| | english | español | français |
Go to record ID

  Home|Finding Information|Record details   Printer-friendly version

Information Resource
Record information and status
Record ID
115018
Status
Published
Date of creation
2019-05-28 22:45 UTC (cjg072@mail.usask.ca)
Date of publication
2019-07-04 20:07 UTC (austein.mcloughlin@cbd.int)

General Information
Title
Conflicting Rules for the International Trade of GM Products: Does International Law Provide a Solution?
Author
William A. Kerr, Stuart Smyth, Peter W. B. Phillips, Martin Phillips, University of Saskatchewan, Canada; AgBioForum
Organization(s) involved in the publication of this resource
AgBioForum
Editor
129 Mumford Hall
University of Missouri-Columbia

Columbia, MO
United States of America, 66211
Phone:+573 882-0143
Fax:+573 882-3958
Email:editor@agbioforum.org
Url:http://www.agbioforum.org/welcome.htm
Language(s)
  • English
Publication date
2014
Subject
Summary, abstract or table of contents
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was designed to provide guidance regarding the legality of primacy between international agreements. Article 30 of the Convention states that when one party to a previous treaty is not a party to a subsequent treaty, then, "the earlier treaty only applies to the extent that its provisions are compatible with those of the latter treaty." To date, the implications of this have not been well explored with respect to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB). Given that three of the top five producers of genetically modified crops (Argentina, Canada, and the United States) are not signatories to the CPB, this issue could become contentious. This article provides a detailed assessment of the applicability of the Vienna Convention to the WTO and the CPB. The resulting policy implications and potential trade concerns are highlighted and addressed. The results suggest that formal international law has little to offer in terms of determining which institution-the CPB or the WTO-should take precedent in the case of a dispute. Given that most major exporters of GM crops do not belong to the CPB, but most states (both potential importers and exporters) belong to the WTO, the latter should be the venue where disputes are adjudicated. A WTO panel would likely not consider socio-economic concerns as an acceptable justification for the imposition of trade barriers
Thematic areas
Additional Information
Type of resource
  • Article (journal / magazine / newspaper)
Publisher and its location
AgBioForum
Rights
©2014 AgBioForum
Format
18 pages
PDF
Source
AgBioForum, 17(2), 105-122
Keywords and any other relevant information
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, genetically modified crops, international law, Vienna Convention, World Trade Organization