دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل و پژوهشگر مرکز تحقیقات اخلاق و حقوق پزشکی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. ‏

2 استادیار گروه حقوق دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد هشتگرد، البرز، ایران

10.22059/jplsq.2022.328475.2854

چکیده

مهم‌ترین هدف سازمان تجارت جهانی افزایش استانداردهای زندگی و گسترش تجارت است. ازاین‌رو، این سازمان محل حل‌وفصل اختلافات ناشی از تعارض منافع تجاری دولت‌هاست و باید در این زمینه موافقت‌نامه‌ها و اسناد لازم‌الاجرای مربوطه را با روشی بی‌طرفانه تفسیر کند؛ چراکه مقررات بین‌المللی تجارت نه‌تنها به‌منظور حمایت از منافع تجاری، بلکه با گسترش ارتباطات بین‌المللی و با توجه به منافع مصرف‌کنندگان در تجارت بین‌الملل تصویب شده‌اند. به‌دلیل اهمیت مؤلفة حفظ سلامت عمومی و ایمنی غذا در روند تجارت کالاهایی مانند محصولات تراریخته یا اصلاح‌شدة ژنتیکی، برقراری تعادل میان منافع تجاری و منافع مصرف‌کنندگان و به‌عبارتی ملاحظات اقتصادی دولت‌های صادرکننده و ملاحظات اجتماعی دولت‌های واردکننده بسیار حیاتی است. مسئله این است که اختلافات بین طرفین تجاری در اعمال مفاد موافقت‌نامه‌های سازمان تجارت جهانی بر تجارت محصولات تراریخته از یک سو و سایر اسناد بین‌المللی و داخلی ـ که بیشتر بر اتخاذ اقدامات محدودیتی مبتنی بر رویکرد حقوق بشرمحور متمرکزندـ از سوی دیگر، موجب بروز چالش‌های حقوقی شده است. این مقاله با تمسک از روش توصیفی و تحلیلی درصدد تبیین این چالش‌ها در نظام هنجاری و ارائۀ راهکارهایی در این زمینه بوده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Trade of GMOs products within the framework of WTO ‎agreements: Challenges and solutions

نویسندگان [English]

  • Navid Zamaneh Ghadim 1
  • Yousef Bagheri Hamed 2

1 Ph.D. in International Law and Researcher of Medical Ethics and Law Research Center, Shahid ‎Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran‎

2 Assistant Professor of Law, Islamic Azad University, Hashtgerd Branch, Alborz,, Iran

چکیده [English]

The WTO is considered to be the main institution of international trade, and basically raising living standards and expanding trade are important goals of this organization. On the other hand, this organization is a place for settlement of disputes that arise from the conflict of commercial interests of countries, and in this regard, it must interpret the relevant agreements and binding documents in an impartial manner. Because international trade regulations have not been enacted only to protect trade interests, but with the expansion of international relations, attention to the interests of consumers is also raised in international trade issues. This is because the trade process of goods such as GMOs products, due to the importance of maintaining public health and food safety in them, requires a balance between trade and consumer interests, in other words, economic considerations of exporting countries and social considerations of importing countries. The problem is that in applying the provisions of the WTO agreements to the trade of GMOs on the one hand, and other international and domestic instruments that focus more on restrictive measures based on a human rights approach; Disputes have arisen between the trading parties, which has led to legal challenges. Relying on descriptive and analytical methods, this article has tried to explain these challenges in the normative and procedural system, and to provide solutions in this regard.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cartagena Protocol
  • ‎GMOs products
  • WTO ‎Agreements
  • WTO Dispute ‎Settlement Body.‎
  1. فارسی

الف) کتاب

  1. فاطمی‌نژاد، صلاح‌الدین (1397). سازمان جهانی تجارت و حقوق بین‌الملل بشر. تهران: میزان.
  2. میرمحمدی، معصومه سادات (1397). پرتو حقوق بین‌الملل بر محصولات اصلاح‌شدۀ ژنتیکی. تهران: خرسندی.

