预防原则和转基因生物:欧洲机构和成员国之间争论的焦点。

IF 2.5 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Law and the Biosciences Pub Date : 2021-05-19 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1093/jlb/lsab012
Alessandra Guida
{"title":"预防原则和转基因生物:欧洲机构和成员国之间争论的焦点。","authors":"Alessandra Guida","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsab012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This manuscript examines how the Precautionary Principle has been applied to provide a mechanism for protection of the environment and health in response to the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Europe. It discusses how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handled national requests across four cases in which Member States had failed in their attempt to trigger the Precautionary Principle in order to uphold a ban or suspension of the cultivation or sale of GMOs in their territory. The analysis of these judgements suggests that the court has applied a narrow interpretation to the scientific evidence emerging from risk assessments, and has thereby limited the potential for precautionary measures by Member States to be upheld by the court. This outcome reflects a `weak' application of the Precautionary Principle by the court in contrast with the `moderate' formulation and `strong' interpretation of the principle offered by the European legal framework. Moreover, the analysis highlights that the CJEU's rulings are not keeping pace with the development of the European normative framework which considers the Precautionary Principle as a key tenet and, through the 2015 Directive, enables Member States to ban GMO cultivation without referring to scientific evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":"8 1","pages":"lsab012"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jlb/lsab012","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The precautionary principle and genetically modified organisms: A bone of contention between European institutions and member states.\",\"authors\":\"Alessandra Guida\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jlb/lsab012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This manuscript examines how the Precautionary Principle has been applied to provide a mechanism for protection of the environment and health in response to the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Europe. It discusses how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handled national requests across four cases in which Member States had failed in their attempt to trigger the Precautionary Principle in order to uphold a ban or suspension of the cultivation or sale of GMOs in their territory. The analysis of these judgements suggests that the court has applied a narrow interpretation to the scientific evidence emerging from risk assessments, and has thereby limited the potential for precautionary measures by Member States to be upheld by the court. This outcome reflects a `weak' application of the Precautionary Principle by the court in contrast with the `moderate' formulation and `strong' interpretation of the principle offered by the European legal framework. Moreover, the analysis highlights that the CJEU's rulings are not keeping pace with the development of the European normative framework which considers the Precautionary Principle as a key tenet and, through the 2015 Directive, enables Member States to ban GMO cultivation without referring to scientific evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"lsab012\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/jlb/lsab012\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab012\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文探讨了预防原则是如何应用于提供一种机制来保护环境和健康,以应对在欧洲引进转基因生物(GMOs)。它讨论了欧盟法院(CJEU)如何处理四个案例中的国家请求,在这些案例中,成员国未能试图触发预防原则,以维持在其领土上禁止或暂停种植或销售转基因生物。对这些判决的分析表明,法院对风险评估得出的科学证据采用了狭隘的解释,从而限制了法院支持会员国采取预防措施的可能性。这一结果反映了法院对预防原则的“弱”应用,而不是欧洲法律框架对该原则的“温和”表述和“强”解释。此外,该分析强调,欧洲法院的裁决没有跟上欧洲规范性框架的发展步伐,该框架将预防原则视为一项关键原则,并通过2015年指令,使成员国能够在不参考科学证据的情况下禁止转基因生物种植。
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 precautionary principle and genetically modified organisms: A bone of contention between European institutions and member states.

This manuscript examines how the Precautionary Principle has been applied to provide a mechanism for protection of the environment and health in response to the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Europe. It discusses how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handled national requests across four cases in which Member States had failed in their attempt to trigger the Precautionary Principle in order to uphold a ban or suspension of the cultivation or sale of GMOs in their territory. The analysis of these judgements suggests that the court has applied a narrow interpretation to the scientific evidence emerging from risk assessments, and has thereby limited the potential for precautionary measures by Member States to be upheld by the court. This outcome reflects a `weak' application of the Precautionary Principle by the court in contrast with the `moderate' formulation and `strong' interpretation of the principle offered by the European legal framework. Moreover, the analysis highlights that the CJEU's rulings are not keeping pace with the development of the European normative framework which considers the Precautionary Principle as a key tenet and, through the 2015 Directive, enables Member States to ban GMO cultivation without referring to scientific evidence.

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
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
期刊最新文献
Accelerating biosimilar market access: the case for allowing earlier standing. Forensic genetics in the shadows. The law for mini-organ prototypes in a dish. Mapping the legal status options for organoids in Swiss law. Intellectual property issues for open science practices in genomic-related health research and innovation in Africa. Uterus transplants and Mexico's rule of law.
×
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