This article presents an analysis of the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F Strategy) on animal welfare matters though the lens of EU trade policy and public participation. It shows that the mix of cooperation tools contained in bilateral agreements with trade components support in aggregate the Strategy's actions on animal welfare. However, individual bilateral agreements may need to be renegotiated and modernised to include more powerful cooperation tools to achieve sustainable food systems through the adoption and implementation of animal welfare standards. One way of achieving this is to negotiate the inclusion of sustainable food systems chapters that highlight the linkages between animal welfare, agriculture, sustainability, climate, environment, and public health. However, such robust chapters should be monitored and enforced in a correspondingly robust manner, for example, by restructuring chapters' committees and work groups. The article concludes that enhanced public participation, both at the level of legislative proposals (public consultations) and at the level of trade policy (domestic advisory groups, standardisation committees), may better support achieving policy Ciar an Burke, Professor and Senior Research Fellow, Jena Center for Reconciliation Studies, Friedich Schiller University and Legal Officer, EFTA Surveillance Authority. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone, and do not represent the position of the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

No abstract

Legal responses to the covid-19 pandemic have varied widely. Korea represents an interesting case study, as it seemed particularly well prepared, having enacted legislation in the wake of the mers outbreak, in 2015, to tackle future pandemics. This obviated recourse to emergency powers legislation, and couched Korea’s response in normal legislation, which tends to raise fewer human rights concerns than may arise under emergency measures. Despite this, however, Korea’s response to covid-19 raises significant questions about its compliance with core human rights norms under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, including freedom of religion and non-discrimination. These arose with regard to the state’s treatmennt of members of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus (scj), a relatively small, occasionally controversial, religious group. The treatment of the scj by the Korean state raises questions about whether its legal approach to tackling covid-19 was fit for purpose.

No abstract

No abstract