Search results

Although free trade law and environmental law especially contained in multi lateral environmental agreements (MEAs) are more or less compatible, however, some twenty MEAs might create a conflicting situation with the GATT/WTO regime. Efforts through CTESS are being made to make the two regimes compatible with each other. But an amicable solution towards harmonizing them still seems to be far. It is said that if all WTO Member states have the political will to agree to one suggestion, the problem can be solved. But due to politicization of the WTO, a common view is difficult to be reached. It is true that all states want protection of the environment. It is evident from the fact that many MEAs have relatively a large number of members, and their member states are sincerely working on enforcing treaty norms contained in them. But when it comes to a conflict situation with international trade, differences among them becomes eminent. In spite of this, an optimistic view that the two regimes can be made complementary to each other is still being given importance. It is for this reason that states are forwarding their suggestions to the CTESS and the discussion is being carried forward on those suggestions. The paper critically examines the reality of ‘conflict or congruity’ between free trade law and environmental law, evaluates various suggestions to make the two regimes compatible with each other, and offers one suggestion that can bring about harmony and will be viable.

The purpose of writing this paper is to present a comparative but critical assessment of the applicability of the precautionary principle (PP) under the SPS Agreement, which is a part of the WTO regime by implication, and under the Cartagena Protocol, which has been made under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The paper presents an analytical exposition of both the sets of laws, trade law and environmental law. The methodology adopted is library based. The approach is to bring about an amicable co-existence of both the laws so that they could serve the dual purpose, i.e. promotion of trade and protection of “human, animal and plant life and health” and conservation of the environment.

The DSB of the WTO should give due importance to the PP and should apply it liberally, keeping also in view the environmental aspects, so that along with free trade human, animal and plant health and life, and conservation of the environment are also protected.

It will change the present paradigm and will bring both the sets of laws together.

It focuses on the life and heath of poor people around the world. It, thus, pleads for application of strong PP.

When genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were put into the international trade, people in many countries, especially European countries, became skeptical of them. A perception developed that they are harmful to human, animal, plant life and health, and destructive to the environment. It is true that if there is no safe use of genetically modified living organisms (LMOs), other species might be affected causing loss to the environment. So as to ensure safe use of LMOs and GMOs, the Cartagena Protocol and the SPS Agreement were, respectively, made. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine both the legal instruments and to explore ways to make them co‐existent, so that human, animal, plant life and health, and the environment are protected without affecting the international trade in LMOs and GMOs.

This paper undertakes a critical examination of the issues surrounding GMOs and LMOs.

The Cartagena Protocol and the SPS Agreement serve two different purposes. It is for this reason that some of their provisions are not co‐extensive. But the conflict in them can be resolved. It is suggested that the provisions pertaining to the precautionary principle of the SPS Agreement should be brought in line with that of the Cartagena Protocol. It is also suggested that importing countries should conduct their own risk assessment preferably by following the CODEX procedure. In no case, risk assessment done by producing companies should be taken as conclusive.

If suggestions offered by the paper are followed, the two will then protect the human, animal and plant health and the environment in the best possible way.

For achieving its object, the paper presents a comparative assessment of the cases decided under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the interface between the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to determine measures available to the global community to resolve the conflict between them, in order to prevent the rapid loss of biodiversity despite the diverse interests of nations.

Within the framework of sustainability, this paper adopts a socio‐legal approach by undertaking a content analysis of the relevant treaties and juristic writings that sheds light on the existing matrix of interaction between the two legal instruments.

The findings reveal that there is an urgent need to review all the instruments, particularly in the area of trade, intellectual property and conservation of biodiversity that causally influence the people's freedoms and capabilities in the said areas. To overcome the range of these surmountable barriers, a comprehensive approach to development is required, i.e. an all‐encompassing functional relation amalgamating distinct development concerns in relevant spheres, especially in economic matters.

The paper explores the changes that need to be incorporated in the TRIPS and CBD in order to develop an appropriate normative framework with regards to property in genetic material.

The research provides amicable solutions that can be explored particularly by the providers of genetic resources, in order to overcome the monumental challenges during the joint implementation of TRIPS and the CBD.

The comprehensive review undertaken in this paper enables the stakeholders to explore measures that enable sustainable development without jeopardizing Earth's biodiversity.

This paper seeks to provide an in‐depth discussion on the impact of agricultural biotechnology in developing and least developed countries (LDCs) as well as the concomitant biosafety concerns that might have an impact on trade and the environment whilst highlighting the importance of choosing development pathways that are conducive to the specific needs of these nations without endangering the biodiversity and affecting people's health.

The paper adopts a socio‐legal approach by undertaking a content analysis of decided cases, relevant treaties and existing studies conducted in areas related to agricultural biotechnology within the framework of sustainable development imperatives.

The paper suggests that developing countries venturing into agricultural biotechnology need to enrich the technology according to their needs and capabilities in order to be able to weigh the benefits against the risks in the production and import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) specifically via the implementation of the “precautionary principle” and viable “risk assessment” techniques which conform to their existing international law obligations in view of the findings that most of these nations have not formulated adequate legal and institutional frameworks supported with the necessary expertise to regulate, monitor, and ensure safety of agricultural GMOs produced and/or imported by them.

The issues and suggestions in this paper will enable the development process of developing and least developed economies to conform to the tenets of sustainable development and minimize the loss of Earth's biodiversity.

The paper is of practical use to stakeholders and policymakers alike venturing into agricultural biotechnology. It pools the findings of a cross‐section of studies to look at the implications therein and the arising biosafety and trade issues with special reference to developing and LDCs.