争议首先:限制指令(EU) 2015/412对转基因作物种植的国家决策成功的因素

Q1 Social Sciences Law, Innovation and Technology Pub Date : 2019-07-03 DOI:10.1080/17579961.2019.1665794
R. Mampuys, L. Poort
{"title":"争议首先:限制指令(EU) 2015/412对转基因作物种植的国家决策成功的因素","authors":"R. Mampuys, L. Poort","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2019.1665794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The cultivation of GM crops in Europe has a long history of disagreement. While the legal framework is based on a safety assessment, the disagreement goes beyond such risks and is rooted in political, social and cultural grounds. In 2015, with the discussion having become deadlocked—neither Member States (MS) who wanted to cultivate GM crops nor those who did not could have their way—Directive (EU) 2015/412 was adopted. This Directive which, in addition to the safety assessment, enables MS to prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory based on non-safety considerations, was supposed to remove the deadlock and give MS autonomy to restrict cultivation. However, as of 2018, it seems that this approach has been only partially successful. In this article, we identify factors limiting the effective use of the new Directive; and, then using Poort’s model of interactive legislation combined with an ethos of controversies, we analyse the potential of the Directive.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"11 1","pages":"175 - 202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17579961.2019.1665794","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Controversy first: factors limiting the success of Directive (EU) 2015/412 for national decision-making on the cultivation of GM crops\",\"authors\":\"R. Mampuys, L. Poort\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17579961.2019.1665794\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The cultivation of GM crops in Europe has a long history of disagreement. While the legal framework is based on a safety assessment, the disagreement goes beyond such risks and is rooted in political, social and cultural grounds. In 2015, with the discussion having become deadlocked—neither Member States (MS) who wanted to cultivate GM crops nor those who did not could have their way—Directive (EU) 2015/412 was adopted. This Directive which, in addition to the safety assessment, enables MS to prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory based on non-safety considerations, was supposed to remove the deadlock and give MS autonomy to restrict cultivation. However, as of 2018, it seems that this approach has been only partially successful. In this article, we identify factors limiting the effective use of the new Directive; and, then using Poort’s model of interactive legislation combined with an ethos of controversies, we analyse the potential of the Directive.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37639,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law, Innovation and Technology\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"175 - 202\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17579961.2019.1665794\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law, Innovation and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2019.1665794\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law, Innovation and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2019.1665794","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要欧洲对转基因作物的种植有着长期的分歧。虽然法律框架是基于安全评估的,但分歧超出了这些风险,并植根于政治、社会和文化原因。2015年,由于讨论陷入僵局——无论是想要种植转基因作物的成员国,还是不想种植的成员国——第2015/412号指令获得通过。该指令除安全评估外,还允许MS基于非安全考虑禁止在其领土内种植转基因生物,旨在消除僵局,并赋予MS限制种植的自主权。然而,截至2018年,这种方法似乎只取得了部分成功。在这篇文章中,我们确定了限制有效使用新指令的因素;然后,我们使用Poort的互动立法模型,结合争议精神,分析了该指令的潜力。
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
Controversy first: factors limiting the success of Directive (EU) 2015/412 for national decision-making on the cultivation of GM crops
ABSTRACT The cultivation of GM crops in Europe has a long history of disagreement. While the legal framework is based on a safety assessment, the disagreement goes beyond such risks and is rooted in political, social and cultural grounds. In 2015, with the discussion having become deadlocked—neither Member States (MS) who wanted to cultivate GM crops nor those who did not could have their way—Directive (EU) 2015/412 was adopted. This Directive which, in addition to the safety assessment, enables MS to prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory based on non-safety considerations, was supposed to remove the deadlock and give MS autonomy to restrict cultivation. However, as of 2018, it seems that this approach has been only partially successful. In this article, we identify factors limiting the effective use of the new Directive; and, then using Poort’s model of interactive legislation combined with an ethos of controversies, we analyse the potential of the Directive.
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
Law, Innovation and Technology
Law, Innovation and Technology Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Stem cell research, cloning, GMOs ... How do regulations affect such emerging technologies? What impact do new technologies have on law? And can we rely on technology itself as a regulatory tool? The meeting of law and technology is rapidly becoming an increasingly significant (and controversial) topic. Law, Innovation and Technology is, however, the only journal to engage fully with it, setting an innovative and distinctive agenda for lawyers, ethicists and policy makers. Spanning ICTs, biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, neurotechnologies, robotics and AI, it offers a unique forum for the highest level of reflection on this essential area.
期刊最新文献
Predictive analytics and the collective dimensions of data protection The relationship between law and technology: comparing legal responses to creators’ rights under copyright law through safe harbour for online intermediaries and generative AI technology Navigating the dichotomy of smart prisons: between surveillance and rehabilitation Ethics reviews in the European Union. Implications for the governance of scientific research in times of data science and Artificial Intelligence The EU legal framework for algorithmic recommender systems: I (don’t) know it when I see it
×
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