View More View Less
Full access

Sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) are incessant non-tariff barriers (NTBs) to trade in both intra and extra-African trade. New SPS measures are now set up in the African Tripartite Free Trade Area (TFTA) that amalgamate three existing regional economic communities (RECs): The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the South African Development Community (SADC), and the East African Community (EAC).

This article compares and contrasts the SPS measures obligations as set out in Annex 15 of the TFTA to the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). Additionally, the application of ‘abusive SPS measures based on minority science’ as non-tariff trade barriers to both internal and external African trade especially on agricultural products is analysed. An increase in transparency and accountability in the formulation of NTBs monitoring mechanisms in the COMESA, SADC, and EAC would address this ever present problem. The TFTA in Annex 15 is a case of SPS-Minus as it has a number of serious shortcomings including the lack of important obligations of sufficient risk assessment, non-discrimination, equivalence, the precautionary principle, and specific reference to consultations and dispute settlement. Notwithstanding these omissions, the TFTA has the potential for great achievement in the curbing of NTBs generally and unjustified SPS measures specifically because of the monitoring, transparency, and harmonisation obligations. If the Tripartite mandate, however, turns out to be like most other ‘loose’ integration efforts in Africa, then there is reason to believe that the NTB monitoring and reporting mechanism is not going to bear much fruit.

  • Abila, Richard O., Food Safety in Food Security and Food Trade. Case Study: Kenyan Fish Exports (International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C., September 2003).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Santana, Roy and Jackson, Lee, ‘Identifying Non-Tariff Barriers: Evolution of Multilateral Instruments and Evidence from the Disputes (1948–2011)’ (2012) 11:3 World Trade Review 46278.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Alemanno, Alberto, Trade in Food: Regulatory and Judicial Approaches in the EC and the WTO (Cameron May Ltd 2007).

  • Brennan, Anna, ‘The special and differential treatment mechanism and the WTO: Cultivating trade inequality for developing countries?’(2011) 14 Trinity College Law Review 13951.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (1998) Measures in Response to Cholera. Statement by the European Community at the Meeting on 12 and 13 March 1998, G/SPS/GEN/68, circulated on 18 March 1998.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Decision on the Implementation of Article 4 by the SPS Committee called ‘Decision on Equivalence’. This was adopted by the SPS Committee in 2001 and was revised in 2002, 2003, and 2004.WTO Doc G/SPS/19/Rev. 2 (23 July 2004).

  • Du Plessis, Abrie, ‘The Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) policies of the African Regional Economic Communities (RECs), and the way forward for the Continental Free Trade Area’ (2017) Trade Law Centre 911.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gathii, James, ‘African Regional Trade Agreements as Flexible Regimes’ (2010) 3 North Carolina Journal of International Law 571668.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gathii, James, Designing the Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA): An African Human Rights Perspective (UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, UN Economic Commission for Africa [UNECA], Friedrich Ebert Stiftung 2016).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gebrehwet, Yemani, Ngqangweni, Simphiwe and Kirsten, Johann, ‘Quantifying the Trade Effects of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulation of OECD Countries on South African Exports’ (2007) 1 Aggrekon 2339.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Guzman, Andrew and Pauwelyn, Joost, International Trade Law (2ed, Aspen Publishers 2012).

  • Helfer, Laurence, ‘Flexibility in International Agreements’ in Dunoff, Jeffrey and Pollack, Mark A. (eds), International law and International Relations: Taking Stock (Cambridge University Press, 2012) 17593.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Implementation of special and differential treatment provisions in WTO Agreements and Decisions, Mandatory and non-mandatory special and differential treatment provisions, Note by the Secretariat, Committee on Trade and Development, WT/COMTD/W/77/Rev.1/Add.1, 21 December 2001.

  • Joubert, Biandri, Sanitary and Pytosanitary Measures in the SADC Region: A South African Legal Perspective (Mini LLM Dissertation, North-West University 2014).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kalenga, PaulImplementation of the SADC Trade Protocol: A Preliminary Review’ in Hansohm, Dirk et al (eds), Monitoring Regional Integration in Southern Africa Yearbook (Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit and the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung 2004), 1733.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Landwehr, Oliver, ‘Article 4 SPS’, in Wolfrum Rudiger, Stoll Peter-Tobias, and Seibert-Fohr Anja (eds), WTO Technical Barriers and SPS Measures (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), 43352.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Laowonsiri, Akawat, ‘Application of Precautionary Principle in the SPS Agreement’ (2010), 14 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 567623.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marceau, Gabrielle and Trachtman, Joel, ‘The Technical barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary measure Agreement, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: A Map of the World Trade Organization Law of Domestic Regulation of goods’ (2002) 36:5 Journal of World Trade 81181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Magalhães, João, Regional Sanitary and Phytosanitary Frameworks and strategies in Africa Report for the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF 2010).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Magalhães, João, Report for the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF), July 2010.

