اصل احتیاط و موافقت‌نامة SPS سازمان جهانی تجارت
محورهای موضوعی : حقوق محیط زیست
عباسعلی کدخدایی
1
(
استاد، دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
)
اسماء سالاری
2
(
دانش آموخته دکتری حقوق بین¬الملل، دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. *(مسوول مکاتبات)
)
کلید واژه: سازمان جهانی تجارت, اصل احتیاط, موافقت‌نامه اقدامات بهداشتی و بهداشت گیاهی, عدم قطعیت علمی.,
چکیده مقاله :
ریسک‌های زیست‌محیطی و سلامت انسانی اعم از قطعی و محتمل به جهت آثار جبران ناپذیری که به بار می‌آورند نیازمند التفات نظر ویژه هستند. اهمیت این حوزه‌ها به حدی است که نظام جهانی تجارت که وضعیت خاص دارد نیز از توجه و حتی اثربخشی به آنها معاف نیست. به رغم مقاومت جدیِ سازمان جهانی تجارت به هر گونه اقدامات محدود کنندة تجاری و رویکرد مضیق به استثنائات مجاز، اصل زیست محیطی احتیاط بارها مبنای اقدامات حفاظتی دولت‌ها در چارچوب نظامات سازمان قرار گرفته و موضوع استناد دول عضو در اختلافات مطروحه نزد رکن حل و فصل اختلافات شده است. نتیجه، اعلام بند 5 مادة 7 موافقت‌نامة اقدامات بهداشتی و بهداشت گیاهی به عنوان مهمترین انعکاس اصل مذکور در نظام حقوقی سازمان است. با توجه به اهداف ارزشمند این مقرره، در روشی توصیفی تحلیلی و با تکیه بر رویة قضایی سازمان، تبیین ارتباطش با اصل احتیاط و واکاوی ابعاد نظری و عملیِ آن در نوشتار پیش رو مورد بحث قرار گرفت و به این نتیجه دست یافت که اصل احتیاط در بند مذکور منعکس شده و اجرای عملی آن نیز با صدور رأی استیناف در قضیه تعلیق مداوم- ایالات متحده امکان پذیر گردیده است.
Public health and environmental issues are really important and deserve to attract proportionate attention from the world trade organization whereas risks on them (both certain and uncertain) may cause to irreble and irreversible effects on people and the environment. Despite the world trade organization resistance to any kind of Protective measures, member states have frequently based their sanitary and phytosanitary measures on the precautionary Principle, an enivironmental principle of international law and have invoked it several times in their disputes before Dispute Settlement Body of the organization. These Attempts have led the panels and appellate bodies to declare that Article 5.7 of sanitary and phytosanitary agreement as a reflection of the precautionary principle in the world trade organization system. Considering the importance of abovementioned Article of the SPS, this paper will try to clarify theoretical and practical aspects of it . it was done on the descriptive-analytical methodology with the help of the available library source and recognized Article 5.7 as a reflection of the PP in the SPS agreement and it is applicable in DSB especially after issuing the appellate body report in the Continued Suspension Case.
References
1. VanderZwaag, David, (2013)“The ICJ, ITLOS and the Precautionary Approach: Paltry Progressions, Jurisprudential Jousting,” University of Hawai'i Law Review,Vol. 35, p.617
2. Tilahun Ayalew, D.T., (2021), ”Shall We Accept the Precautionary Principle in all Fields of Environmental Protection? Testing the Customary International Law Status of the Precautionary Principle of International Environmental Law”, Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3759145, Accessed:2021/9/3; Kadkhodaee, A.A, Salari, A., (2017), Precautionary Principle: A Customary Principle in the EU?, public law studies quarterly, Vol.47, issue 3. p.58. (In Persian)
3. Sands, Ph., Peel, J., (2012). Principles of International Environmental Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.228.
4. WTO Continued Suspension Case, 2008: para. 677.
5. WTO Panel Report, EC—Hormones, WTO Document, WT/DS26, 1997, para.2.27. 2.30.2.35
6. WTO Appellate Body Report, EC—Hormones, para.184-186, 253(C). (D), (K), (A).(J).
7. Grmelova, N., 2017, Interpretation of the Precautionary Principle by the WTO´s Dispute Settlement Body with Respect to the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, Czech Yaerbook of international law, Vol.8, p. 118
8. Szajkowskas, Anna (2010). “The Impact of the Definition of the Precautionary Principle in EU Food Law”, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 47, p.183
9. Trouwborst, Arie (2007). “The Precautionary Principle in General International Law: Combating the Babylonian Confusion”, RECIEL, Vol. 16, No. 2, p.191
10. Grusaczynski, Lukasz (2008). “SPS Measures Adopted in case of Insufficiency of Scientific Evidence, Where Do We Stand after EC- Biotech Products Case?” in Chaisse, J., Balmelli, T., (ed), Essays on the Future of the World Trade Organization, Vol II, Geneva:Edis publication,pp.102,106
11. Stoll, P. T., Strack, L., (2007). “Article 5 SPS” in Wolfrum, R., Stoll, P. T., Seibert- Fohr, A., (ed), WTO, Technical Barriers and SPS Measures, Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff, p.458
12. WTO Biotech Products Case, 2006: para. 4.760
13. WTO Biotech Products Case, 2006: para.7.2939; WTO Apples Case, 2003: para.184
14. Trouwborst, Arie (2007). “The Precautionary Principle in General International Law: Combating the Babylonian Confusion”, RECIEL, Vol. 16, No. 2, p.191.
15. ICJ Rep, 2010: para.164
16. WTO Agricultural Products Case, 1998: para.8.58
17. WTO Apples Case, 2003: paras.7.26,8.222
18. WTO Biotech Case,2006: paras.7.2969,7.3000
19. WTO Continued Suspension, 2008: para.7.633
20. De Sadeleer, Nicolas(2002). Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.74, 75
21. ILA Resolution on Legal Principles Relating to Climate Changes, 2014: p.32
22. WTO Agricultural Products Case, 1998: 89; WTO Continued Suspension Case, 2008: 676
23. WTO Apples Case, 2003: para.179
24. WTO Apples Case, 2003: para.185
25. WTO Continued Suspension Case, 2008: para.7.610
26. WTO Apples Case, 2003: para.179
27. WTO Continued Suspension Case, 2008: para.7.621
28. WTO Continued Suspension Case, 2008: para.7.647,7.648
29. WTO Continued Suspension Case, 2008: para.703,705.
30. WTO Continued Suspension Case, 2008: para.725
31. Grusaczynski, Lukasz (2008). “SPS Measures Adopted in case of Insufficiency of Scientific Evidence, Where Do We Stand after EC- Biotech Products Case?” in Chaisse, J., Balmelli, T., (ed), Essays on the Future of the World Trade Organization, Vol II, Geneva:Edis publication,p. 127
32. WTO Hormones Case, 1998: paras.184,189
33. Grusaczynski, 2008: para. 130
34. Stoll & Strack, 2007: para.460
35. WTO Agricultural Products Case1998: para.92
36. Stoll & Strack, 2007: para.461.
37. Laowonsiri, Akawat, (2010). “Application of the Precautionary Principle in the SPS Agreement”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 14, 2010, p.580
38. WTO Apples Case, 2003: para.179.
39. WTO Agricultural Products Case, 1998: para.93
40. WTO Agricultural Products Case, 1998: para.80
41. WTO Biotech Case, 2006: para.7.2969,7.2997.
42. WTO Biotech Case,2006: footnote 1807
43. Lang, Andrew (2008). “Provisional Measures under 5.7 of the WTO’s Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: Some Criticism of the Jurisprudence so far”, London School of Economics and Political Science, Working Paper, p.10
44. Stoll & Strack, 2007: 458; Lang, 2008: 5.
45. WTO Continued Suspension Case, 2008: para.590
46. Grmelova, N., (2017), Interpretation of the Precautionary Principle by the WTO´s Dispute Settlement Body with Respect to the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, Czech Yaerbook of international law, Vol.8, p.128