The WTO's decision-making model of executive multilateralism has been widely criticized for its lack of accountability to civil society. However, through the mechanism of the amicus curiae brief, nongovernment organizations and other civil society actors have found a way of directly `inserting' the public interest concerns of civil society into the dispute resolution arm of the WTO, which has proved to be more amenable to `critical public reason' than the trade negotiation arm. This article critically explores both the text and context of the amicus briefs submitted in the transatlantic biotech dispute and highlights their role in generating a green cosmopolitan public sphere that seeks more reflexive modernization and facilitates horizontal forms of regime accountability. Cosmopolitan public spheres are conceptualized as specialized, intermediary structures, with multiple strategic and communicative functions, that mediate between supra-national governance structures and regional and domestic civil societies.
Arts, Bas and Sandra Mack (2007) `NGO Strategies and Influence in the Biosafety Arena, 1992—2005', in Robert Falkner (ed.) The International Politics of Genetically Modified Food, pp. 48—64. London: Palgrave .
2.
Beck, Ulrich (1992) The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, trans. Mark Ritter. London: Sage Publications .
3.
Bernauer, Thomas (2003) Genes, Trade and Regulation: The Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
Bhala, Raj (1999) `The Myth About Stare Decisis and International Trade Law (Part One of a Trilogy)', American University InternationalLaw Review14(4): 845—956.
5.
Bohman, James (1998) `The Globalization of the Public Sphere: Cosmopolitan Publicity and the Problem of Cultural Pluralism', Philosophy and Social Criticism24(April): 199—216.
6.
Bohman, James (1999) `International Regimes and Democratic Governance: Political Equality and the Influence of Global Institutions', International Affairs75(3): 499—513.
7.
Bohman, James (2004) `Expanding Dialogue: The Internet, the Public Sphere and Prospects for Transnational Democracy,' The Sociological Review52(1): 13—155.
Busch, Lawrence, Robin Grove-White, Sheila Jasanoff, David Winickoff and Brian Wynne (2004) `Amicus Curiae Brief Submitted to the Dispute Settlement Panel of the World Trade Organization in the Case of EC: Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products', 30 April; http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/ieppp/wtoamicus/ (accessed 30 October 2004).
10.
The Business Times Singapore (2002) `ASEAN Rejects US Call for NGO Access to WTO Dispute Process', 17 September. http://www.wtowatch.org/headlines.cfm?RefID=17699 (accessed 21 February 2005).
11.
Butler, Leah (2006) `Effects and Outcomes of Amicus Curiae Briefs at the WTO: An Assessment of NGO Experiences', 8 May, mimeo; http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~es196/projects/2006final/butler.pdf (accessed 15 June 2006).
12.
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Friends of the Earth — US (FOE — US), Defenders of Wildlife, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), and The Organic Consumer Association — USA (OCA — USS) (2004) Amicus Curiae Brief, European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (WT/DS291, DS292, DS293), 1 June; http://www.ciel.org/Publications/ECBiotech_AmicusBrief_2June04.pdf (accessed 23 June 2006).
13.
Chua, Adrian (1998) `The Precedential Effect of WTO Panel and AB Reports ', Leiden Journal of International Law11(1): 45—61.
14.
Ciel (2006) `EC—Biotech: Overview and Analysis of the Panel's Interim Report', http://www.ciel.org/Publications/EC_Biotech_Mar06.pdf (accessed 23 June 2006).
15.
Clapp, Jennifer (2007) `The Political Ecology of Food Aid in an Era of Agricultural Biotechnology', in Robert Falkner (ed.) The International Politics of Genetically Modified Food, pp. 85—99. London: Palgrave .
16.
Cochran, Molly (2002) `A Democratic Critique of Cosmopolitan Democracy: Pragmatism from the Bottom-Up', European Journal of International Relations8(4): 517—48.
17.
Dryzek, John S. (1999) `Transnational Democracy', The Journal of Political Philosophy7(1): 30—51.
18.
Eckersley, Robyn (2004a) `The Big Chill: The WTO and Multilateral Environmental Agreements', Global Environmental Politics4(2): 24—50.
19.
Eckersley, Robyn (2004b) The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
Esty, Daniel C. (2002) `The World Trade Organization's Legitimacy Crisis ', World Trade Review1(1): 7—22.
21.
Europa Press Release (2006) `Europe's Rules on GM and the WTO', 7 February; http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/61&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (accessed 13 June 2006).
22.
European Communities (2004a) European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (WT/DS 291, 292 and 293), First Submission by the European Communities, 17 May.
23.
European Communities (2004b) European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (WT/DS 291, 292 and 293), Oral Statement by the European Communities at the First Meeting of the Panel with the Parties, 2 June.
24.
Fraser, Nancy (1996) `Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy', in Craig Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 109—42. Cambridge: MIT Press.
25.
Friends of the Earth (FOE) — London ( 2006), `WTO GM Challenge: Draft Decision Imminent', Press Release, 6 February; http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/wto_gm_challenge_draft_dec_06022006.html (accessed 23 June 2006).
26.
Gaskell, George (lead author) (2006) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends, Eurobarometer64(3), May; http://www.ec.europa.eu/research/press/2006/pdf/pr1906_eb_64_3_final_report-may2006_en.pdf (accessed 23 June 2006).
27.
Genewatch (UK) (2006) `Genewatch PR: WTO GM Decision Expected Tomorrow: Evidence Shows the US's Desperate Efforts Unlikely to Succeed in Forcing GM Food Acceptance', Press Release; http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als[cid]=492860&als[itemid]=537738 (accessed 13 June 2006).
