contests the question of where and when the precautionary principle should be applied is inextricably linked to the question of what it means in the first place. Starting from the observation that consensus on a precise definition is missing both in legal-political practice and in aca-demic scholarship, the present paper is concerned precisely with those practical inter-pretative contests which result from the principle's ambiguity. We focus on attempts to agree legally binding definitions in the context of international trade regulation. The core of the paper is an empirical analysis of debates on several specific aspects of the precautionary principle, which were at issue during the past decade in four different international institutions: the WTO dispute settlement, some of the WTO's political committees, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (in particular its Committee on Gen-eral Principles), and the conference of states which negotiated the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Differences and similarities among these institutions are then analysed in a comparative perspective, taking up various contested issues one by one. From our findings we derive a set of hypotheses regarding the conditions under which, and the legal or political pathways on which, the precautionary principle (and perhaps other abstract normative ideas of a similar type as well) can make a difference to the out-comes of international decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerstetter, Christiane & Maier, Matthias Leonhard, 2005. "Risk regulation, trade and international law: debating the precautionary principle in and around the WTO," TranState Working Papers 18, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:sfb597:18
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/28268/1/497822245.PDF
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan B. Wiener & Michael D. Rogers, 2002. "Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 317-349, October.
    2. Winham, Gilbert R., 2003. "International regime conflict in trade and environment: the Biosafety Protocol and the WTO," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 131-155, July.
    3. Raustiala, Kal & Victor, David G., 2004. "The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 277-309, April.
    4. Kerr, William A., 2003. "Science-based Rules of Trade: A Mantra for Some, An Anathema for Others," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 4(2), pages 1-12.
    5. Goldstein, Judith & Kahler, Miles & Keohane, Robert O. & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, 2000. "Introduction: Legalization and World Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(3), pages 385-399, July.
    6. Olivier Godard, 1997. "Social Decision-Making under Scientific Controversy, Expertise, and the Precautionary Principle," Post-Print halshs-00624027, HAL.
    7. Les Levidow & Susan Carr & David Wield, 2000. "Genetically modified crops in the European Union: regulatory conflicts as precautionary opportunities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 189-208, July.
    8. Joyce Tait, 2001. "More Faust than Frankenstein: the European debate about the precautionary principle and risk regulation for genetically modified crops," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 175-189, April.
    9. Finnemore, Martha & Toope, Stephen J., 2001. "Alternatives to “Legalization”: Richer Views of Law and Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(3), pages 743-758, July.
    10. Ragnar E. Löfstedt & Baruch Fischhoff & Ilya R. Fischhoff, 2002. "Precautionary principles: general definitions and specific applications to genetically modified organisms," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 381-407.
    11. Giandomenico Majone, 2002. "The Precautionary Principle and its Policy Implications," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 89-109, March.
    12. Pauwelyn, Joost, 1999. "The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures as Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes: EC--Hormones, Australia--Salmon and Japan--Varietals," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(4), pages 641-664, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vasco Barroso Gonçalves, 2020. "Uncertain Risk Assessment and Management: Case Studies of the Application of the Precautionary Principle in Portugal," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 939-956, May.
    2. Kjell Hausken, 2019. "Principal–Agent Theory, Game Theory, and the Precautionary Principle," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 105-127, June.
    3. Oliver Westerwinter & Kenneth W. Abbott & Thomas Biersteker, 2021. "Informal governance in world politics," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 1-27, January.
    4. Chataway, Joanna & Tait, Joyce & Wield, David, 2004. "Understanding company R&D strategies in agro-biotechnology: trajectories and blind spots," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 1041-1057, September.
    5. Maier, Matthias Leonhard, 2007. "Normentwicklung durch WTO-Gremien am Beispiel von Handel und Gesundheitsschutz: der SPS-Ausschuss," TranState Working Papers 68, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    6. Turvey, Calum G. & Mojduszka, Eliza M., 2005. "The Precautionary Principle and the law of unintended consequences," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 145-161, April.
    7. Thomas Gehring & Benjamin Faude, 2014. "A theory of emerging order within institutional complexes: How competition among regulatory international institutions leads to institutional adaptation and division of labor," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 471-498, December.
    8. Todd Allee & Manfred Elsig, 2016. "Why do some international institutions contain strong dispute settlement provisions? New evidence from preferential trade agreements," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 89-120, March.
    9. Hartlapp, Miriam, 2005. "Two Variations on a Theme: Different Logics of Implementation Management in the EU and the ILO," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 9, June.
    10. Swantje Renfordt, 2010. "How International Law Standards Pervade Discourse on the Use of Armed Force - Insights into European and US Newspaper Debates between 1990 and 2005," KFG Working Papers p0013, Free University Berlin.
    11. Hartigan, James C. & McMahon, Joseph A., 2022. "A fuzzy look at a fuzzy agreement: Risk management under the WTO SPS Agreement," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 272-284.
    12. Gregory Shaffer & Mark Pollack, 2004. "Regulating Between National Fears and Global Disciplines:Agricultural Biotechnology in the EU," Jean Monnet Working Papers 10, Jean Monnet Chair.
    13. Diahanna L. Post, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle and Risk Assessment in International Food Safety: How the World Trade Organization Influences Standards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1259-1273, October.
    14. Dirk De Bièvre & Arlo Poletti & Lars Thomann, 2014. "To enforce or not to enforce? Judicialization, venue shopping, and global regulatory harmonization," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 269-286, September.
    15. Varios Autores, 2016. "Lecturas Sobre Derecho Del Medio Ambiente. Tomo Xvi," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 852, htpr_v3_i.
    16. Iván Darío Gómez Lee, 2016. "La Seguridad Jurídica. Una Teoría Multidisciplinaria Aplicada A Las Instituciones Vol.Ii," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 851, htpr_v3_i.
    17. Randall, Alan, 2009. "We Already Have Risk Management - Do We Really Need the Precautionary Principle?," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 3(1), pages 39-74, August.
    18. repec:sae:envval:v:12:y:2003:i:2:p:195-224 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Liste, Philip, 2022. "Tax Robbery Incorporated: The transnational legal infrastructures of tax arbitrage," Global Cooperation Research Papers 30, University of Duisburg-Essen, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21).
    20. Reinsberg,Bernhard Wilfried & Michaelowa,Katharina & Knack,Stephen, 2015. "Which donors, which funds ? the choice of multilateral funds by bilateral donors at the World Bank," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7441, The World Bank.
    21. Adela Toscano-Valle & Antonio Sianes & Francisco Santos-Carrillo & Luis A. Fernández-Portillo, 2022. "Can the Rational Design of International Institutions Solve Cooperation Problems? Insights from a Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-22, June.

    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:zbw:sfb597:18. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zesbrde.html .

    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.