Policy makers of various countries are exposed to critiques that call for the consideration of issues that transcend human, animal, and environmental safety concerns when assessing agricultural biotechnology products. While some jurisdictions have decided to broaden the scope of their approval process for genetically modified (GM) foods, this paper analyzes legal, political, and economic factors that can influence the transfer of these initiatives. Drawing on mechanisms presented in the policy transfer literature, this article examines their mixed effects pertaining to the regulation of biotechnology. Although the mechanisms of competition and coercion do not preclude such a possibility, one must admit that they do not create any incentives for policy makers to include nonsafety criteria within biotechnology regulations. By contrast, to varying degrees, the mechanisms of mimicry and learning can foster the transfer of such a broadened scope that allows a better assessment of GM foods' social acceptability.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

When confronting pandemics, states can be prompted to adopt measures that have a negative impact on international economic relations in order to keep their population safe and to protect particularly sensitive sectors of their domestic economy. From export restrictions of medical equipment to foreign investment screening procedures and lockdowns, the COVID-19 outbreak resulted in several measures that profoundly disrupted business activities across borders. This chapter examines various measures adopted since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in light of rules that are found in free trade and international investment agreements. By focusing on the provisions that can be used by states to justify the adoption of measures intended to protect public health and the economy at the national level, it highlights an important tension. On the one hand, the use of exceptions in the context of a global health crisis may call for an extensive interpretation of concepts that can lead to easier justifications of trade and investment restrictions in the future. On the other hand, an effective reliance on exceptions can ultimately hinder efforts to fight the pandemic globally. This chapter explores this tension by considering exceptions that can be raised by states both in the context of international trade law and international investment law.