Liability for Transboundary Damage of Genetically Modified Organisms: Existing Patterns and Application
- 1 China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, China
Abstract
Normative analysis found that for the application of liability for transboundary damage to genetically modified organisms, there are currently three liability patterns: traditional state liability, private law liability, and liability for transboundary damage. I t will not be an effective solution to the problem of penalty for damages, i f the above liability patterns apply to transboundary damage of genetically modified organisms separately . And this approach is inconsistent with the legal principles of relevant international law and judicial practice. So this article uses method of legal interpretation to analyze and interpret the provisions of Convention on Biological Diversity , The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol to clarify the true meaning of the provisions in depth, and eliminate errors and omissions. At the same time, this article uses the method of theoretical analysis to analyze the exist ing liability patterns. Finally , we found , the principle of timely and adequate compensation for victims should be implemented in complex realities, and genetically modified damage should be dealt with and in accordance with the attributes of damage, causation and other factors. According to these factors, we will divide transboundary damage o f genetically modified organisms into three types : intentional transboundary movement, unintentional transboundary movement and illegal transboundary movement. To divide the transboundary damage to genetically modified organisms and appl y different liability patterns according to different situations should be the best approach.
- CBD (2016). Decisions of the Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity Serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Montreal.
- ILC (2001). Report on the Work of the Fifty-Sixth Session of the International Law Commission (p. 92).
- ILC (2002). Work Report of the Working Group on International Liability for Harmful Consequences Resulting from Acts Not Prohibited by International Law (p. 4).
- ILC (2006). Report on the Work of the Fifty-Eight Session of the International Law Commission (p. 72, p. 77).
- Isaac (2001). Oxford Dictionary of Scientists (p. 737). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
- IUCN (2003). Environmental Law Centre. An Explanatory Guide to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. An Explanatory Guide to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. IUCN Publications Services.
- Lin, C. L. (2011). Selected International Environmental Treaties (p. 428, p. 432). Beijing: Academy Press.
- Liu, X. X. (2011). Research on the Dynamics of Legislation on the Coexistence of GM Crops and Non-GM Crops—From the Perspective of the U.S., Japan and Europe’s Response to GMO Incidents. Life Sciences, 2, 216-220.
- Wang, H. (2016). Research on the International Law of the Transboundary Movement of Genetically Modified Organisms (p. 56). Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.
- Watanabe, M. E. (2015). The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing: International Treaty Poses Challenges for Biological Collections. BioScience, 65, 543-550. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv056
- Yang, G. (2014). FAO: Increasing Cases of Genetically Modified Pollution. Pesticide Market Information, 10, 39.