The problem of invasive alien species (IAS) is recognized as the second most serious threat to loss of biodiversity after habitat destruction. It is a problem largely created by humans as they transport and introduce species, deliberately and accidentally, from one part of the globe to another. The pressures exerted on biodiversity by international trade are one of the most serious aspects of the IAS problem. Although states are under obligations in international environmental law to prevent the entry of, and control, those alien species that threaten biodiversity, to date state practice has often been found wanting. In particular, quarantine regulation, which can be a state??s first line of defence against IAS, is mainly used by states to protect their farming and agricultural product sectors rather than biodiversity at large. The reasons for this include lack of domestic resources and lack of guidance at the international level. However, even if states were to expand the purview of quarantine, the question arises whether they would be able to use quarantine regulation to protect biodiversity from IAS while simultaneously fulfilling their international trade law obligations. This study seeks to answer this question by examining international environmental law and international trade law in their application to quarantine regulation. In doing so, the study identifies many areas of conflict. The different policies that underpin environmental and trade regimes mean that environmental concepts, such as the precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach, are difficult to apply within the international trade law regime. A way of achieving a more harmonized international response to the problem of IAS is suggested by incorporating environmental considerations into the international standards used by states to design and implement domestic quarantine measures. To facilitate the practical implementation of international standards the study further recommends appropriate financial and institutional capacity building mechanisms.

The problem of invasive alien species (IAS) is recognized as the second most serious threat to loss of biodiversity after habitat destruction. It is a problem largely created by humans as they transport and introduce species, deliberately and accidentally, from one part of the globe to another. The pressures exerted on biodiversity by international trade are one of the most serious aspects of the IAS problem. Although states are under obligations in international environmental law to prevent the entry of, and control, those alien species that threaten biodiversity, to date state practice has often been found wanting. In particular, quarantine regulation, which can be a state??s first line of defence against IAS, is mainly used by states to protect their farming and agricultural product sectors rather than biodiversity at large. The reasons for this include lack of domestic resources and lack of guidance at the international level. However, even if states were to expand the purview of quarantine, the question arises whether they would be able to use quarantine regulation to protect biodiversity from IAS while simultaneously fulfilling their international trade law obligations. This study seeks to answer this question by examining international environmental law and international trade law in their application to quarantine regulation. In doing so, the study identifies many areas of conflict. The different policies that underpin environmental and trade regimes mean that environmental concepts, such as the precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach, are difficult to apply within the international trade law regime. A way of achieving a more harmonized international response to the problem of IAS is suggested by incorporating environmental considerations into the international standards used by states to design and implement domestic quarantine measures. To facilitate the practical implementation of international standards the study further recommends appropriate financial and institutional capacity building mechanisms.

The problem of invasive alien species (IAS) is recognized as the second most serious threat to loss of biodiversity after habitat destruction. It is a problem largely created by humans as they transport and introduce species, deliberately and accidentally, from one part of the globe to another. The pressures exerted on biodiversity by international trade are one of the most serious aspects of the IAS problem. Although states are under obligations in international environmental law to prevent the entry of, and control, those alien species that threaten biodiversity, to date state practice has often been found wanting. In particular, quarantine regulation, which can be a state??s first line of defence against IAS, is mainly used by states to protect their farming and agricultural product sectors rather than biodiversity at large. The reasons for this include lack of domestic resources and lack of guidance at the international level. However, even if states were to expand the purview of quarantine, the question arises whether they would be able to use quarantine regulation to protect biodiversity from IAS while simultaneously fulfilling their international trade law obligations. This study seeks to answer this question by examining international environmental law and international trade law in their application to quarantine regulation. In doing so, the study identifies many areas of conflict. The different policies that underpin environmental and trade regimes mean that environmental concepts, such as the precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach, are difficult to apply within the international trade law regime. A way of achieving a more harmonized international response to the problem of IAS is suggested by incorporating environmental considerations into the international standards used by states to design and implement domestic quarantine measures. To facilitate the practical implementation of international standards the study further recommends appropriate financial and institutional capacity building mechanisms.

