Public Law Studies Quarterly

The Administrative Approach to International Liability ‎Resulting from Genetically Modified Organisms

Document Type : Article

Authors

Shima Arab Asadi 1
Elaheh Amani Vamerzani 2

1 Assistant Prof., Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

2 MA. Student in Environmental Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2021.313197.2623
Abstract
The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was adopted in 2010 to establish international rules and regulations on liability and redress for damages to biosafety resulting from the transboundary displacement of genetically modified organisms in order to protect sustainable use of biodiversity. Based on strict liability, the protocol holds the operators responsible for their activities, merely by establishing a causal link between the damages incurred and the genetically modified organisms without the need to prove any fault. The protocol also provides two general approaches to prevent and redress any harm to biodiversity: the administrative and the civil liability approaches. This article's main question is how to define the administrative approach and its differences with the civil liability approach? The research hypothesis, which has been proven by a descriptive-analytical method, indicates that these two approaches are not inherently different as regards the necessity to allocate and redress loss. However, with an administrative approach, there is no longer a need for lengthy trials, as it provides a more efficient system for biodiversity protection. The international liability system for genetically modified organisms provides a standard set of legal provisions that helps the Biological Diversity Convention's member states to safely produce, distribute, and transport genetically modified organisms by adopting a strict liability basis and an administrative approach for redress.

Keywords

administrative approach
‎biodiversity
Nagoya_Kuala ‎Lumpur Protocol
redress
‎strict liability.‎

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Shibata, Ak (2014), International Liability Regime for Biodiversity Damage The Nagoya-Kuala Lampur Supplementary Protocol, London & New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Balashanmugam, S.; Manchikanti, P., & Subramanian, S. (2015), “Liability Aspects Related to Genetically Modified Food under the Food Safety Legislation in India”, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering,Vol.9, No.12, pp.4257-4262.
    3. Brans, E. H., & Dongelmans, D. H. (2014), “The Supplementary Protocol and the EU Environmental Liability Directive: Similarities and differences”, InInternational Liability Regime for Biodiversity Damage, pp.198-218.
    4. Catacora-Vargas, G., & Myhr, A. I. (2011). “Genetically Modified Organisms: A Summary of Potential Adverse Effects Relevant to Sustainable Development”, This report was commissioned from GenØk - Centre for Biosafety by Nordic Ecolabel, pp.1-86.
    5. Ching, L.L, & Lin, L.L (2012), “Third Meeting of the Group of the Friends of the Co_Chairs on Liability and Redress in the Context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafty”, In Liability and redress for damage resulting from GMOs the negotiation under the Cartagena protocol on biosafety, 6935, pp.22-27.
    6. Dong-hyun, Sh. (2011), “Damages and Types of Damages Under Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol Concerning Liability and Remedies of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety”, Science and Technology Law Research, Vol.17, No.2, pp.85-112.
    7. In-sung, Ch. (2014), “Recent Trends of Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress and Domestic Legislative Response”, Law and Policy, Vol.20, , No.2, pp.431-454.
    8. Ki Ju, P. (2011), “A Study on the Establishing Process and Tasks of Nagoya-Kuala Lampur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety –Focused on the Case of LMO`s Release into Environment-”, Science and Technology Law Research, Vol.17, No.2, pp.3-45.
    9. Lefeber, R. (2012), “The Legal Significance of the Nagoya-Kuala Lampur Supplementary Protocol: The Result of a Paradigm Evolution”, Electronic Journal, pp.1-17.
    10. Nijar, G.S. (2013), “The Nagoya-Kuala Lampur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: An Analaysis and Implementation Challenges”, Int Environ Agreements, Vol.13, No.3, pp.271-290.
    11. Santoso, W. Y. (2016), “Bridging the Implementation of the Nagoya-Kuala Lampur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress in Indonedia”, Indonesia Law Review,Vol. 6, No.1, pp.58-78.
    12. Santoso, W.Y. (2018), “Designing the Implementation of Liability and Redress for Biosafety in Indonesia”, Eur. Food & Feed L. Rev., Vol.13, pp.125-135.
    13. Se-Jeong, Y. (2011), “Legislative Measures for the Implementation of Nagoya-Kuala Lampur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety”, Science and Technology Law Research, Vol.17, No.2, pp.47-84.
    14. Telesetsky, A. (2011), “The Nagoya-Kuala Lampur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress”, International Legal Materials, Vol. 50, No.1, pp.105-113.
    15. Xue, D., & Tisdell, C. A. (2000), “Effects of the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol on Trade in GMOs, WTO Implications, and Consequences for China”, Department of Economics, The University of Queensland, (No. 1741-2016-140552), pp.1-40.

