• Environmental and Resource Economics Review
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.519-547
• /
• 2004

This paper analyze problems about scope of specific trade obligations(STOs), principle of dispute settlement procedure, and non-parties in context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety(POB), which based on sub-paragraph 31(i) of DDA WTO Ministrial Declaration. The implications based on result of this study are as follows. First, to accept the wider scope of STOs under POB in Korea, importing country, won't be harmful to LMOs and Bioindustry. Instead, it will ensure a high level of biosafety concerning the import of LMOs. Exporters can take different kinds of trade measures to countervail adverse effect on the export of LMOs in this case. Therefore importer will endure the aftereffect. However, if korea were in exporter's place, to accept the wider scope STOs under POB will not have a good influence on the export of LMOs. Korea, therefore, should devise scheme for responding to debate about the STOs in MEAs, which have to be based on cost-benefit analysis and scenarios taking into account of speed and level in biotechology progress, status and trend of LMOs R&D and production, and condition of other industries. Second, it is not easy to agree with applying to what's rule between the POB and WTO for settlement dispute. Because there is the incompatibility between the POB characterized according to social rationality and WTO's rules for safety and environmental protection characterized according to scientific rationality. This issue have to be discussed for long period due to gap like that. Accordingly Korea, one of major LMOs importing countries, should suggest continuously that the effort is needed to ensure an adequate level of protection in transboundary movements of LMOs and scientific, environmental and socio-economic study. Third, in case of dispute between party and non-party of the POB, the duties under the WTO of non-party of the POB(if WTO member country) is valid. The country, therefore, will try to settle dispute based on WTO's rules. However, international society have to ensure for sound and safe use of LMOs in the field of transboundary movements. Accordingly Korea should devise scheme for preventing the possibility of dispute between party and non-party of the POB(if WTO member country), which is supported by policy options under the POB.

• Proceedings of the Korean Aquaculture Society Conference
• /
• 2004.10a
• /
• pp.11-11
• /
• 2004

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Crop Science Conference
• /
• 2022.04a
• /
• pp.8-8
• /
• 2022

지난25년간 유전자변형 생물체(LMO)는 가장 성공적인 농업 기술의 하나로 자리잡았다. 그러나 동시에 LMO가 격렬한 찬반 논란의 중심에 있었고 이로 인한 엄격한 규제의 대상이 되어 왔다. 카르타헤나 바이오안전성의정서와 LMO 위해성 심사 및 승인 등은 이러한 엄격한 규제를 대표하는 국제 혹은 국가 수준의 정책사례라고 할 수 있다. 특히 유럽연합은 역내의 반-LMO 정서를 반영하여 스페인 등 일부 국가를 제외하고는 거의 모라토리움 수준의 LMO 규제를 실시하고 있다. 유럽식품안전청(EFSA)는 유럽연합의 이러한 정책 결정에 따라 역내의 LMO 재배 및 사용에 대해 엄격한 심사업무를 담당하고 있는 기관이다. 최근EFSA는 그 동안의 심사 경험을 바탕으로 LMO의 심사 경험과 LMO환경 방출에 대한 모니터링 결과를 공유하기 위한 자료를 발간했다. 이들 자료는 EU에 비견될 수 있을 정도로 LMO에 대해 부정적인 정책적 입장을 취하고 있는 우리에게 다양한 시사점을 제공할 것으로 판단된다. 본 발표에서는 최근의 LMO 정책 환경 변화를 돌아보고, EFSA 보고서의 시사점을 살펴봄으로써 우리의 LMO 규제 정책이 합리적으로 개선될 수 있는 방향을 제시하고자 했다.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.107-135
• /
• 2003

This study reviews the proposed liability and redress regime under the Cartagena Protocol on Biodiversity. Several core elements for the regime are discussed in comparison with those listed in the 1999 Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage resulting from the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. These are (1) scope of the rules and procedures; (2) channeling of liability; (3) legal standing; (4) definition of damage; (5) standard of care; (6) ancillary sources of compensation; (7) limitation of liability; (8) financial guarantees; and (9) mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. Korea has given relatively little attention to the issue of liability and redress in the context of LMOs trade. As the Protocol is expected to enter into force soon, Korea needs to develop appropriate implementing domestic mechanisms for the Biosafety Protocol. Establishing an adequate domestic liability and compensation scheme will be one of the most important mechanisms not only to comply the Protocol but to ensure safety of LMOs in general. A further research is needed on the basis of a comparision of relevant legislations in different countries as well as analysis of current laws related to the accidents arising from LMOs trade, such as product liability laws, food safety laws, liability provisions in some environmental legislations.