European Regulation of GMOs: Thinking about 'Judicial Review' in the WTO
European Regulation of GMOs: Thinking about 'Judicial Review' in the WTO
复制标题
欧洲对转基因生物的监管：对世贸组织“司法审查”的思考
DOI：
10.1093/clp/57.1.117
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Joanne Scott
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Joanne Scott
本文以欧盟对转基因生物的监管为例，探讨了“司法审查”在WTO中的作用。它认为，在这种情况下，“司法审查”可以被视为加强民主，而不是否定民主，通过加强问责制，特别是国家的外部问责制。它借鉴了罗伯特·基奥汉（Robert Keohane）的工作，他将外部问责理解为对处于特定政体之外的人的问责，这些人受到该政体内所采取的决策的影响。本文以虾/龟和最近的GSP等案例支持这一论点。然而，它承认，随着世贸组织上诉机构开始制定更强有力的实质性审查基准——合理性或相称性类型的测试——“司法审查”也给世贸组织带来了民主困境。这一困境的一个方面涉及公众意见在风险监管中的地位，以及会员国政府在其监管中对这种意见作出反应的法律权利。这种民主困境对WTO构成了大胆的挑战，而且没有简单或绝对的答案。
This paper examines the role of 'judicial review'in the WTO, by reference to a case study on the European regulation of GMOs. It argues that 'judicial review' may, in this setting, be conceived as re-enforcing rather than negating democracy, by enhancing accountability, and in particular the external accountability of states. It draws on the work of Robert Keohane, who understands external accountability as accountability to people who while situated outside of a given polity are affected by decisions adopted within it. The paper supports this argument with reference to cases such as Shrimp/Turtle and, more recently, GSP. It concedes, however that as the Appellate Body of the WTO comes to elaborate stronger substantive benchmarks for review - rationality or proportionality type tests - 'judicial review' also raises a democracy dilemma for the WTO. One aspect of this dilemma concerns the place of public opinion in risk regulation, and the legal entitlement of Member State governments to be responsive, in their regulation, to such opinion. This democracy dilemma presents an audacious challenge for the WTO, and one which admits of no easy or absolute answers.