IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The Role of Science in Risk Regulation under the SPS Agreement

Listed author(s):
  • Lukasz Gruszczysnki
Registered author(s):

    This paper attempts to present a comprehensive and coherent picture of the roleperformed by science under the SPS Agreement and SPS case law. It argues that the approach adopted by the Appellate Body is predominantly based on a technical paradigm, supplemented, however, with some considerations arising from other paradigms. The paper argues that the approach adopted in the case law is generally compatible with the text of the SPS Agreement and provides a coherent SPS system. However, it also identifies certain areas which lack coherence, as certain standards seem to violate the right of the member states to establish an appropriate level of protection. These are: ascertainability of the risk as a precondition for valid risk assessment; strict specifity of the risk assessment in low-risk situations; the proportionality between the risk identified and the SPS measure; the notion of negligible risks; and the concept of likelihood in the quarantine risk assessments. The paper claims that these standards cannot be generally applied in SPS disputes as, in certain situations, they will result in the violation of the right of member states to establish an appropriate level of SPS protection. Finally, a number of specific issues are highlighted which require further clarification in case law, such as the issue of the quality of minority scientific opinions and the relationship between the insufficiency of scientific evidence and scientific uncertainty. The paper suggests that the ultimate role ascribed to science under the SPS Agreement can be assessed only after an interpretation of those issues is provided by future case law.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by European University Institute (EUI), Department of Law in its series EUI-LAW Working Papers with number 3.

    in new window

    Date of creation: 01 Feb 2006
    Handle: RePEc:erp:euilaw:p0039
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:erp:euilaw:p0039. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Machteld Nijsten)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.