On 13 August 2013, the Government of Indonesia requested a special meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (hereinafter, DSB) in order to obtain authorisation to suspend concessions or other obligations (i.e., to ‘retaliate’) against the United States (hereinafter, the US). This request stems from the US alleged failure to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the WTO DSB in the dispute US – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes (hereinafter, US – Clove Cigarettes). In that dispute, the WTO dispute settlement organs found that Section 907(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (hereinafter, the FFDCA), introduced by Section 101(b) of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act discriminated against Indonesian clove cigarettes in favour of ‘like’ domestic menthol cigarettes, in a manner which was inconsistent with, inter alia, Article 2.1 of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (hereinafter, TBT Agreement). The DSB recommended that the US bring its legislation relating to the ban on flavoured cigarettes into conformity with its obligations under the WTO. On 22 August 2013, the US objected to the level of suspension of concessions proposed by Indonesia and requested that the matter be referred to arbitration. Following such request from the US, the DSB agreed that the matter be referred to arbitration and informed WTO Members that arbitration would be carried out by the original panel.

The closure of part of European airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” which does not release air carriers from their obligation, in the event of cancellation of a flight, to provide passengers care and assistance (author's headnote).

The Politics of Precaution by David Vogel, and the edited volume, The Reality of Precaution each compare the United States with Europe over a range of regulatory areas. Vogel claims that the US and Europe changed places in recent years with Europe becoming more precautionary than the US. The edited volume covers a wider range of topics and finds that the results are mixed. The evidence of diversity in the edited volume appears convincing, but this essay argues that both volumes too narrowly focus on the precautionary principle. Rather it argues for a broader context that confronts precaution both with the proportionality principle, which is a mainstay of European Union law, and with the limitations of cost/benefit analysis and Impact Assessment. It unpacks the normative underpinnings of these concepts to suggest a broader frame for policy analysis.

In May 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Company et al. in favor of Monsanto Company, affirming the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and holding that patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission.

This case note gives a brief overview of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, in which the meaning and limits of the doctrine of patent exhaustion have been examined, and discusses its implications for farmers and seed companies.

There is little debate, particularly clear, ‘no bullshit’ debate within the risk and regulation community, much as there is a lack elsewhere within academia. Without it, much goes unclarifed and arguments aren't tested and pushed to their limits, which is generally where they need to go. On these grounds alone I would welcome the different approaches to European/American precaution set out by Vogel and Wiener. But there are more positive things to say about these competing representations, irrespective of which one prefers. This is a discussion rich in empirical detail but that goes beyond individual issues towards systemic patterns, relating the data to wider themes and an overall framework. What's more, it concerns a matter of real contemporary significance and interest that citizens generally – at least those of America and Europe – should know about, and even have a view upon. And it's genuinely interesting – irrespective of any engagement with the academic study of risk and regulation.

“And remember you’re in France: The customer is always wrong!”

Many years ago, there was intense debate about what the Precautionary Principle (“PP”) is, or is not. More recently, as the battle lines in that debate have ossified, academic attention seems to have shifted to a focus on the somewhat more subtle question of how the term PP, whatever it may mean, is used by different actors in different contexts. David Vogel’s recent book, The Politics of Precaution: Regulating the Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States (2012) (hereafter “Politics”), is a good recent example of such commentary. Vogel's approach recognizes the diversity of relevant developments, he seeks to impose a coherent narrative framework on those developments.