Habermas, Jürgen (1971) Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics, trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
30.
Habermas, Jürgen (1981) `New Social Movements', Telos49: 33—7.
31.
Habermas, Jürgen (1991) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Thomas Burger with the assistance of FrederickLawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
Habermas, Jürgen (1997) Between Facts and Norms, trans. William Rehg. Cambridge: Polity Press.
33.
Habermas, Jürgen (2001) The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays, trans. Max Pensky. Cambridge: Polity .
34.
Held, David (2000) `The Changing Contours of Political Community', in Barry Holden (ed.) Global Democracy: Key Debates, pp. 17—31. London: Routledge.
35.
Hernandez-Lopez, Ernesto (2001) `Recent Trends and Perspectives for Non-State Actor Participation in the World Trade Organization Disputes', Journal of World Trade35(3): 469—98.
36.
Jasanoff, Sheila (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
Keohane, Robert O. (2003) `Global Governance and Democratic Accountability ', in David Held and Daniel Archibugi (eds) Taming Globalization: Frontiers of Governance, pp. 130—59. London: Polity.
38.
Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye (2000) `The Club Model of Multilateral Cooperation and Problems of Democratic Legitimacy', Paper prepared for the American Political Science Association Convention, Washington, DC, 31 August—3 September.
39.
Levidow, Les (2007) `The Transatlantic Agbiotech Conflict as a Problem and Opportunity for EU Regulatory Policies', in Robert Falkner (ed.) The International Politics of Genetically Modified Food, pp. 118—37. London: Palgrave.
40.
Lynch, Marc (1999) State Interests and the Public Sphere: The International Politics of Jordon's Identity. New York: Columbia University Press.
41.
Lynch, Marc (2000) `The Dialogue of Civilisations and International Public Spheres', Millennium: Journal of International Studies29(June): 187—230.
42.
Mason, Michael (2004) `Representing Transnational Environmental Interests: New Opportunities for Non-Government Organization Access within the World Trade Orgnization', Environmental Politics13(3): 566—89.
43.
Mavroidis, Petros (2001) `Amicus Curiae Briefs before the WTO: Much Ado About Nothing', Jean Monnet Working Paper 2/01.
44.
Miller, Scott and Scott Kilman (2006) `EU Loses a Round on Biotech Crops', The Wall Street Journal 9 February; http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6965 (accessed 23 June 2006).
45.
Nanz, Patrizia and Jens Steffek (2004) `Global Governance, Participation and the Public Sphere', Government and Opposition39(2): 314—35.
46.
Nanz, Patricia and Jens Steffek (2005) `Assessing the Democratic Quality of Deliberation in International Governance: Criteria and Research Strategies', Acta Politica40(3): 368—83.
47.
Office of the United States Trade Representative (2003) `USProposesGreaterOpennessforWTODisputes', Press Release, 9 August; http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/12709.htm (retrieved 5 March 2005).
48.
Palmer, Alice (2004) `Amicus Curiae Submission European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (WT/DS291; DS292; DS293)', April 2004 (on behalf of 15 NGOs); http://www.genewatch.org/WTO/Amicus/PublicInterestAmicus.pdf (retrieved 31 October 2004).
49.
Payne, Rodger A. and Nayef H. Samhat (2004) Democratizing Global Politics: Discourse Norms, International Regimes, and Political Community. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
50.
Risse, Thomas and Cornelia Ulbert (2005) `Deliberately Changing the Discourse: What Does Make Arguing Effective?' Acta Politica40(3): 351—67.
51.
Scott, Joanne (2004) `European Regulation of GMOs: Thinking about “Judicial Review” in the WTO', Jean Monnet Working Paper 04/04, NYU School of Law, New York.
52.
Shelton, Robert (1994) `The Participation of Nongovernment Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings', American Journal of International Law88: 611—42.
53.
Torgerson, Douglas (1999) The Promise of Green Politics: Environmentalism and the Public Sphere. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
54.
United States (1998) `Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (WT/DS58/AB/R)', 12 October 1998.
55.
United States (2004) `European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (WT/DS291, DS292 and DS 293)', First Submission by the United States, 21 April.
56.
Vint, Robert (2002) `Force-feeding the World: America's “GM or Death” Ultimatum to Africa Reveals the Depravity of its GM Marketing Policy', Genetic Food Alert, 2002; http://www.ukabc.org/forcefeeding.pdf (accessed 30 October 2004).
57.
Wallach, Lori (2003) `Public Citizen Denounces Bush Administration Attack on European Food Safety Policy at WTO', Common Dreams Progressive News Wire, 13 May; http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0513—09.htm (accessed 5 October 2006).
58.
Winickoff, David, Sheila Jasanoff, Lawrence Busch, Robin Grove-White and Brian Wynne (2005) `Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk, and Democracy in World Trade Law', Yale Journal of International Law30: 81—123.
59.
Wto (2005) `Registration Begins for Public Hearings of “Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC-Hormones Dispute” Panels 12—15 September 2005 in Geneva, Trade Topics Section: Dispute Settlement'; http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/public_hearing_e.htm (accessed 7 November 2005 ).
60.
WTO Panel Report (2006) `European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products: Interim Report of the Panel', 7 February, WT/DS291/INTERIM.
61.
Zürn, Michael (2004) `Global Governance and Legitimacy Problems', Government and Opposition39(2): 261—87.
