Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKnight, John Gen_NZ
dc.date.available2011-04-07T03:11:50Z
dc.date.copyright2005en_NZ
dc.identifier.citationKnight, J. G. (2005). Advance Australia fair? Anatomy and pathology of an 84-year trade dispute. Journal of Public Affairs, 5(2), 112–123. doi:10.1002/pa.16en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10523/1254
dc.descriptionFull text available only via related link.en_NZ
dc.description.abstractThis paper examines the very long-running trade dispute between Australia and New Zealand concerning a ban on the importation of apples on the basis of fire blight disease present in New Zealand. This particular example illustrates the more general case of the frequent conflict between science and politics in regard to technical trade barriers. This same issue of fire blight disease in apples became the subject of a protracted World Trade Organization dispute between the USA and Japan, with New Zealand a third party to the USA, and Australia a third party to Japan. The World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body, and subsequently the World Trade Organization Appellate Body, ruled in favour of the USA (and thus New Zealand) on this issue. Despite this ruling, Australia has continued its ban on New Zealand apples and the issue has become highly politicized in Australia. This case highlights the need for World Trade Organization rules to be changed to ensure that its rulings become binding on third parties and other World Trade Organization members. This would ensure that once an issue is decided through the full World Trade Organization conflict resolution process, the principles established should become generally applicable to other instances of the same scientific issue.en_NZ
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Public Affairsen_NZ
dc.relation.urihttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/110577568/PDFSTARTen_NZ
dc.subject.lcshH Social Sciences (General)en_NZ
dc.titleAdvance Australia fair? Anatomy and pathology of an 84-year trade disputeen_NZ
dc.typeJournal Articleen_NZ
dc.description.versionPublisheden_NZ
otago.date.accession2005-12-19en_NZ
otago.relation.issue2en_NZ
otago.relation.pages112-123en_NZ
otago.relation.volume5en_NZ
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/pa.16en_NZ
otago.openaccessAbstract Only
dc.identifier.eprints185en_NZ
dc.description.refereedPeer Revieweden_NZ
otago.school.eprintsMarketingen_NZ
dc.description.referencesAustralian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2003. http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/nz.pdf. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia. 2004. Importation of Apples from New Zealand: revised draft IRA report. http://www.affa.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/pdf/market_access/biosecurity/plant/apple_rev_drafta.pdf [accessed 6 June 2005]. Gascoine D. 2000. WTO dispute settlement: lessons learned from the salmon case. Conference on International Trade Education and Research:Managing Globalisation for Prosperity, Melbourne, Victoria 26–27 October. http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/ausapec/gascoine.pdf. [accessed 9 February 2004]. Jock S, Rodoni, B, Gillings M et al. 2000. Screening of ornamental plants from the Botanic Gardens of Melbourne and Adelaide for the occurrence of Erwinia amylovora. Australasian Plant Pathol 29: 120–128. Knight J, Holdsworth D, Mather D. 2003. Trust and Country Image: Perceptions of European Food Distributors Regarding Factors That Could Enhance or Damage New Zealand’s Image—Including GMOs. Dunedin: University of Otago. MAF. 1997. Press release, ‘Claims of Sabotage dismissed in fire blight debate.’ http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/press/archive/1997/200597blt.htm [accessed 7 June 2005]. MAF. 2003. http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/sectors/hort/fruit.html. New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2003. http://www.mft.govt.nz/foreign/regions/australia/cer2003/cerbackgrounder.html. Roberts D. 1998. Preliminary assessment of the effects of the WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary trade regulation. Journal of International Economic Law 1: 377–405. Oxley A. 2004. Management of Australia’s quarantine system—concerns and future challenges. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/apples04/submissions/sub33.pdf [last accessed 9 February 2004]. Roberts D. 1999. Analyzing technical trade barriers in agricultural markets: challenges and priorities. Agribusiness 15: 335–355. Rodoni B, Kinsella M, Gardner R et al. 1999. Detection of Erwinia amylovora, the causal agent of fire blight, in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne, Australia. International Workshop on Fire Blight 1998. Acta Horticulturae 489: 169–170. Taylor CR, Walsh MG, Lee C. 2003. The US/EU beef controversy and a proposed framework for resolving standards disputes in international trade. Journal of Consumer Affairs 37: 101–113. Thorn C, Carlson M. 2000. The agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures and the agreement on technical barriers to trade. Law and Policy in International Business 31: 841–855. Welch C. 2005. Science or protection? Australia’s quarantine regime and the WTO. In Casebook in International Business: Australian and Asia-Pacific Perspectives, Ramburuth P, Welch C (eds). Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ; 78–81. Weyerbrock S, Xia T. 2000. Technical trade barriers in US/Europe agricultural trade. Agribusiness 16: 235–251. WTO. 2003. Japan—measures affecting the importation of apples. Report of the Panel, 15 July 2003, and Report of the Appellate Body, 26 November 2003. WTO. 2004a. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm. WTO. 2004b. http://docsonline.wto.org: WT/DS245/12 and WT/DS245/17. [accessed 7 June 2005].en_NZ
 Find in your library

Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item is not available in full-text via OUR Archive.

If you are the author of this item, please contact us if you wish to discuss making the full text publicly available.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record