IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jieclw/v25y2022i3p369-389..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Standards of Scientific Evidence in Preferential Trade Agreements

Author

Listed:
  • Margherita Melillo

Abstract

For a long time, international trade law’s interest in science has been limited to the provisions of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement. However, the role of science in international trade law goes beyond the SPS Agreement. The Australia – Plain Packaging dispute has shown that the assessment of non-SPS provisions can also involve complex scientific questions. Moreover, the discussion should be extended to preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Against this background, this article investigates the nature and potential impact of standards of scientific evidence in PTAs. After the introduction, Section II lays out the methodology of the article. Section III opens with a brief recall of the relevant WTO provisions. Section IV reviews the standards of scientific evidence embedded in the PTAs concluded by the European Union (EU) and by the United States (USA), showing that both trading blocs have started introducing more stringent standards in recent PTAs. Section V describes the trends that emerge from the analysis. Some of these innovations seem to expand the application of the SPS science-based provisions to TBT chapters. Others simply introduce new standards of scientific evidence in WTO-X chapters on regulatory cooperation, environment, and labor. In conclusion, the article argues that we should pay much more attention to the role of standards of scientific evidence in PTAs.

Suggested Citation

  • Margherita Melillo, 2022. "Standards of Scientific Evidence in Preferential Trade Agreements," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 369-389.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:25:y:2022:i:3:p:369-389.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiel/jgac014
    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:25:y:2022:i:3:p:369-389.. 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.