The problem of invasive alien species (IAS) is recognized as the second most serious threat to loss of biodiversity after habitat destruction. It is a problem largely created by humans as they transport and introduce species, deliberately and accidentally, from one part of the globe to another. The pressures exerted on biodiversity by international trade are one of the most serious aspects of the IAS problem. Although states are under obligations in international environmental law to prevent the entry of, and control, those alien species that threaten biodiversity, to date state practice has often been found wanting. In particular, quarantine regulation, which can be a state??s first line of defence against IAS, is mainly used by states to protect their farming and agricultural product sectors rather than biodiversity at large. The reasons for this include lack of domestic resources and lack of guidance at the international level. However, even if states were to expand the purview of quarantine, the question arises whether they would be able to use quarantine regulation to protect biodiversity from IAS while simultaneously fulfilling their international trade law obligations. This study seeks to answer this question by examining international environmental law and international trade law in their application to quarantine regulation. In doing so, the study identifies many areas of conflict. The different policies that underpin environmental and trade regimes mean that environmental concepts, such as the precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach, are difficult to apply within the international trade law regime. A way of achieving a more harmonized international response to the problem of IAS is suggested by incorporating environmental considerations into the international standards used by states to design and implement domestic quarantine measures. To facilitate the practical implementation of international standards the study further recommends appropriate financial and institutional capacity building mechanisms.

<p>A lot of work has been done regart=ding the SPS agreement and its impact on iternational trade, though not so connclusive. The study, however, is going to deal specifically with an impact of the SPS agreement to the SSA countries, by analysing the balance beween protection of human, animal and plant life or health on the one hand and promotion of international trade in this region.</p>

<p>A lot of work has been done regart=ding the SPS agreement and its impact on iternational trade, though not so connclusive. The study, however, is going to deal specifically with an impact of the SPS agreement to the SSA countries, by analysing the balance beween protection of human, animal and plant life or health on the one hand and promotion of international trade in this region.</p>

Magister Legum - LLM / A lot of work has been done regart=ding the SPS agreement and its impact on iternational trade, though not so connclusive. The study, however, is going to deal specifically with an impact of the SPS agreement to the SSA countries, by analysing the balance beween protection of human, animal and plant life or health on the one hand and promotion of international trade in this region. / South Africa

Flax is one of the major cash crops in Canada. Approximately seventy percent of Canadian flaxseed was exported to European Union (EU) annually until 2009. In 2009, the EU imposed an import ban on Canadian flaxseed due to the adventitious presence of a GM flax variety - CDC Triffid was identified in Canadian flaxseed exported to the EU. The EUs decision to apply zero tolerance on CDC Triffid flax has been based on its interpretation of the precautionary principle. According to the World Trade Organisations Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), however, precautionary measures are subject to a scientific risk assessment. As the EU did not base its zero tolerance for CDC Triffid flax on any scientific risk assessment, the EU is in violation of the SPS Agreement. Moreover, the EU has ignored the available scientific information regarding CDC Triffid flax. The EU did not consider the possibility of following the guidelines given by Codex Alimentarius Commission in the case of CDC Triffid flax. There are non-scientific reasons behind the EUs zero tolerance on CDC Triffid flax and they overweigh the available scientific information. The EU position would be unlikely to be supported if a complaint was brought to the World Trade Organisation Disputes Panel. A partial equilibrium model was used to provide a theoretical background to examine the changes in the flaxseed industry and the linseed oil industry due to the CDC Triffid event. A model of the supply chain of Canadian flaxseed was developed to illustrate the operationalisation of the Protocol developed by the EU and Canada to address the zero tolerance policy. Empirical estimation suggests that the operationalisation of the Protocol incurred additional cost of $7.5 million to the flax seed industry of Canada in 2009/ 2010. Out of that, cost of testing was approximately $1.2 million and cost of segregation was $4.2 million. Estimation of changes in revenue suggests that there was a loss of revenue in flaxseed trade between the EU and Canada in 2009/2010. Imports of Canadian flax by China provided an alternative market, at a considerably lower price than typically realised from the EU market. Interestingly, the EUs zero tolerance policy on CDC Triffid flax has resulted in a larger additional cost on the EU than Canada.

