English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The WTO dispute over European resistance to importation of GMOs centred on the risks that these might, or might not, present, and their accurate assessment. Academic discussion also emphasises the importance of respecting democratic decision-making within states. This paper argues that neither an emphasis on science nor on democracy offer an adequate explanation of the nature of the dispute or a way to resolve it. The science is inconclusive, and reliance on it leads to empty positions, while democracy arguments are incompatible with binding agreements. Really, when states disagree about matters like this they are not disagreeing about what they know, but about the proper reaction to not knowing. Differences of opinion about this are rooted in different perceptions of when and why it is justified to take risks, and who should be allowed to do so, which are rooted in turn in perceptions about the relationships and obligations that different persons and institutions have to each other. The best description of these kinds of disagreement is in terms of morality, and so the best form of legal exceptions to rely on are public morality clauses. This paper considers how such arguments can be accommodated within the framework of the GATT, TBT, and SPS agreements. It suggests that the panel report in the GMO case leaves room for such arguments to be made.

Morality Clauses and Decision-Making in Situations of Scientific Uncertainty: The Case of Gmos