拒绝动植物卫生检疫措施等效性的权利:监管信任交易?

IF 1.8 Q1 LAW European Journal of Risk Regulation Pub Date : 2024-03-14 DOI:10.1017/err.2024.7
Christian Delev, Jochelle Greaves Siew
{"title":"拒绝动植物卫生检疫措施等效性的权利:监管信任交易?","authors":"Christian Delev, Jochelle Greaves Siew","doi":"10.1017/err.2024.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Equivalence is an essential discipline for liberalising trade between States whose sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures are based on divergent regulatory approaches. During the Uruguay Round negotiations, “equivalence” under the SPS Agreement was regarded by negotiators as being “of great importance”, and it was even considered to establish a right for exporting States. In practice, the discipline has remained ineffective, with only thirty-six equivalence recognition decisions made since 1995. This article argues that the underperformance of equivalence as an obligation is structural in nature: in effect, the SPS Agreement establishes a conditional right of importing Members to refuse equivalence requests. As such, exporting Members only gain equivalence protection where they either demonstrate that their measures (1) meet the importing Member’s appropriate level of protection or (2) achieve the same level of protection as parties to recognition agreements. Finally, the need for fostering regulatory trust between domestic SPS regulatory agencies is underscored as a prerequisite for achieving broader equivalence recognition.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Right to Refuse Equivalence of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: Trading on Regulatory Trust?\",\"authors\":\"Christian Delev, Jochelle Greaves Siew\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/err.2024.7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Equivalence is an essential discipline for liberalising trade between States whose sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures are based on divergent regulatory approaches. During the Uruguay Round negotiations, “equivalence” under the SPS Agreement was regarded by negotiators as being “of great importance”, and it was even considered to establish a right for exporting States. In practice, the discipline has remained ineffective, with only thirty-six equivalence recognition decisions made since 1995. This article argues that the underperformance of equivalence as an obligation is structural in nature: in effect, the SPS Agreement establishes a conditional right of importing Members to refuse equivalence requests. As such, exporting Members only gain equivalence protection where they either demonstrate that their measures (1) meet the importing Member’s appropriate level of protection or (2) achieve the same level of protection as parties to recognition agreements. Finally, the need for fostering regulatory trust between domestic SPS regulatory agencies is underscored as a prerequisite for achieving broader equivalence recognition.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Risk Regulation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Risk Regulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

等效是那些卫生和植物检疫(SPS)措施基于不同监管方法的国家之间贸易自由化的一 个基本准则。在乌拉圭回合谈判期间,《卫生和植物检疫措施协定》下的 "等效 "被谈判者视为 "非常重要",甚至被认为是为出口国确立了一项权利。但在实践中,这一纪律却一直不起作用,自 1995 年以来只做出了 36 项承认等效的决定。本文认为,作为一项义务,等同性的履行不力是结构性的:实际上,《卫生和植物检疫措施协定》为进口成员确立了拒绝等同性请求的有条件权利。因此,出口成员只有在证明其措施(1)符合进口成员的适当保护水平或(2)达到与承认协定缔约方相同的保护水平时,才能获得等同保护。最后,强调需要促进国内卫生和植物检疫监管机构之间的监管信任,这是实现更广泛等效承认的先决条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Right to Refuse Equivalence of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: Trading on Regulatory Trust?
Equivalence is an essential discipline for liberalising trade between States whose sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures are based on divergent regulatory approaches. During the Uruguay Round negotiations, “equivalence” under the SPS Agreement was regarded by negotiators as being “of great importance”, and it was even considered to establish a right for exporting States. In practice, the discipline has remained ineffective, with only thirty-six equivalence recognition decisions made since 1995. This article argues that the underperformance of equivalence as an obligation is structural in nature: in effect, the SPS Agreement establishes a conditional right of importing Members to refuse equivalence requests. As such, exporting Members only gain equivalence protection where they either demonstrate that their measures (1) meet the importing Member’s appropriate level of protection or (2) achieve the same level of protection as parties to recognition agreements. Finally, the need for fostering regulatory trust between domestic SPS regulatory agencies is underscored as a prerequisite for achieving broader equivalence recognition.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: European Journal of Risk Regulation is an interdisciplinary forum bringing together legal practitioners, academics, risk analysts and policymakers in a dialogue on how risks to individuals’ health, safety and the environment are regulated across policy domains globally. The journal’s wide scope encourages exploration of public health, safety and environmental aspects of pharmaceuticals, food and other consumer products alongside a wider interpretation of risk, which includes financial regulation, technology-related risks, natural disasters and terrorism.
期刊最新文献
Democratising Food Safety: Why We Need to Look Beyond Government Regulation and Provide a Citizen Right of Action Mind the Gap: Assessing Member States’ Implementation of Farm to Farm-to-Fork Targets within the 2023–2027 Common Agricultural Policy Rethinking Consumer Empowerment: New Directions for Sustainable Food Law in an Era of EU Discontent What EU Conditionality Says about the Rule of Law The Development Risks Defence in the Digital Age
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1