Regulatory Autonomy under the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement: Implications of Korea–Import Bans, and Testing and Certification Requirements for Radionuclides

The recent WTO dispute case, Korea–Import Bans, and Testing and Certification Requirements for Radionuclides, illustrates complex legal issues and significant political implications associated with the regulatory autonomy of a sovereign country under the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS Agreement). There has been constant tension between the sovereign right of a WTO member state to determine its own appropriate level of protection (ALOP) and the regulatory constraints imposed under the SPS Agreement to prevent abuse and disguised trade protection. The case emerged from this tension and raises questions on the extent of the regulatory autonomy in the application of an SPS measure. This article addresses these questions and examines the criteria for the qualitative standards for the ALOP, the question that the Appellate Body decision did not fully resolve. The criteria for the qualitative ALOP standards affect the regulatory autonomy significantly under the current SPS rules as they determine the manner and the extent to which a Member may meet the sensitive public interests in the application of an SPS measure. The article proposes a rational basis test to restrain abuse of SPS measures while preserving the regulatory autonomy protected under the SPS Agreement.

MANDATORY LABELLING OF NANOFOOD AND THE WTO AGREEMENTS

Labelling of food products that contain new technologies has been adopted to inform consumers and address concerns over uncertainty of the technologies. Even though food labelling is significant, the implementation of mandatory labelling measures for nanofood within the domestic legislation is only possible if the measure is aligned with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) regulations. This paper examines whether mandatory labelling measure for nanofood would be permissible under the WTO agreements, i.e. the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement. The study adopts a doctrinal approach and content analysis by examining relevant legal provisions in the WTO agreements, cases decided by the WTO, and other documents on nanofood labelling. Findings suggest that the labelling measure amounts to unnecessary barriers to international trade. The mandatory labelling is not an international labelling standard and the practice is trade restrictive. Some recommendations presented at the end of this paper shall give invaluable insights into the implementation of mandatory labelling for nanofood if any country decides to introduce the measures in their food information system.