 

  1. انگلیسی
  2. A) Books
  3. Cottier, T. (2008). Genetic Engineering, Trade and Human Rights in: Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System: World Trade Forum, Ed by Daniel Wüger, Cambridge University Press.
  4. Diaz, J. M. (2018). Genetically modified organism. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. available at https://www.britannica.com.
  5. Escajeda San-Epifanio, L. (2013). The Legal Clash Between Public Health, Environmental Protection and the Free Market of GMOs: The Cartagena Protocol and the WTO Agreements. in: The ethics of consumption: The citizen, the market and the law, Ed by Helena Röcklinsberg, Wageningen Academic Publishers.
  6. Koul, A. K. (2018). Guide to the WTO and GATT: Economics, Law and Politics. Springer.
  7. Dries, L. Heijman, W. Jongeneel, R. Purnhagen, K. Wesseler, J. (2019). Present and Future EU GMO Policy, in: EU Bioeconomy Economics and Policies: Volume II, Ed by Liesbeth Dries, Palgrave Macmillan.
  8. Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich. (2007). Biotechnology, Human Rights and International Economic Law. in: Biotechnologies and International Human Rights, Ed by Francesco Francioni, Hart Publishing.
  9. Zarrilli, S. (2006). International Trade in GMOs: Legal Frameworks and Developing Country Concerns, in: Biotechnology and International Law. Ed by Francesco Francioni and Tullio Scovazzi, HART Publishing.

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Ansari, A. Nik Ahmad Kamal, N. (2008). Biosafety Protocol, SPS Agreement and Export and Import Control of LMOs/GMOs.Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 7(2), 139-170.
  3. Bartels, L. (2001). Applicable Law in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings. Journal of World Trade,35(2), 499-519.
  4. Blakeney, M. (2013). Food Labelling and International Trade. International Trade Law and Regulation, 19)1(, 14-24.
  5. Goodarzi, M. Sheikhi, M. Shabani, M. (2017). Commercialization Process of Biopharmaceuticals Development. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 8)4(, 289.292.
  6. Halford, N. G., (2019). Legislation Governing Genetically Modified and Genome-Edited Crops in Europe: The Need for Change. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 99)1(, 8-12.
  7. Hilf, M., (2001). Power, rules and principles - which orientation for WTO/GATT law?. Journal of International Economic Law, 4)1(, 111-130.
  8. Joly, Y. Wahnon, F. Knoppers, B. (2007). Impact of the Commercialization of Biotechnology Research on the Communication of Research Results: North American Perspective. Harvard Health Policy Review, 8)1(, 46-60.
  9. Juma, C. (1999). Biotechnology in the Global Economy: Beyond Technical Advances and Risks. AgBioForum, 2)3 & 4(, 218-222.
  10. Ludlow, K. (2016). Consistency of Assessment of Socio-Economic Considerations under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety with Other International Obligations. The Estey Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 17)2(, 137-172.
  11. Mercado, C. A. C. (2018). Erring on the Side of Precaution: An Assessment of the Application of the Precautionary Principle in International Trade Law. Ateneo Law Journal, 62, 988.1034.
  12. Pauwelyn, J. (2001). The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go?. American Journal of International Law, 95, 535-578.
  13. Ujj, O. (2016). European and American Views on Genetically Modified Foods. The New Atlantis, 49, 77-92.

 

  1. D) Documents & Reports
  2. China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, Report of the Panel, (2009) WT/DS363/R.
  3. Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. Official Journal L 117, 08/05/1990.
  4. European Communities - Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products- Reports of the Panel, (2006), WTO Docs WT/DS291/R; WT/DS292/R; WT/DS293/R.
  5. European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, Reports of the Panel, (2006), WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R.
  6. European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, Reports of the Appellate Body, (2014), WT/DS400/AB/R & WT/DS401/AB/R.
  7. Indonesia – Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal Products, Report of the Panel, (2016) WT/DS477/R & WT/DS478/R.
  8. International Law on Biotechnology, The Hague Conference, Resolution No: 5/2010.
  9. Japanese Measures on Imports of Leather, GATT Panel (1984), Report BISD/31S/94.
  10. OECD, Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles, (1993), Paris.
  11. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September (2003) on genetically modified food and feed, Official Journal L 268, And Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September (2003) concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms, taking effect from April 2004.
  12. United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, Report of the Panel, (2004), WT/DS285/R
  13. WTO Report of the Appellate Body, Brazil - Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, (2007), WT/DS332/AB/R.
  14. WTO/WHO, WTO Agreements and Public Health, (2002), A Joint Study by the WHO and the WTO Secretariat.{Available at:

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/wto_agree_health_e.htm}

 

  1. E) Websites
  2. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=109143&doclang.
  3. https://www.britannica.com