• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.185-211
• /
• 2004

It is a common and prevailing Construction that recent environmental problems such as earth's warmer climate and depletion of ozone layers can never be solved by the efforts of any one nation. That is why the international conventions have been held more often lately in order to discuss the matter of environment protection and there has been increased tendency of using economic activities of any nation especially their international trades as means for achieving the purpose of environment protection. Furthermore, there is an ample possibility for the advanced countries to use the regulatory restrictions for environment protection as an another measure of none-tariff barrier against countries including Korea which has high dependence on international trade with not very high technological capability of environment protection. Some of the developed countries have recently moved toward the creation of a new system of international regulatory measures on world trade in the name of Environment Protection. They Plan to impose strict control over the process and technology of production of good they are importing from other country. However, ever though the international regulatory measures, in a short term, could play a negative role on our trade capability, they could, in the long run, also play a role of helping hands if we usefully work out positive countermeasures as a result of hand-working government supported by industry and all the society as a whole.

• Environmental and Resource Economics Review
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.519-547
• /
• 2004

This paper analyze problems about scope of specific trade obligations(STOs), principle of dispute settlement procedure, and non-parties in context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety(POB), which based on sub-paragraph 31(i) of DDA WTO Ministrial Declaration. The implications based on result of this study are as follows. First, to accept the wider scope of STOs under POB in Korea, importing country, won't be harmful to LMOs and Bioindustry. Instead, it will ensure a high level of biosafety concerning the import of LMOs. Exporters can take different kinds of trade measures to countervail adverse effect on the export of LMOs in this case. Therefore importer will endure the aftereffect. However, if korea were in exporter's place, to accept the wider scope STOs under POB will not have a good influence on the export of LMOs. Korea, therefore, should devise scheme for responding to debate about the STOs in MEAs, which have to be based on cost-benefit analysis and scenarios taking into account of speed and level in biotechology progress, status and trend of LMOs R&D and production, and condition of other industries. Second, it is not easy to agree with applying to what's rule between the POB and WTO for settlement dispute. Because there is the incompatibility between the POB characterized according to social rationality and WTO's rules for safety and environmental protection characterized according to scientific rationality. This issue have to be discussed for long period due to gap like that. Accordingly Korea, one of major LMOs importing countries, should suggest continuously that the effort is needed to ensure an adequate level of protection in transboundary movements of LMOs and scientific, environmental and socio-economic study. Third, in case of dispute between party and non-party of the POB, the duties under the WTO of non-party of the POB(if WTO member country) is valid. The country, therefore, will try to settle dispute based on WTO's rules. However, international society have to ensure for sound and safe use of LMOs in the field of transboundary movements. Accordingly Korea should devise scheme for preventing the possibility of dispute between party and non-party of the POB(if WTO member country), which is supported by policy options under the POB.