No abstract

No abstract

Paragraph 2(a) of the GATS Annex on Financial Services is generally known as the Prudential Carve-Out (PCO). Essentially, it allows WTO Members to adopt the measures they deem appropriate for prudential reasons, when regulating trade in financial services. The provision has not yet been interpreted in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. However, it is extremely relevant in light of the 2008-2009 financial crisis and the regulatory developments that ensued worldwide. Few scholars have looked into the issue and it seems to be their common view that the PCO has to be classified in the technical sense as being an 'exception' to the obligations and the commitments of the GATS. The main argument of this article is that the PCO should rather be classified as a 'provision that excludes the application of other provisions'. This alternative interpretation is more consistent with the negotiating history of the provision, the negotiators' intention, as well as the economic rationale behind it. Characterizing the PCO in this manner has implications for the allocation of the burden of proof (which should therefore fall on the complainant and not on the defendant) and for the degree of deference that WTO judges have to pay to the rights and the prerogatives of the regulators in the domain of financial services.

Reports 404new scientific or technical information that might affect the assessment of the safety of a food additive on manufacturers or users. Furthermore, Member States shall maintain systems to monitor the consumption and use of food additives on a risk-based approach and report their findings with appropriate frequency to the Commission and the EFSA. IV. ConclusionsIt would appear therefore that adequate protection systems are in place and that said systems are capable of ensuring a safe use of food additives in foodstuffs. Moreover, the continued surveillance and regular reevaluation of food additives in the light of changing conditions of use and new scientific information will help to further define the needs and the setting of the order of priorities for the competent authorities vis-à-vis the assessment of the safety of food additives.However, a proper assessment of the actual achievement of the objectives pursued by the Additives Regulation will only be conducted over the next few years. (including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, agriculture and foodstuffs) Intellectual Property This section is devoted to giving readers an inside view of the crossing point between intellectual property (IP) law and risk regulation. In addition to updating readers on the latest developments in IP law and policies in technological fields

No abstract