摘要
In the context of WTO dispute settlement, the precautionary principle is a predominant concept, in the face of serious risks and scientific uncertainty, that is often characterized as ＂better safe than sorry. ＂＇ Although the precautionary principle appears in various treaties, declarations, and even laws, it is often formulated in abstract terms, leading to the great ambiguity of its primary elements. The Panel and the Appellate Body always avoid discussing the precautionary principle in WTO cases due to its obscure definition. On March 13, 2012, the United States, the European Union, and Japan each requested consultations with China as China＇s measures that made restrictions on the exportation of rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum had been in conflict with their national interest.
In the context of WTO dispute settlement, the precautionary principle is a predominant concept, in the face of serious risks and scientific uncertainty, that is often characterized as ＂better safe than sorry. ＂＇ Although the precautionary principle appears in various treaties, declarations, and even laws, it is often formulated in abstract terms, leading to the great ambiguity of its primary elements. The Panel and the Appellate Body always avoid discussing the precautionary principle in WTO cases due to its obscure definition. On March 13, 2012, the United States, the European Union, and Japan each requested consultations with China as China＇s measures that made restrictions on the exportation of rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum had been in conflict with their national interest.
