Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.604239
Title: Science-based trade disputes : risk in transatlantic trade
Author: Hornsby, David John
Awarding Body: University of Cambridge
Current Institution: University of Cambridge
Date of Award: 2010
Availability of Full Text:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please contact the current institution’s library for further details.
Abstract:
The regulation of risk between the European Union, the United States of America and Canada has consistently resulted in trade conflict. The present distribution seeks to explain why these two regions challenge each other over risk regulations, particularly when they inhibited trade. Science is a critical variable in defining any risk. Whilst traditional interest-based approaches to international relations have offered insight into the role of interest groups and economic imperatives as drivers of transatlantic trade conflict, it is argued that focusing on ideas furthers understanding. Indeed, it is purported that differing ideas of what constitutes legitimate scientific evidence acts as a causal variable in state actor decision-making to enter a dispute. Five cases of transatlantic trade conflict were used to elucidate this. The interests and ideas connected with three cases that were resolved informally are juxtaposed against two cases that progressed to a formal trade dispute. Whilst epistemic communities and multilateral scientific meetings were helpful in resolving some health and safety trade issues, their influence is shown to be limited in contexts where formal disputes emerged. Indeed, it appears that their influence is connected to the traction their ideas receive from relevant economic or political interests in the dispute context. It is argued that there exists a range of different ideas that constitute legitimate scientific evidence in the European and North American regional legal frameworks and regulatory cultures, that economic or political interests latch onto these and they become a source of conflict.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.604239  DOI: Not available
Share: