...
首页> 外文期刊>Environmental sciences Europe >European Union and German law on co-existence: Individualisation of a systemic problem
【24h】

European Union and German law on co-existence: Individualisation of a systemic problem

机译:欧盟和德国关于共存的法律:系统性问题的个体化

获取原文

摘要

Background Co-existence of the cultivation of genetically modified and non-genetically modified crops is commonly regarded as a suitable way out of the clash of perceptions of environmental or health risks of genetically modified organisms. It allows setting aside a clear risk-based decision for or against genetically modified organisms, because all types of agriculture shall be given the possibility to exist side by side. Still, co-existence entails conflicts which the law strives to solve. European Union law is reticent as to binding co-existence measures and has left this task to the member states. Taking Germany as a case, the established rules have not been effective because they shift conflict resolution to the local and individual level. A systemic approach suggests the use of landscape planning as a means of clustering different kinds of agriculture. Methods The pertinent European Union and German law is summarised and interpreted. Its effects are analysed and explained. From this reform, suggestions are derived. Results According to the European Union, conception measures aiming at reducing health and environmental risks of genetically modified organisms must be separated from measures aiming at ensuring the economic co-existence of different kinds of agriculture. In contrast, German law on gene technology does not precisely separate risk mitigation measures from co-existence measures. The measures all aim at solving the conflicts between the individual landowners and thus fail to recognise the systemic character of the conflict between agricultures. The systemic conflict can better be solved by non-binding landscape planning or a legally binding agrarian utilisation plan, yet to be developed. Legislation addressing the conflict of agriculture must respect its constitutional dimension, i.e. the clash of basic rights to property and entrepreneurial freedom of conventional, organic and genetically modified organism farmers, industry, commerce and consumers. Binding and non-binding planning measures are compatible with constitutional guarantees as well as with European Union law Conclusions Co-existence and freedom of choice between the different agricultures is not effectively achieved by the existing individual solutions. Binding agricultural planning should therefore be introduced establishing e.g. genetically modified organism-free zones. Such measures are compatible with constitutional guarantees and with EU law.
机译:背景技术转基因和非转基因作物的种植共存通常被认为是摆脱对转基因生物的环境或健康风险的认识冲突的合适方法。它允许搁置针对或反对转基因生物的基于风险的明确决策,因为应赋予所有类型的农业并存的可能性。但是,共存仍然需要法律努力解决的冲突。欧盟法律对于具有约束力的共存措施不愿采取任何行动,并将这项任务留给了成员国。以德国为例,既定规则没有生效,因为它们将解决冲突转移到地方和个人层面。一种系统的方法建议使用景观规划作为集群不同种类农业的手段。方法总结和解释了相关的欧盟和德国法律。分析和解释其影响。通过这项改革,可以得出一些建议。结果欧盟认为,旨在减少转基因生物的健康和环境风险的构想措施必须与旨在确保各种农业的经济共存的措施分开。相反,德国关于基因技术的法律并未将缓解风险的措施与共存措施精确区分。这些措施都旨在解决各个土地所有者之间的冲突,因此未能认识到农业之间冲突的系统性。可以通过尚未制定的无约束力的景观规划或具有法律约束力的土地利用计划来更好地解决系统性冲突。解决农业冲突的立法必须尊重其宪法范围,即传统,有机和转基因生物农民,工业,商业和消费者的财产基本权利与企业家自由的冲突。具有约束力和不具有约束力的计划措施与宪法保障以及欧洲联盟法律均相容。结论现有农业解决方案不能有效地实现不同农业之间的共存和选择自由。因此,应该引入具有约束力的农业计划,例如转基因的无生物区。这些措施符合宪法保障和欧盟法律。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号