Institute of Medicine, The Future of Public Health (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988): At 19.
2.
American Public Health Association, Association News, “Policy Statements Adopted by the Governing Council of the American Public Health Association,”American Journal of Public Health, 93, no. 3 (2003): At 493.
3.
BeagleholeR., “Protecting Health in a Globalizing World,”Update 66 on Trade, European Public Health Alliance at <http://www.epha.org/a/336> (last visited November 17, 2003).
4.
AlleyneG., “Diplomacy and Public Health,” speaking at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, April 23, 2003.
5.
See e.g., JacksonJ.H.DaveyW.J., International Economic Relations (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1986): At 8–10.
6.
SandsP.KleinP., Bowett's Law of International Institutions (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2001): At 2.
GrynbergR.JoyR.M., “The Accession of Vanuatu to the WTO – Lessons for the Multilateral Trading System,”Journal of World Trade, 34, no. 6 (2000): 159–173, at 171.
14.
BushG.W., “Remarks at the International Conference on Financing for Development”, Monterrey, Mexico, March 22, 2002.
PrasadE.RogoffK.WeiShang-JinKoseM., Effects of Financial Globalization on Developing Countries: Some Empirical Evidence, International Monetary Fund, March 17, 2003; MilanovicB., Can We Discern the Effect of Globalization on Income Distribution?, WORLD BANK POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAP 1876, April 2002; BussP., “Globalization and Disease: Unequal World, Unequal Health!”, Cad. Saude Pub, 18, no. 6 (2002): 1783–1788; WeisbrotM.BakerD.KraevE.ChenJ., “The Scorecard on Globalization 1980–2000: Its Consequences for Economic and Social Well-Being,”International Journal of Health Services, 32, no. 2 (2002): 229–253; Rigged Rules and Double Standards: Trade, Globalization, and the Fight against Poverty, OXFAM (2002), available at <http://www.maketradefair.com/assets/english/Report_English.pdf>.
17.
BlusteinP., “New Faith in Free Trade; In Break with Allies, Oxfam Backs Globalization,”The Washington Post, April 11, 2002 at E01.
18.
PriceD.PollackA.M.ShaoulJ., “How the World Trade Organization is Shaping Domestic Policies in Health Care,”Lancet, 354 (1999): 1889–1892.
19.
BlocheM.G., “WTO Deference to National Health Policy: Toward an Interpretive Principle,”Journal of International Economic Law (2002): 825–848.
20.
AginamO., “International Law and Communicable Diseases,”Bulletin of the WHO, 80(12) (2002): 946–951.
21.
RoomR.WestP., “Alcohol and the U.S.-Canada Border: Trade Disputes and Border Traffic Problems,”Journal of Public Health Policy, 19, no. 1 (1998): 68–87.
22.
GrabowskiH., “Patents, Innovation and Access to New Pharmaceuticals,”Journal of International Economic Law (2002): 849–860; SchererF.M.WatalJ., “Post-TRIPS Options for Access to Patented Medicines in Developing Nations,”Journal of International Economic Law (2002): 913–939.
23.
McLoughlinE.FairweatherA., “Influence of Free Trade on the Politics of Safety,” [guest editorial] Injury Prevention, 8 (2002): 3–5.
24.
BettcherD.W.YachD.GuindonG.E., “Global Trade and Health: Key Linkages and Future Challenges,”Bulletin of the WHO, 78, no. 4 (2000): 521–534.
SeeWTO Agreements and Public Healthsupra, note 15 at 36.
30.
French Civil Code, Decree No. 96–1133 (décret no. 96–1133 relatif à l'interdiction de l'amiante, pris en application du code de travail et du code de la consommation) passed: 24 December 1996; entry into force: 1 January 1997.
31.
World Trade Organization“European Communities — Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products: Report of the Panel” (hereinafter “Asbestos Panel Report”) Doc. No. WT/DS135/R (18 September 2000), at 6, para 3.8.
32.
Id.
33.
CastlemanB.L., “WTO Confidential: The Case of Asbestos,”International Journal of Health Services32, no. 3 (2002): 489–501, at 489.
34.
Asbestos Panel Report, supra note 31, at 6, para 38.
35.
World Trade Organization“European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products: Report of the Appellate Body” (hereinafter “Asbestos Appellate Report”) Doc. No. WT/DS135/AB/R (12 March 2001), at 47, para 122.
36.
Id. at 50, para 132.
37.
Asbestos Panel Report, supra note 31, at 436–446. The Panel was unwilling to wait “until scientific certainty, which is often difficult to achieve, had been established over the whole of a particular field before public health measures could be implemented.” Asbestos Panel Report, at 446, para 8.221.
38.
Asbestos Appellate Report, supra note 35, at 61–63.
39.
Id. at 64, para 178.
40.
Id. at 69–70, para 190.
41.
VictorD.G., “The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the World Trade Organization: An Assessment after Five Years,”New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 32 (2000): 865–937.
42.
World Trade Organization, Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, LT/UR/A-1A/12 (adopted January 1, 1995): Article 2.1, available at <http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/15-sps.pdf> [hereinafter SPS Agreement].
43.
WTO Appellate Body Report on Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R (October 20, 1998): At 199 [hereinafter Australian Salmon Report]; WTO Appellate Body Report on Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, WT/DS76/AB/R (February 22, 1999): At 79 [hereinafter Japanese Agricultural Products Report].
44.
Japanese Agricultural Products Report, Id. at 84.
45.
