• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제10권4호
• /
• pp.439-455
• /
• 2008

The SPS Agreement, concluded in the Uruguay Round for the purpose of controlling SPS risks, has traditionally been recognized to maintain the narrowest scope of application compared with TBT Agreement and GATT in relation with environmental provisions. Contrary to such an understanding on the scope of the SPS Agreement, the panel in the EC-Biotech case found that the SPS Agreement extends to regulate trade-restrictive measures on Genetically Modified Organizations(GMOs) causing health and environmental risks. This expanding scope of the SPS Agreement would have substantial influence on domestic environmental regulations as well as Multilateral Environmental Agreements(MEAs). This paper discusses the consequences of an expanding ambit for the WTO SPS Agreement through the designation of a wider range of health and environmental regulations affecting trade as SPS measures. As a result, not only precautionary measures on GMO risks, but also other health and environmental measures with trade impacts, could be subject to SPS control, and consequently, the institutional rigors of the WTO regime. However, strict and literal interpretation of the SPS provisions to expand its applicable scope would cause concerns about the WTO's intervention on the purely environmental measures. Pursuing harmonized and flexible interpretation of provisions on environment-related conflicts as well as accepting precautionary principle included MEAs will contribute to reduce such kind of concerns.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.615-641
• /
• 1999

Trade and the environment emerged as a major and complex issue for trade negotiators in the final stages of the Uruguay Round negotiations. The agreements and other international measures employing trade measures and trade sanctions for achieving global environmental objectives are Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer(1985), the Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer(1987), The Framework Convention on Climate Change(1992), the Convention on Biological Diversity(1992), the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal(1992), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Faunna and Flora(1975), the Rio Declaration, the Agenda 21, etc. The texts of the World Trade Organization(WTO) incorporated certain provisions which were designed to reflect some of the environmental concerns are Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Properity Rights(TRIPs), Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), the General Agreement on Trade in Services(GATS), and Technical Barriers to Trade(TBT) There is the possibility of conflict between multilateral environmental agreements and WTO agreements granting waivers against trade measures and sanctions. This remains a possibility, especially between countries which are Member of WTO and which are not Members of the relevant multilateral environment agreements, and countries which are Members of both the WTO and the relevant MEAs. Measures taken under the trade-related provisions of MEAs could potentially give rise to conflicts under obligations arising in WTO texts. If the parties in dispute are WTO members while they are not members of MEAs, the WTO provisions can be granted a certain priority in terms of international norms and vice versa. When the parties concerned are both WTO members and MEAs, it will be rational to grant the WTO provisions a priority. However, such measures should neither constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where similar conditions prevail, nor create a disguised restriction on trade. Also any trade measures taken should be necessary to prevent developments in trade from endangering the effectiveness of an MEA and they should be proportional and least trade restrictive.