日益加深的僵局:欧盟转基因生物制度的未来

M. Geelhoed
{"title":"日益加深的僵局:欧盟转基因生物制度的未来","authors":"M. Geelhoed","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2524340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the spring of 2014, the Greek presidency of the Council of the EU tabled a revised version of a 2010 proposal that promises to allow Member States to restrict or prohibit the commercial cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on whole or part of their territory. This study seeks to answer the question: does the proposal for partial renationalisation of the EU’s regulatory regime for the cultivation of GMOs provide an adequate solution to its current problems? It finds that the EU’s GMO regime has to this day failed to accommodate national diversity prior to authorisation through central deliberation and that it does not provide Member States with opportunities for substantial differentiation post-authorisation. An in-depth legal analysis of the Greek proposal, however, shows that the proposal is unlikely to fill this legal vacuum by empowering Member States to impose cultivation bans after authorisation, while the exercise of their newfound autonomy may well be restricted by EU internal market and international WTO law. Whereas this study makes recommendations for a more adequate redistribution of competences, it also calls into question whether renationalisation is the best solution for the regime’s problems. It thus examines the practical consequences of re-emphasising national frontiers when dealing with a cross-boundary issue like GMO cultivation, and briefly discusses underexplored opportunities to improve the inclusiveness of the EU’s centralised risk-assessment and risk-management procedures.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Growing Impasse: The Future of the EU's GMO Regime\",\"authors\":\"M. Geelhoed\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2524340\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the spring of 2014, the Greek presidency of the Council of the EU tabled a revised version of a 2010 proposal that promises to allow Member States to restrict or prohibit the commercial cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on whole or part of their territory. This study seeks to answer the question: does the proposal for partial renationalisation of the EU’s regulatory regime for the cultivation of GMOs provide an adequate solution to its current problems? It finds that the EU’s GMO regime has to this day failed to accommodate national diversity prior to authorisation through central deliberation and that it does not provide Member States with opportunities for substantial differentiation post-authorisation. An in-depth legal analysis of the Greek proposal, however, shows that the proposal is unlikely to fill this legal vacuum by empowering Member States to impose cultivation bans after authorisation, while the exercise of their newfound autonomy may well be restricted by EU internal market and international WTO law. Whereas this study makes recommendations for a more adequate redistribution of competences, it also calls into question whether renationalisation is the best solution for the regime’s problems. It thus examines the practical consequences of re-emphasising national frontiers when dealing with a cross-boundary issue like GMO cultivation, and briefly discusses underexplored opportunities to improve the inclusiveness of the EU’s centralised risk-assessment and risk-management procedures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":296326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Institutions: European Union eJournal\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Institutions: European Union eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2524340\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2524340","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

2014年春天,欧盟理事会轮值主席国希腊提交了2010年提案的修订版,该提案承诺允许成员国在其全部或部分领土上限制或禁止转基因生物(GMOs)的商业种植。这项研究试图回答这样一个问题:欧盟对转基因生物种植的监管制度部分重新国有化的提议是否为其当前的问题提供了一个适当的解决方案?报告发现,迄今为止,欧盟的转基因生物制度未能在授权前通过中央审议适应国家多样性,也没有为成员国提供在授权后实现实质性差异的机会。然而,对希腊提案的深入法律分析表明,该提案不太可能通过授权成员国在授权后实施种植禁令来填补这一法律真空,而他们新获得的自主权的行使很可能受到欧盟内部市场和国际WTO法律的限制。尽管这项研究为更充分地重新分配权力提出了建议,但它也提出了一个问题,即重新国有化是否是解决政权问题的最佳方案。因此,它考察了在处理转基因生物种植等跨境问题时重新强调国家边界的实际后果,并简要讨论了未充分探索的机会,以提高欧盟集中风险评估和风险管理程序的包容性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Growing Impasse: The Future of the EU's GMO Regime
In the spring of 2014, the Greek presidency of the Council of the EU tabled a revised version of a 2010 proposal that promises to allow Member States to restrict or prohibit the commercial cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on whole or part of their territory. This study seeks to answer the question: does the proposal for partial renationalisation of the EU’s regulatory regime for the cultivation of GMOs provide an adequate solution to its current problems? It finds that the EU’s GMO regime has to this day failed to accommodate national diversity prior to authorisation through central deliberation and that it does not provide Member States with opportunities for substantial differentiation post-authorisation. An in-depth legal analysis of the Greek proposal, however, shows that the proposal is unlikely to fill this legal vacuum by empowering Member States to impose cultivation bans after authorisation, while the exercise of their newfound autonomy may well be restricted by EU internal market and international WTO law. Whereas this study makes recommendations for a more adequate redistribution of competences, it also calls into question whether renationalisation is the best solution for the regime’s problems. It thus examines the practical consequences of re-emphasising national frontiers when dealing with a cross-boundary issue like GMO cultivation, and briefly discusses underexplored opportunities to improve the inclusiveness of the EU’s centralised risk-assessment and risk-management procedures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信