Flax is one of the major cash crops in Canada. Approximately seventy percent of Canadian flaxseed was exported to European Union (EU) annually until 2009. In 2009, the EU imposed an import ban on Canadian flaxseed due to the adventitious presence of a GM flax variety - CDC Triffid was identified in Canadian flaxseed exported to the EU. The EUs decision to apply zero tolerance on CDC Triffid flax has been based on its interpretation of the precautionary principle. According to the World Trade Organisations Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), however, precautionary measures are subject to a scientific risk assessment. As the EU did not base its zero tolerance for CDC Triffid flax on any scientific risk assessment, the EU is in violation of the SPS Agreement. Moreover, the EU has ignored the available scientific information regarding CDC Triffid flax. The EU did not consider the possibility of following the guidelines given by Codex Alimentarius Commission in the case of CDC Triffid flax. There are non-scientific reasons behind the EUs zero tolerance on CDC Triffid flax and they overweigh the available scientific information. The EU position would be unlikely to be supported if a complaint was brought to the World Trade Organisation Disputes Panel. A partial equilibrium model was used to provide a theoretical background to examine the changes in the flaxseed industry and the linseed oil industry due to the CDC Triffid event. A model of the supply chain of Canadian flaxseed was developed to illustrate the operationalisation of the Protocol developed by the EU and Canada to address the zero tolerance policy. Empirical estimation suggests that the operationalisation of the Protocol incurred additional cost of $7.5 million to the flax seed industry of Canada in 2009/ 2010. Out of that, cost of testing was approximately $1.2 million and cost of segregation was $4.2 million. Estimation of changes in revenue suggests that there was a loss of revenue in flaxseed trade between the EU and Canada in 2009/2010. Imports of Canadian flax by China provided an alternative market, at a considerably lower price than typically realised from the EU market. Interestingly, the EUs zero tolerance policy on CDC Triffid flax has resulted in a larger additional cost on the EU than Canada.

自2005年以降，我國針對是否開放含萊克多巴胺畜產品進口之問題即屬多事之秋，其主因係在食品添加物專家委員會（Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives，簡稱JECFA）所擬每日容許攝食量下，國際上之相關科學研究無法確切證明萊克多巴胺是否完全安全，抑或其可能對於人體造成之危害及程度，因此多數肉品出口國仍常於家畜飼養過程中添加萊克多巴胺於飼料中，藉以增加畜產品之瘦肉比例並提升經濟效率；另一方面，由於不肖業者違法使用乙型受體素（如克崙特羅、沙丁胺醇）導致人體中毒的案件時有所聞，影響民眾對於畜產品的消費意願及產業發展，是故雖然萊克多巴胺之毒性相較於其他乙型受體素為低，惟受他種毒素高出數倍的乙型受體素之累，在我國自2006年起亦屬禁用之列。在國際食品標準委員會（Codex Alimentarius Commission，簡稱Codex委員會）於去（2012）年以普通多數決之方式制定萊克多巴胺的國際標準後，我國遂修訂食品衛生管理法第11條（2013年新法第15條）、第17-1條 （新法第25條）及動物用藥殘留標準第3條，並公告農防字第1011473960號之行政命令，採行「安全容許、牛豬分離、強制標示、排除內臟」之檢疫政策，在牛肉（含脂肪）的部分採行與國際標準相同之檢疫標準；惟在豬肉及內臟的部分，則為兼顧「國人特殊膳食習慣」及「相關產業發展」，仍維持既有「零檢出」的檢疫政策，全面禁止含萊克多巴胺的畜產品進口。針對此我國特殊之管制作法，本文將以國際經貿法的觀點，依據WTO協定中與檢疫措施最密切相關的SPS協定規範、過往案例之判決及相關文獻，分析我國進口檢疫規定之適法性，藉以思考目前畜產品進口的議題，並判斷該措施將來是否存在遭非難之可能，希冀能對於我國日後檢疫政策走向提供一實質性之參考及展望。 / Since 2005, the issue of liberalizing the import of meat containing Ractopamine had sparked great controversy in Taiwan, resulting from the lack of clear and definite scientific evidences worldwide to prove the harmlessness toward human body under JECFA’s maximal residue level and acceptable daily intake. Owing to the abusing of other much more poisonous Beta-adrenergic agonist (e.g., Clenbuterol, Salbutamol) by some of illegal stockbreeders causing the vibration of meat market and industry, Taiwan’s government had decided to ban the residual of Beta-adrenergic agonist including Ractopamine contained in both domestic and import meat products since 2006. After Codex Alimentarius Commission finally voted through the international standard of Ractopamine in 2012, Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan amended former regulations, approving the import of beef which conformed to Codex’s international standard, while still remained the prohibition of pork containing Ractopamine. This essay staying with the view of international trade law, in particular the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures under World Trade Organization, tries to analyze the consistency of Taiwan’s meat regulations with the SPS agreement in order to prospect Taiwan’s trade policy and meat regulations regarding Ractopamine in the future.