SPS Agreement, supra note 42, at Articles 2.2, 2.3.
46.
Id. at Article 5.7.
47.
See, e.g., Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1994); compare WalkerV.R., “The Myth of Science as” a ‘Neutral Arbiter’ for Triggering Precautions,”Boston College International & Comparative Law Review26 (2003): 197–212.
48.
SPS Agreement, supra note 42, at Article 3.2.
49.
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization, Codex Alimentarius, at <http://www.codexalimentarius.net> (last visited November 17, 2003).
50.
Victor, supra note 41, at 885.
51.
Codex Alimentarius Commission, Twenty-fifth (Extraordinary) Session Report, ALINORM 03/25/5 (February 13, 2003): At Appendix 1, available at <ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/alinorm03/alx3_05e.pdf>.
52.
SPS Agreement, supra note 42, at Article 5.1.
53.
Id. at Article 5.2.
54.
Id. at Article 5.5.
55.
Id. at Article 5.6.
56.
WTO Appellate Body Report on European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R (February 13, 1998) [hereinafter Beef Hormones Report].
57.
KuikK., “Recent Developments in EU/US Trade Relations,”University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 79 (2002): 433–448.
58.
Victor, supra note 41, at 899.
59.
Victor, supra note 41, at 901–902.
60.
Australian Salmon Report, supra note 43; Japanese Agricultural Products Report, supra note 43.
61.
SilvergladeB.A., “The Impact of International Trade Agreements on U.S. Food Safety and Labeling Standards,”Food and Drug Law Journal, 53 (1998): 537–541, at 538; Victor, supra note 7, at 879.
62.
ShapiroS.A., “International Agreements, Regulatory Protection, and Public Accountability,”Administrative Law Review, 54 (2002): 435–458.
International Institute for Sustainable Development and World Wildlife Fund, Private Rights, Public Problems, (Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2001): At 96.
67.
In the Matter of a Claim under Chapter 11, Section A, of the North American Free Trade Agreement and in the Matter of an Arbitration under UNCITRAL Arbitrtation Rules, STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Methanex), December 3, 1999, para. 36, available at <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/8772.pdf>.
68.
Methanex, supra, note 64. In August, 2002, the Arbitral Tribunal ruled that there was not a legally sufficient connection between California's action and Methanex. However, the tribunal allowed Methanex to proceed on the basis of its claim that the Governor of California specifically intended to harm Methanex's business interests. MurphyS. D., “Measures ‘Relating to’ Foreign Investors Under NAFTA Dispute Resolution,”American Journal of International Law, 97 (2003): 440.
World Trade Organization, Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, LT/UR/A-1A/10 (adopted January 1, 1995): At Annex 1, para. 1, 2, available at <http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt.pdf> [hereinafter TBT agreement].
72.
Id. at Article 2.9.
73.
The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, UN Doc. EP/IG.80/3 (adopted March 22, 1989); ChoksiS., “The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal: 1999 Protocol on Liability and Compensation,”Ecology Law Quarterly, 28 (2001): 509–539.
74.
MintzJ.A., “Two Cheers for Global POPs: A Summary and Assessment of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants,”Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 14 (2001): 319–332; LallasP.L., “The Role of Process and Participation in the Development of Effective International Environmental Agreements: A Study of the Global Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs),”UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 19 (2000–2001): 83–152.
World Trade Organization, Trade Statistics: Commercial Services Trade By Region and Selected Economies, 1980–2002 (Geneva: World Trade Organization, 2003) available at <http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/service_e.xls>.
See, e.g., Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), Provisions on Trade in Services in Trade and Integration Agreements in the Western Hemisphere, available at <http://www.ftaa-alca.oas.org/cp_serv/english/srv_toc.asp> (last visited December 1, 2003).
84.
FindlayC.WarrenT., Implications of General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) for Asia-Pacific Economies, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), ST/ESCAP/1926, No.27 (2000), available at <http://www.unescap.org/itid/publication/chap2_1926.pdf>.
PollockA.M.PriceD., “Rewriting the Regulations: How the World Trade Organization Could Accelerate Privatization in Health-Care Systems,”Lancet, 356(9246) (2000): 1995–2000, at 1995.
World Trade Organization, Health and Social Services: Background Note by the Secretariat, 98–3558 S/C/W/50 (September 18, 1998): At 3, available at <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/w50.doc>.
90.
Id.
91.
ChandraR., “Trade in Health Services,”Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 80, no. 2 (2002): 158–163, at 158 available at <http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/en/>.
Id. As outlined in Article I of GATS, the Most-Favored Nation clause states that no less-favorable conditions of competition will be accorded to the service suppliers of any one Member country, than are accorded to the service suppliers of any other Member country. Members may list exceptions to this obligation to honor prior previously negotiated bilateral or multilateral trade agreements.
See, e.g., JanjaroenW.S.SupakankuntiS., “International Trade in Health Services in the—Millennium: The Case of Thailand,”Trade in Health Services (Geneva: The World Health Organization, 2000): 87–106 at 94–95,101.
101.
See Chandra, supra, note 92.
102.
See, e.g., ZarrilliS., “The Case of Brazil,”Trade in Health Services (Geneva: The World Health Organization, 2000): 143–153.
103.
WidiatmokoD.GaniA., “International Relations within Indonesia's Hospital Sector,”Trade in Health Services (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2000): 107–117.
104.
VellingaJ., “An Approach to Trade and Health at Health Canada,”Trade in Health Services (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2000): 193–196.