Theme: Uncertainty and the precautionary principle
Title: The World Trade Organization (WTO) and precautionary principle
Author, Noriko Yajima. Organization, The University of Melbourne. Country, Australia.
1st Paragraph: Introduction
This paper will examine conflicts of jurisdictions and political dynamics between the WTO’s
environmental related regulations; the GATT Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement
(TBT) and the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), and multilateral trade
agreements’ (MEAs) trade restrictions; the Cartagena Protocol’s precautionary approach. As a result of
observing an inescapable phenomenon of globalization, the traditional conceptions of international trade
and environment regimes are increasingly needed to adapt a new global order. Multilateral trade and
environmental agreements have developed to play their own role in achieving their goals. MEAs have
developed their regulations to new areas, such as Biosafety with precautionary approach and eco-labelling;
whereas the WTO has brought new issues in under its scope, such as the GATT TBT and SPS Agreements.
The paper will explain why these issues have caused conflicts and slowed coherence process between two
regimes.
Body: Abstract/Paper text
This paper will explore the juridical conflicts rooted on the international political affairs between the GATT
and the Cartagena Protocol, which have blocked coherence process between them. It is generally agreed
that the relationship between international trade rules and MEAs ought to be synergistic and mutually
supportive. In practice, however, the two regimes often contain incompatible provisions but they try
avoiding clashes; hence, there remains a controversial ad hoc task for both regimes.
Juridical conflicts between two agreements are caused by in the absence of normative transformation of
regimes and different political dynamics among their compliances. Also regimes’ level of vulnerability in
trade and environment issues has been considered low, because the violation of such issues in one regime
did not seem to create an intrinsic challenge to another. However, the argument of relationships between
the GATT TBT and SPS Agreements and the Cartagena Protocol precautionary approach and eco-labelling
has contributed to gain the importance of trade and environment crossover issues.
The juridical aspect forwards the need to safeguard the effectiveness of future MEAs and the political
aspect addresses to ensure that the WTO alone does not prescribe solutions to trade related environmental
problems. Thus, it is important to advocate a clear division of tasks between the WTO and MEAs to judge
the legitimacy of trade and environmental objectives and to select the appropriate means for both
agreements’ achievements. It also is essential to promote the capacity building between trade and
environment regimes on the international and national levels.
Last Paragraph: Conclusions
Transboundary-character of environmental protection and the challenge of globalization in trade oblige
both trade and environmental regimes to involve in the multilateralism structures that are possibly designed
to address trade and environmental issues together. However, two multilateral agreements: the GATT and
the Cartagena Protocol have impacted each other negatively in some ways. This is because MEAs’ trade
measures and the WTO’s environmental regulations have been developed by different motivation and
purposes. Particularly, during their policy making procedures, trade and environmental regimes have not
had enough communications on the international and national levels.
References/Notes: (As required)
Arden-Clarke, Charles & Cameron, James, “The Relationship between the Provisions of the Multilateral
Trading System and Trade Measures for Environmental Purposes”, WWF Discussion Paper, WWF
International, Switzerland, March 1996.
Bradnee, W. Chambers & Sampson, Gary P. et al. (eds), Trade, Environment and the Millennium, United
Nations University Press, Tokyo, 2002.
Cioppa, Thomas J., “The sovereign-state system, international law and institutions and environmental
protection: present incompatibilities and future possibilities,” International Studies Association, February
1999.
Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich, “International trade law and international environmental law: prevention and
settlement of international environmental dispute in GATT, Journal of World Trade, February, 1993, pp.
43-81.
Pythoud, Francois & Thomas, Urs p., “the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety”, Governing global
biodiversity, Le Prestre, Philippe G. (ed), ASHGATE, England, 2002, pp.39-90.
Noriko Yajima. SAGES, the University of Melbourne. Address: Victoria 3010, Australia. Tel:+61 3 8344
6339. Fax:+61 3 8344 4972. E-mail: nyajima@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au