Die Anerkennung moralischer Bedenken im Agrarhandel am Beispiel des Tierschutzes

• Authors: Martinez Jose

Title variants

EN

RECOGNITION OF MORAL SCRUPLES IN AGRICULTURAL TRADE ON THE EXAMPLE OF ANIMAL WELFARE

IT

LA PRESA IN CONSIDERAZIONE DEGLI SCRUPOLI MORALI NEL COMMERCIO AGRICOLO SULL’ESEMPIO DELLA PROTEZIONE DEGLI ANIMALI

Abstracts

EN

On 18 June 2014, the Dispute Resolution Body of the WTO adopted reports in which it was concluded that a ban on the trade in seal products could in principle be considered as justified on the grounds of a moral nature relating to seal welfare. For the first time, re-strictions on trade related to securing animal welfare have been justified on the grounds of the protection or recognition of moral scruples. This precedent opens up the possibility of adopting other international measures regarding other products whose production pro-cess raises moral concerns. Some consideration could be given, among other things, to the introduction of specific labelling or a ban on imports of certain products. However, these measures must not be adopted and applied for protectionist purposes and must not discriminate against other states.

IT

Il 18 giugno 2014 l’organo di conciliazione dell’OMC ha adottato le relazioni secondo le quali la messa al bando dei prodotti derivati dalla foca può, in linea di principio, essere giustificata da preoccupazioni di ordine morale riguardo al benessere delle foche. Per la prima volta le preoccupazioni di ordine morale sono servite a giustificare misure di restrizioni al commercio risultanti dal benessere degli animali. Questo precedente apre la strada a possibilità di intraprendere altre iniziative internazionali su altri prodotti, il cui processo di produzione desta preoccupazioni di ordine morale. Da prendere in considerazione sarebbe tra l’altro l’introduzione di un obbligo di etichettatura speciale o del divieto di importazione di determinati prodotti. Le misure in questione non possono, tuttavia, essere adottate e utilizzate a fini protezionistici e non possono portare a discriminare altri Stati.

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Przegląd Prawa Rolnego
• Year: 2017
• Issue: 2 (21)
• Pages: 119-132

Contributors

author

Martinez Jose

References

• Akhtar Z. (2014) 11 (3), Seal Hunting, EU Regulation and Economies of Scale, “Manchester Journal of International Economic Law”.
• Asselt E. D. v. et al. (2015), Assesing the sustainability of egg production systems in The Netherlands, „Poultry Science“.
• Biermann F. (1999), Internationale Umweltverträge im Welthandelsrecht: Zur ökologischen Reform der Welthandelsorganisation anlässlich der geplanten Milleniumsrunde, „Diskussionspapier der WZB Berlin“.
• Boogaard B. et al. (2011) 24 (3), Social Acceptance of dairy farming: Ambivalence between the two faces of modernity, “Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics”.
• Brom F. (2000) 12, Food, consumer concerns, and trust: food ethics for a globalizing market, “Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics”.
• Conconi P., Voon T. (2016) 15 (2), EC-Seal Products: the tension between public morals and international trade agreements, “World Trade Review”.
• Cook K., Bowles D. (2010) 19 (2), Growing pains: The developing relationship of animal welfare standards and the world trade rules, ”Review of European Community & International Environmental Law”.
• Eres T. (2004) 35, The limits of GATT Article XX: A Back Door for Human Rights?, „Georgetown Journal of International Law”.
• Fitzgerald P. (2011) 14 (2), Morality May Not Be Enough to Justify the EU Seal Products Ban: Animal Welfare Meets International Trade Law, “Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy”.
• Gonzalez M. (2006), Trade and Morality: Preserving „Public Morals“ without sacrificing the Global Economy, “Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law”.
• Grethe H. (2007) 32, High animal welfare standards in the EU and international trade – How to prevent potential ´low animal welfare havens´?, “Food Policy”.
• Harris R., Moon G. (2015) 16, GATT Article XX and Human Rights: What Do We Know from the First 20 Years?, “Melbourne Journal of International Law”.
• Hemler C., Ruddigkeit D. (2014), Tierschutz vs. Freihandel.
• Hilgendorf E. (2001) 1, Recht und Moral, „Aufklärung und Kritik“.
• Horne P. v. (2014), Competitiveness of the EU egg industry. LEI report 2014-041.
• Horne P. v., Achterbosch T. J. (2008) 64, Animal welfare in poultry production systems: impact of EU standards on world trade, “World´s Poultry Science Journal”.
• Horne P. v., Borndt N. (2013), Competitiveness of the EU poultry meat sector. LEI Report 68.
• Howse R. (2012) 37, Permitting Pluralism: The Seal Products Dispute and Why the WTO Should Accept Trade Restrictions Justified by Noninstrumental Moral Values, “The Yale journal of international law”.
• Howse R., Langille J., Sykes K. (2015) 5, Pluralism in practice: Moral legislation and the law of the WTO after Seal Products, “Public law & legal theory research paper series”.
• Keyserlingk M. v., Hötzel M. (2005) 28, The ticking clock: Addressing farm animal welfare in emerging countries, “Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics”.
• Mench J. (2008) 113 (4), Farm animal welfare in the U.S.A.: Farming practices, research, education, regulation, and assurance programs, “Applied Animal Behavior Science”.
• Serpin P. (2016) 1, The Public Morals Exception after the WTO Seal Products Dispute: Has the Exception Swallowed the Rules, “Columbia Business Law Review”.
• Shaffer G., Pabian D. (2015) 17, The WTO EC-Seal Products decision: Animal welfare, Indigenous Communities and trade, “Legal studies research paper”.
• Spiller, A., Schulze, B. (2008), Zukunftsperspektiven der Fleischwirtschaft.
• Spooner J., Schuppli C., Fraser D. (2014) 163, Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal welfare: A qualitative study, “Livestock Science”.
• Stohner N., Bollinger, G., Rüttimann A. (2009), Die GATT-rechtliche Zulässigkeit von Importverboten für Pelzprodukte.
• Stoll P.-T., Jürging J., Ückert O. (2015), Europarechtliche Gebote und welthandelsrechtliche Grenzen für Maßnahmen der Europäischen Union zur Verbesserung des Tierschutzes bei der Legehennenhaltung. Rechtsgutachten.
• Sykes K. (2014) 13 (3), Sealing animal welfare into the GATT exceptions: the international dimension of animal welfare in WTO disputes, “World Trade Review”.
• Thiermann A. B., Babcock S. (2005) 24 (2), Animal welfare and international trade, „Revue Scientifique et Technique” (International Office of Epizootics).
• Tonsor G., Olynk N., Wolf C. (2009) 41 (3), Consumer preferences for animal welfare attributes: The case of gestation crates, “Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics”.
• Trebilcock M., Howse R., Eliason A. (2013), The regulation of international trade.
• Vanhonacker F. et al. (2007) 15 (3), Segmentation based on consumers´ perceived importance and attitude towards farm animal welfare, “International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture”.
• Vanhonacker F., Verbeke W. (2014) 27, Public and consumer policies for higher welfare food products: Challenges and opportunities, “Journal of Agricultural Environmental Ethics”.
• Whitsitt E. (2014) 3 (4),, A comment on the public morals exception in international trade and the EC-Seal Products case: moral imperialism and other concerns, “Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law”.