Suppr超能文献

在贸易和食品安全争端中,科学是否能清晰公正地发声?探寻世贸组织裁决对有问题的国际标准制定的最佳回应。

Does science speak clearly and fairly in trade and food safety disputes? The search for an optimal response of WTO adjudication to problematic international standard-making.

作者信息

Ni Kuei-Jung

出版信息

Food Drug Law J. 2013;68(1):97-114, ii-iii.

Abstract

Most international health-related standards are voluntary per se. However, the incorporation of international standard-making into WTO agreements like the SPS Agreement has drastically changed the status and effectiveness of the standards. WTO members are urged to follow international standards, even when not required to comply fully with them. Indeed, such standards have attained great influence in the trade system. Yet evidence shows that the credibility of the allegedly scientific approach of these international standard-setting institutions, especially the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) governing food safety standards, has been eroded and diluted by industrial and political influences. Its decision-making is no longer based on consensus, but voting. The adoption of new safety limits for the veterinary drug ractopamine in 2012, by a very close vote, is simply another instance of the problematic operations of the Codex. These dynamics have led skeptics to question the legitimacy of the standard setting body and to propose solutions to rectify the situation. Prior WTO rulings have yet to pay attention to the defect in the decision-making processes of the Codex. Nevertheless, the recent Appellate Body decision on Hormones II is indicative of a deferential approach to national measures that are distinct from Codex formulas. The ruling also rejects the reliance on those experts who authored the Codex standards to assess new measures of the European Community. This approach provides an opportunity to contemplate what the proper relationship between the WTO and Codex ought to be. Through a critical review of WTO rulings and academic proposals, this article aims to analyze how the WTO ought to define such interactions and respond to the politicized standard-making process in an optimal manner. This article argues that building a more systematic approach and normative basis for WTO judicial review of standard-setting decisions and the selection of technical experts would be instrumental to strengthening the mutual supports between the WTO and international standard-setting organizations, and may help avoid the introduction of a prejudice toward a justified science finding.

摘要

大多数与健康相关的国际标准本身是自愿性的。然而,将国际标准制定纳入世贸组织协议,如《实施卫生与植物卫生措施协定》(SPS协定),已极大地改变了这些标准的地位和效力。世贸组织成员被敦促遵循国际标准,即使并未要求他们完全遵守这些标准。事实上,此类标准在贸易体系中已具有很大影响力。然而,有证据表明,这些国际标准制定机构所谓的科学方法的可信度,尤其是负责食品安全标准的食品法典委员会(食典委),已受到产业和政治影响的侵蚀和削弱。其决策不再基于共识,而是投票。2012年以微弱票数通过对兽药莱克多巴胺的新安全限量,仅仅是食典委存在问题的运作的又一个例子。这些动态变化导致怀疑论者质疑标准制定机构的合法性,并提出解决办法以纠正这种情况。此前世贸组织的裁决尚未关注食典委决策过程中的缺陷。尽管如此,最近上诉机构关于“激素案II”的裁决表明,对不同于食典委模式的国家措施采取了一种尊重的态度。该裁决还拒绝依赖那些制定食典委标准的专家来评估欧盟的新措施。这种方法提供了一个机会来思考世贸组织与食典委之间应有的适当关系。通过对世贸组织裁决和学术提议的批判性审视,本文旨在分析世贸组织应如何界定此类互动,并以最佳方式应对政治化的标准制定过程。本文认为,为世贸组织对标准制定决策和技术专家选择进行司法审查建立更系统的方法和规范基础,将有助于加强世贸组织与国际标准制定组织之间的相互支持,并可能有助于避免对合理的科学发现产生偏见。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验