Sps Agreement And Ihr

Article 33 stipulates that goods (excluding live animals) that are in transit without transfer (i.e. they go to another destination without going through the territory of the State party) are not subject to sanitary measures or are held for public health purposes. There are two exceptions to this rule: 1) a health measure adopted in accordance with Article 43; or (2) a measure approved by an applicable international agreement (for example. B an international trade agreement). This customs requires the expanded NQS to identify goods in transit without the transfer of goods from goods imported into the United States for the purpose of public health measures. This section of the SPS agreement would require the extended NQS to recognize that the SPS measures of exporting countries are equivalent if the exporting countries objectively demonstrate to the United States that their measures reach the level of protection chosen by the United States. It is doubtful that this obligation to recognize the equivalent SPS measure of two other WTO members will significantly reduce U.S. sovereignty, given that the WTO importing member (here the United States) continues to control the process of granting equivalency status for WTO members` SPS measures that export products to the United States. However, the United States has mutual recognition agreements and agreements with other WTO members, such as the EU; These equivalency pacts could therefore have an impact on the way NQS treats the products of these countries. The last part of the revised IHR – the “final provisions” (Article 54-66) – also does not merit further discussion in this memorandum, as it mainly contains questions of international law (for example. B, changes to the IHR, relations with other international agreements, rejection and reservations, entry into force, etc.) that are not directly relevant to the Committee`s focus on the capabilities required for expanded NQEs. the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements or agreements on the prevention or control of international transmission of disease to Dener crossings, in accordance with Article 57; and (d) the accession and participation of the members or institutions concerned on its territory in international and regional health and plant health organisations and systems, as well as bilateral and multilateral agreements and arrangements under this agreement, as well as the texts of these agreements and arrangements. Subject to applicable international conventions and relevant articles of these regulations, a State party may require public health on arrival or departure: goods (except live animals), shipped in transit without transshipment, are not subject to health measures under the IHR or are maintained for public health reasons.

, unless Article 43 or existing international conventions allow it (Article 33 of the RSI 2005). Section 43 of the IHR must be taken seriously. States are certainly required to comply with their various conditions, including those set out in paragraph 1 of Article 43, that any additional measures must be carefully considered to ensure that it is not more restrictive and is no more invasive or intrusive to individuals than reasonably available alternatives. However, the adoption of border closures is ultimately a matter of decision-making by individual states, taking due account of the directly affected interests of others. In short, a properly calibrated precautionary approach must be justified in managing emerging global public health emergencies.

Comments are closed.