  • Nic Shuibhne, Niamh, Regulating the Internal Market (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited 2006).

  • Osiemo, Onsando, ‘The Last Frontier: Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards and Technical Regulations as Non-Tariff Barriers in Intra-African Trade’ (2015) 1 African Journal of International and Comparative Law 16589.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Paul, Joel, ‘Do International Trade Institutions Contribute to Economic Growth and Development?’ (2003) 1 Virginia Journal of International Law 284340.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pauwelyn, Joost, ‘The Transformation of World Trade’ (2005) 1 Michigan Law Review, 64164.

  • Pauwelyn, Joost, ‘The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measurers as applied in the first three SPS disputes: EC-Hormones’ (1999) Journal of International Economic Law 63051.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Prévost, Denise, Balancing Trade and Health in the SPS Agreement: The Development Dimension (Nijmegen: The Netherlands, Wolf Legal Publishers, 2009).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Prévost, Denise, ‘Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Technical Barriers to Trade in the Economic Partnership Agreements between the European Union and the ACP Countries – ICTSD Programme on EPAs and Regionalism’ (2010) 6 Institute for Globalisation and International Regulation, Issue paper. <https://www.carib-export.com/obic/documents/prevost_web_final.pdf> accessed 30 November 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ravelomanantsoa, Lalaina, ‘Legal Study on the Regulations on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa The National Legal Implications of the COMESA Green Pass Certification Scheme’ (2012) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. <http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/ files/STDF_PPG_346_FinalLegalStudy_Jun-12.pdf> accessed 30 November 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van den Bossche, Peter, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases and Material (Cambridge University Press, 2013).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wagner, Markus, ‘Taking interdependence seriously: The need for a reassessment of the Precautionary Principe in international trade law’ (2012) 20 Cardozo Journal of International & Comparative Law 71369.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wagner, Markus, ‘The future of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Governance: SPS-Plus or SPS-Minus’ (2017) 3 World Trade Review 44570.

Submit Your Manuscript

 

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: 

Co-Editors:

  • Viktor LŐRINCZ
  • Miklós KÖNCZÖL

Editors:

  • Samanatha CHEESMAN
  • Zsuzsa FEJES
  • Fruzsina GÁRDOS-OROSZ
  • Attila KUN
  • Gábor SULYOK
  • Márton VARJU

     

Editorial Board

  • Attila BADÓ
  • Mátyás BÓDIG (Aberdeen)
  • Zoltán CSEHI
  • Péter CSERNE (Hull)
  • Balázs GELLÉR
  • András JAKAB
  • Miklós KIRÁLY
  • György KISS
  • Jan KUDRNA (Praha)
  • Herbert KÜPPER (Regensburg)
  • Konrad LACHMAYER (Durham)
  • Andzrej Stanislaw MĄCZYŃSKI (Kraków)
  • Guido PFEIFER (Frankfurt am Main)
  • Miklós SZABÓ
  • Zoltán SZENTE
  • G.J.J. Heerma VAN VOSS (Leiden)
  • Bernd WAAS (Frankfurt am Main)
  • Fryderyk ZOLL (Osnabrück)

Advisory Board

  • Péter ERDŐ
  • Gábor HAMZA
  • Attila HARMATHY
  • László KECSKÉS
  • Tibor KIRÁLY
  • László KORINEK
  • László SÓLYOM
  • Lajos VÉKÁS
  • Imre VÖRÖS

Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
P.O. Box 25
HU–1250 Budapest,Hungary
Phone: (36 1) 355 7384
Fax. (36 1) 375 7858
E-mail: acta.juridica@tk.mta.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Information technology and the Law
  • International Bibliographies IBZ and IBR
  • Worldwide Political Science Abstracts
  • SCOPUS
  • Cabell's Directories
  • HeinOnline

 

2020  
Scimago
H-index
3
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,158
Scimago
Quartile Score
Law Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
40/78=0,5
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Law 447/722 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,202
Scopus
Cites
12
Scopus
Documents
0
Acceptance
Rate
84%

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index
2
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,128
Scimago
Quartile Score
Law Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
31/88=0,4
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Law 480/685 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,247
Scopus
Cites
22
Scopus
Documents
2
Acceptance
Rate
8%

 

Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information Online subsscription: 480 EUR / 600 USD
Print + online subscription: 544 EUR / 680 USD
Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
2016 (1959)
Publication
Programme
2020 Volume 61
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia
Founder's
Address
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2498-5473 (Print)
ISSN 2560-1067 (Online)