Abstract
The arcane distinction between rules, exceptions and autonomous rights has troubled WTO dispute settlement since its earliest days, primarily with respect to procedural burden-of-proof questions. Yet in its report, the EC-Biotech panel relied on a techno-textual understanding of this distinction to interpret the substantive applicability of Articles 2.2, 5.1 and 5.7 SPS - the WTO's fundamental rules on the degree of scientific certainty of risk required to allow a state to restrict imports of goods due to human, animal or plant health or life concerns. This article critiques the panel's approach on the backdrop of WTO jurisprudence and deontic logic, arguing that the norm-category of autonomous rights - as resorted to by the panel - does not actually exist; that the Article 2.2-5.1/5.7 SPS relationship should be more straightforwardly construed than the panel's convolutions would suggest; and that the disorderly and incoherent outcome of the panel's analysis of the questions involved serves as a cautionary tale against excessive textualism in WTO dispute settlement.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
