The WTO’s Trade Policy Review Mechanism – An Effective Surveillance Mechanism for Aid for Trade?

There has always been a question mark over how best to integrate developing countries into the world trading system and traditionally the WTO has used special and differential treatment (S&D) to do so. However, since 1996 the WTO has been involved with the Aid for Trade (AfT) initiative typically co-ordinated by the OECD and UN. This article firstly outlines the background to AfT since 1996 under the numerous agencies working in the area, highlighting how importance has always been placed on the monitoring and effectiveness of the process. It then turns to assessing the various methods currently used and the proposal of the WTO’s Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM) as a potential monitoring tool of AfT.

GSP+ and Human Rights::Is the EU's Approach the Right One?

Among the purposes of the EU’s GSP+ programme is to link human rights to trade incentives, with the idea of using such incentives to promote developing countries’ adoption of the values found in core human rights treaties. With the re-renewal of the GSP (and GSP+) programmes to take effect in January 2014, it is fruitful to examine their efficacy and consistency with WTO law. In this article, I argue the GSP+ programme is not only ineffective in obtaining an improvement in human rights conditions for the vast majority of the world’s population, but it is also incompatible with WTO law. A stick-based regime where human rights abuses are linked to trade sanctions is a better way to proceed. After outlining the GSP+ system, and its linkage of human rights and trade, I analyse its efficacy and WTO consistency. Having shown that it is ineffective and contrary to WTO law, I argue that trade sanctions based on a PPM distinction and/or GATT XX(a) may be the appropriate means of linking trade and human rights. The article ends with some concluding remarks on the need for the careful design of such a system.

Political Posturing or Real Powers: Control of Genetically Modified Crops by the Member States and their Regions

The cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the EU is highly harmonised, involving a central authorisation procedure that aims to ensure a high level of environmental and human health protection. However conflicts over authority persist and the Commission has responded to a combination of internal and external pressures with a more flexible approach to coexistence, a proposed opt-out clause and recently a promise by the head of the Commission to review the existing EU GM legislative regime, providing an opportunity to consider and suggest paths of development. In light of the significance of multilevel governance and subsidiarity for GM cultivation, this paper considers the policy-making powers of the Member States and subnational regions in this regime, focussing upon post-authorisation options in particular. A number of core mechanisms exist, including voluntary measures, safeguard clauses, coexistence measures, a proposed express opt-out and Article 4(2) TEU on ‘national identity. These mechanisms are examined in light of the goals and challenges of multilevel governance, in order to consider whether the relevant powers are located at the appropriate level. Overall, it is apparent that the developments occurring at the EU level are strengthening multilevel governance, but with significant opportunities to improve it further through focussing on the supporting roles and the regional levels in particular.

Study on risk assessment and management and prevention of conflicts of interest in the prevention and fight against betting-related match fixing in the EU 28: Final Report

This report concerns the provisions and practices on betting-related match fixing in sports
within the 28 Member States. Carried out in late 2013/early 2014, respondents in each Member
State reported on that state’s gambling-related provisions in respect of football and tennis and
(in each country) a third sport determined on the basis of either its popularity (in terms of
participation or television viewing) or the existence of betting-related “scandals” in that sport
within that particular jurisdiction. Those reports helped the authors to compare the Member
States’ regulatory and self-regulatory frameworks relating to risk assessment and conflict of
interest management, with a view to indicating areas of best practice, identifying particularly
good legislative frameworks and highlighting areas where change was either desirable or
necessary. While some individual Member States have legislation which might provide
templates that others could adapt for their own use, the authors were not convinced that “more
law”, whether at the national or European level, was desirable. Rather, more effective
cooperation among the stakeholders was identified as being more likely to provide tangible
benefits than would new legal frameworks.

Protecting Natura 2000: Avoiding Adverse Impact on European Sites

Case C-258/11 Peter Sweetman, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government v An Bord Pleanála
(Not yet reported)

The Shifting Battleground of Article 4(2) TEU: Evolving National Identities and the corresponding need for EU management?

Article 4(2) TEU requires that the European Union (EU) respect the Member States’ national identities, creating a legal obligation enforceable before the CJEU and valuable in political negotiations. However, the concept of national identities is unclear, leaving open questions about the scope or parameters of the provision and its applicability. The CJEU appears likely to take a relatively flexible approach in light of Article 4(2) TEU’s relationship with national constitutional courts’ reserves. This flexible approach would enable Member States to rely upon a range of aspects as part of their national identity, including ones that were previously unidentified. This is a crucial feature if one considers that national identities may evolve gradually or even dramatically, including where Member States purposefully attempt to develop their national identities further. This possibility of an evolved national identity is exemplified by the French Charte de l’Environnement. It may thereby be possible for Member States to stretch the scope and application of Article 4(2) TEU through reference to these evolving national identities. This potential raises significant challenges for the EU regarding the management of Article 4(2) TEU, which it will need to address if it wishes to ensure harmonisation and uniformity in the relevant areas.

Attaining Subsidiarity-Based Multilevel Governance of Genetically Modified Cultivation?

The cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the EU is highly harmonised, but with persisting conflicts over authority. The Commission responded to internal and external pressures with a more flexible approach to coexistence, a proposed opt-out clause and a promise to review the existing EU GM regime, providing an opportunity to consider and suggest paths of development. This article considers the post-authorisation policy-making powers of Member States and subnational regions, in light of subsidiarity-based multilevel governance. It considers the different approaches to risk-centred issues and more general policy choices. Overall, the developments occurring at the EU level are strengthening subsidiarity-based multilevel governance within the GM cultivation regime, but with significant opportunities to improve it further through focussing on the complementary powers, coordination and the regional levels in particular.