Skip Navigation


Journal of Environmental Law Advance Access originally published online on June 10, 2008
Journal of Environmental Law 2008 20(3):339-362; doi:10.1093/jel/eqn017
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/3/339    most recent
eqn017v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Valve, H.
Right arrow Articles by Kauppila, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2008]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Enacting Closure in the Environmental Control of Genetically Modified Organisms

Helena Valve* and Jussi Kauppila**

*Senior researcher, Finnish Environment Institute. (helena.valve{at}ymparisto.fi)
**Researcher, Finnish Environment Institute. (jussi.kauppila{at}ymparisto.fi).


  Abstract

One of the challenges of environmental law is to turn complex realities into coherent regulatory phenomena. The task requires ordering and boundary making. Motivated by this fact, this article studies the various types of closure through which releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are made manageable in the European Union. We analyse the legal framework for controlling environmental releases of GMOs and its implementation in a particular authorisation process. The results show that the EU regulation transforms deliberate releases of GMOs into immutable and predictable phenomena by making assumptions about their stability, uniformity and continuity. The closures or boundaries thus created carry political implications which should be acknowledged. The analysis also raises critical questions about the reality of procedural harmonisation. Regulation aims at standardising the methods of knowledge production, but instead it may standardise the knowledge itself, leaving little room for learning and case-specificity.

Key Words: closure • proceduralisation • GMO releases • risk assessment


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.