     

    1. C) Documents
    2. Bekendtgørelse af lov om miljø og genteknologi, 1. februar 2017. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/den100587.pdf
    3. Cartagena protocol on Biosafety, Nagoya, Japan, 29 January 2000.
    4. Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment, Lugano, 21 June 1993.
    5. International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, Brussels, 29 November 1969.
    6. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, 1989.
    7. The Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio De Janeiro, 5 June 1992.
    8. The Nagoya_Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Nagoya, Japan, October 2010.
    9. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, Rio De Janerio, 3 to 14 June 1992.
    10. Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, 29 May 1963.
    11. ЗАКОН за генетично модифицирани организми, в сила от 18.07.2017 г. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/bul52940.pdf

     

    References in Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Jafari Langroudi, Mohammadjafar (1999), Terminology of Law, Tehran: Ganjedanesh Publication (In Persian).
    3. Mirmohamadi, Masoumeh Sadat; Mousavi, Seyyed Fazlollah (2018), The light of international law on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Tehran: Khorsandi Publication (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Abdollahi, Mohsen (2011), “Approaches of International Liability System for Acts Not Prohibited in International Law” Legal Research Quarterly, Vol. 14, Issue 56, pp.211-278 (In Persian).
    3. Badini, Hasan (2005), “The purpose of civil liability”, Law and Political Science, Vol.66, pp.55-113 (In Persian).
    4. Badini, Hasan; Shabani Kandsari, Hasan & Radparvar, Sajjad (2012), “Strict Liability; Foundation and Instances”, Comparative Law Review, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp.19-36 (In Persian).
    5. Bigdeli, Saeed & Badiesanaye Esfahani, Amin (2014), “The Civil Liability’s Basis of Genetically Modified Foods (Transgenic) With Comparative Study in Iran’s Law and International Instruments”, Comparative Law Review, Vol. 5, Issue 2, 287-316 (In Persian).
    6. Ehsanpour, Seyyed Reza & Ommi, Ahmad (2018), “Ethical and Legal Aspects of Crops Engineering from Perspective of Civil Liability in Common Law”, Bioethics Journal, Vol.8, No.29, pp.63-75 (In Persian).
    7. Ghareyazie, Behzad; Mottaghi, Arezoo; Vishlaghi, Neda; Rashedi, Hamid (2010), “Biosafety at International Agreements/ Organizations”, Medical Law Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 12, pp.131-147 (In Persian).
    8. Mashayekh, Milad; Shahbazinia, Morteza & Khoeini, Ghafoor (2018), “Civil Liability Arising from the Defect of Production with an Emphasis on the Genetically Modified (GM) (a comparative study)”, Majlis & Rahbord, Vol. 24, Issue 92, pp.29-56 (In Persian).
    9. Mohajer, Mina; Safai, Hossein & Mahdavi Damghani, Abdolmajid (2011), “Ethical and Legal Consideration for Application for Transgenic Products: a Critical review of National Iranian Biosafety Law”, Ethics in Science and Technology, Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp.35-42 (In Persian).
    10. Pouresmaeili, Alireza; Vaezi Kakhki, Mohammadreza & Bameri, Elham (2017), “A Comparative Study of the Consumers Rights of GM Crops in Iran and European Union”, Bioethics Journal, Vol. 7, No.24, pp.99-114 (In Persian).
    11. Rahimi, Habibolah & Khodarahmi, Nasrin (2019), “Legal System Tools to Confront Environmental Losses Emphasizing the Principle of Preventive Measures”, Islamic Law Research, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp.421-446 (In Persian).
    12. Salehi Jouzaani, Golamreza & Soleymani, Elahe (2018), “Laws and Regulations Governing the Genetically Modified Organisms and Biosafety in Iran”, Islamic Parliament Research Center, Report Number 15971, pp.1-57 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 53, Issue 1
Spring 2023
Spring 2023
Pages 425-445

  • Receive Date 06 November 2020
  • Revise Date 02 August 2021
  • Accept Date 03 October 2021

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us