Suchergebnisse

1. Introductory Overview: Transnational Narratives, Evidence-Based and Socially Acceptable Risk Approaches, Normative Analysis -- 2. Methodological and Normative Aspects: Transnational Legal Analysis as a Methodological Framework and the Limits of Legal Proceduralisation -- 3. Extra-Territoriality: Foundations and Implications of the Transnational Hegemonic Narrative within US Governance of GE Organisms -- 4. Across Extra-Territoriality and Legal Pluralisation: EU Regulation of GE Organisms. The Counter-Hegemonic Narrative and the Question of Regulatory Implementation -- 5. Legal Pluralisation: The SPS Agreement, GE Organisms and the Impossible Quest for Scientific Objectivity. From Sound Science to Transnational Regulatory Convergence and Trade Liberalisation -- 6. Legal Hybridisation: The Codex, NGO Regulatory Standards and GE Organisms. Adherence and Challenges to the Hegemonic Narrative -- 7. Conclusions: Transnational Legal Analysis, Transnational Narratives on Risk and the Failure of Science and Deliberation. Towards Legal Re-Materialisation?

ABSTRACT
This article enquires into the extent to which the elusive Chapeau of Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) may constrain the ability of regulating Members to tackle environmental externalities via unilateral regulatory action. It employs an analysis of recent European Union regulatory measures to assess the rationale of different 'indicators' of compliance with the Chapeau and unpack their implications. The article illustrates that a good faith–centred interpretation of the Chapeau criteria helps identify aspects in the practical application of a measure that may afford protection to domestic products or result in country-based discrimination. It also preserves the margins of action of regulating Members and can improve the regulatory design and environmental effectiveness of unilateral measures. An expansive interpretation of 'situational' discrimination and 'coercion', by contrast, captures significant distortions of competitive opportunities between 'like' products, broadening market access and stretching the Chapeau beyond a good faith–centred focus. Furthermore, this interpretative approach can indirectly impact the regulatory design of the measures and undermine their environmental effectiveness. Against this backdrop, the article argues that the dispute settlement organs should carefully delimit the scope of the Chapeau conditions and adhere to a good faith–centred interpretative approach.