IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Jacqueline Peel

  • JACQUELINE PEEL
Registered author(s):

    Processes of scientific risk assessment, carried out by specialized agencies, are a familiar part of health and environmental regulation in countries like the United States, and increasingly, in the trans-national decision-making structures of the European Union. Challenges to risk regulatory measures, mounted through the courts, present judicial decision-makers in both systems with similar problems as they attempt to grapple with issues arising at the interface of law and science. In an era of globalization, tradeoffs reached in domestic risk regulatory processes are also likely to be subject to international scrutiny, in no case more than when governments are asked to defend their risk regulatory measures under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the World Trade Organization. This Agreement, with its requirement for regulatory measures to be scientifically justified and based on a risk assessment, echoes the quest for science-based, rational decision-making on questions of health and environmental risk found at the national and trans-national levels. These similarities suggest the potential for comparative borrowing where the models for managing law and science interactions developed in the US or EU would serve as guides for WTO decision-makers reviewing the credibility of scientific theories underlying national SPS measures, and their connection to an adequate risk assessment. This paper examines the 'law and science' models that have emerged from the jurisprudence of the American and European courts which, despite employing a very different rhetoric, take similar, broadly deferential approaches to the review of science-based risk regulatory measures. However, deference to the judgment of regulators balancing social against scientific considerations has not been a feature of the SPS case law to date. This jurisprudence - notwithstanding attempts by the WTO Appellate Body, in some cases, to permit flexibility in domestic risk assessment processes and preserve Members' rights to establish risk regulatory measures according to their own, societally-accepted levels of SPS risk - continually returns to a position that gives a privileged role to science, and the views of scientists, in determining the proper scope of risk regulation. The paper argues that the different direction taken by WTO decision-makers in the SPS context, when compared with their judicial counterparts in the US and EU, reflects the absence of normative reference points in the international trading system which could guide WTO decision-makers in striking a "balance � between the shared, but sometimes competing, interests of promoting international trade and of protecting � life and health (Beef Hormones)." The result, increasingly, in SPS cases is a move away from recognizing the legitimacy of Members' risk management policies motivated by domestic social considerations towards the seemingly more neutral and universal criterion of science. The irony, however, is that the value-laden questions inherent in much health and environmental risk regulation are thereby delegated to a body of knowledge whose claims to authority rest on its very lack of normative content.

    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: http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/04/040201.html
    Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 404 Not Found (http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/04/040201.html [301 Moved Permanently]--> http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/04/040201.html). If this is indeed the case, please notify (Charlie Pike)


    File Function: Contents/abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/04/040201.pdf
    Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 404 Not Found (http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/04/040201.pdf [301 Moved Permanently]--> http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/04/040201.pdf). If this is indeed the case, please notify (Charlie Pike)


    File Function: Part of text
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Jean Monnet Chair in its series Jean Monnet Working Papers with number 2.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 12 Jun 2004
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:erp:jeanmo:p0252
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/

    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:jeanmo:p0252. 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: (Charlie Pike)

    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.