| America, Canada and Argentina are major countries of developing and producing GMOs. They object any restriction on GMOs trade. Yet, EU has been strictly on the products. From October 1998 to June 2004, EU has not given permission on GMOs from America and Canada, which were not satisfied with it and regard EU's behavior as "de facto moratorium". In May 2003, America, Canada and Argentina appealed to WTO for EU's "de facto moratorium" on GMOs. Then the panel of WTO took a long time search on the case and send its report to both parties on 29, Sep 2006. The panel proposed to the DSB that "EU should adjust its measure which was not paused to SPS."This article takes the case of the special dispute which is related with environment. The purpose is to illustrate the discussing contents in the panel's report and analyses the contradiction between free trade and environmental protection which has been a long discussing problem and further states the difficulties met by WTO. Then the article discusses whether it is proper to resolve the problem under WTO and WTO's improvement.Though the case has not been appealed, the panel's report initiated much discussion on the contradiction between free trade and environmental protection. First, the panel rejected the treaty of Biosafety Protocol; second, the panel did not take the application of precautionary principle into account; third, the complaining party hold that EU should prove to justify its measure, and EU did not agree with it. The panel at last insisted on the principle of "He who asserts must prove." It led to more discussion on the doctrine of distribution of the burden of proof.The case pushes the discussion of the contradiction between free trade and environmental protection to a new high. The article discusses the reason of the contradiction between trade and environment. There are three points on it. One is market failure, one is government failure and another is the inequity and unreasonable international economy old order. Using the method of Marxist Political Economy analysis the writer concludes that the reason is the regulations of both are not fit with their purpose and their nature is the same.There are three views about the relationship between free trade and environmental protection. One thinks that the free trade will lead to deteriorate environment. One thinks that to limit free trade is not good to environmental protection. And the third point holds that when the goods are helpful to environmental protection or helpful to the alternatives of dangerous goods, the trade of such goods is good to environment; well when the goods are dangerous to environment directly or indirectly the consequence of trade is bad to environment, and thus the limitation should be taken out. And the same, a measure or a regulation of trade satisfies the purpose of good environmental protection or the environmental regulations do not limit the free trade, then the two will be balancing. And the author agrees with the third point.According to the case, WTO has to face the difficulties below while adjusting the relationship between free trade and environmental protection.First, to judge the validity and propriety of a environmental measure related to trade, there are different answers under precautionary principle and under scientific proof. WTO faces two difficulties while settling the problem. One is the different purpose of legislation. Another is the lack of scientific advantage to prove.Second, the situation to cite the multinational environmental treatments is unclear, and to solve the situation that some members of WTO do not ratify the multinational environmental treatments is more difficult. WTO faces two difficulties when to coordinate the relationship with Biosafety Protocol, one is the difficulty to explain the laws and another is the difficulty to coordinate the economical profits.Third, the duty to proof is to follow the principle of "He who asserts must prove it". But the principle under SPS and TBT is that the member who undertake the environmental measure proves the purpose is to protect environment. This principle in fact develops the consequence of the shifting of burden of evidence. The DSB may face the problem of lacking of normalization and conscientiousnesss when resolve the problem of proof case by case.Concerning the difficulties, people discuss much on the propriety of WTO to resolve the contradiction between free trade and environmental protection. WTO has the characters of systematicness, timeliness and enforceability. All the merits are useful to resolve the contradiction. Furthermore, WTO has developed both on legal system and on cases resolving to concentrate environmental protection. Thus the writer concludes that it is proper to settle trade disputes which are related with environment. At last, the article states that WTO should do some development by learning the other organizations'experiences and resolve some urgent problems, such as the application of precautionary principle and the relationship with MEAs, especially the treaty of Biosafety Protocol.In this article the author concentrates on three discussing points rising from the panel's report on the EU GMOs case. Using the methods of Marxist Political Economy analysis, the article concludes that the nature between free trade and environmental protection is the same, and the reason of the contradiction is that the superstructure is not fit with the economic base. The article detailed on the difficulties met by WTO when it coordinates the contradiction between free trade and environmental protection. Giving the concerns on the environmental protection put by WTO, the author concludes that WTO is a proper organization to deal with the environmental related disputes. Also WTO should learn the other organizations' experiences.Summing up the above, the article does some research on the coordination on the contradiction between free trade and environmental protection, and brings some reference and results to the other researchers.
|
PDF Full Text Request