ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5144-5937
Current Organisations
UNSW Sydney
,
Queen's University Belfast
,
Macquarie University Macquarie Law School
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 12-05-2021
DOI: 10.1017/ERR.2021.17
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 04-05-2021
DOI: 10.1017/ERR.2021.16
Abstract: The international trade in biotech products boosts national economies and advances scientific as well as technology innovation. However, while trading these products increases the spread of benefits on a global scale, it also increases risks to human health and the environment (ie biosafety). This is because the effects of this technology on biosafety are still highly uncertain. Against this background, the judicial bodies under the World Trade Organization (WTO) find themselves in the middle of an intricate and polarised debate in which a proper judicial balance between free trade and biosafety becomes fundamental in order to determine whether requests for ensuring human and environmental health justify trade restrictions. This paper aims to highlight that the WTO is institutionally unready for balancing economic and non-economic values. In suggesting how to rationalise the judicial balance between the competing interests in the context of biotechnology, this paper demonstrates that the judicial adoption of a well-structured proportionality analysis can turn the current balance by chance into a balance by structure.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 13-02-2021
DOI: 10.1111/RISA.13712
Abstract: This article explores how technological risks and uncertainty carried by the international trade of biotechnology are regulated under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and have been governed by the WTO's judicial bodies. The article shows that the judicial evaluation of biotechnology risks is mostly justified in scientific terms and is still anchored to a quantitative approach. This, in turn, prevents WTO decisionmakers from performing a broader analysis of the societal purposes and impacts of technological innovations and, accordingly, their potential contributions to or disadvantages for the public interest. Given that, the present article investigates whether reliability can be claimed for WTO biotechnology decisions. In approaching this task, it elucidates the complex interplay between law, risks and science, and offers suggestions to enhance the reliability of biotechnology legal decisions and address the uncertainty surrounding the international trade of biotechnology.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 2021
DOI: 10.1093/JLB/LSAB012
Abstract: This manuscript examines how the Precautionary Principle has been applied to provide a mechanism for protection of the environment and health in response to the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Europe. It discusses how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handled national requests across four cases in which Member States had failed in their attempt to trigger the Precautionary Principle in order to uphold a ban or suspension of the cultivation or sale of GMOs in their territory. The analysis of these judgements suggests that the court has applied a narrow interpretation to the scientific evidence emerging from risk assessments, and has thereby limited the potential for precautionary measures by Member States to be upheld by the court. This outcome reflects a `weak' application of the Precautionary Principle by the court in contrast with the `moderate' formulation and `strong' interpretation of the principle offered by the European legal framework. Moreover, the analysis highlights that the CJEU's rulings are not keeping pace with the development of the European normative framework which considers the Precautionary Principle as a key tenet and, through the 2015 Directive, enables Member States to ban GMO cultivation without referring to scientific evidence.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 10-03-2020
DOI: 10.1111/REEL.12325
Abstract: The 2017 Fidenato case is the first legal dispute on the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union after the adoption of Directive 2015/412. The Directive allows for the exclusion of genetically modified cultivation from a national territory on grounds unrelated to scientific uncertainty. As in the 2007 Austrian case, in Fidenato the Court of Justice rejected the precautionary request from Italy to ban the cultivation of GMOs. The ruling centres on the argument of a ban being scientifically unfounded. This article discusses how the lack of harmonization between the European jurisprudence on the cultivation of GMOs and recent normative amendments introduced through the 2015 Directive affects the regulatory autonomy of Member States in adopting measures that ensure the protection of human health and the environment (i.e. biosafety) from the potential harmful effects posed by GMOs.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Alessandra Guida.