Although the judgment on the legitimacy of SPS measures fell completely under the state's sovereign rights in the past, it has been placed under international trade regulations due to increased trade liberalization. The WTO agreement judges the legitimacy of SPS measures based on The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the “SPS agreement”). However, the ambiguous regulations of the SPS Agreement make it difficult to identify its original meaning. As the WTO DSB has defined and clarified the meaning of the SPS agreement recently, it would be important to prepare for possible SPS disputes through research on established SPS dispute cases.
  This study briefly explains the contents of the SPS agreement and dispute settlement procedures of the WTO SPS, reviews SPS dispute cases handled by the WTO DSB (Dispute Settlement Body), and analyzes the interpretation and application of WTO SPS regulations. Furthermore, it investigates various issues related to SPS measures and identifies the policy implications of the SPS Agreement. The study also intends to provide a reference for Korea's sanitary quarantine policies and to build the basic data for future academic research.
  This study deals with the EC-Hormones case (1998), Australia-Salmon case (1998), Japan-Agricultural Products case (1999), Australia-Salmon (21.5) case (2000), Japan-Apples case (2003), Japan-Apples (21.5) case (2005), EC-Biotech Products (“GMOs”) case (2006), Canada/U.S.-Hormones Suspension case (2008), U.S.-Poultry case (2010), Australia？Apples case (2010), India-Agricultural Products case (2015), U.S.-Animals case (2015), and Russia-Pigs case (2016).
  The major issue in the SPS dispute cases so far has been whether the measures are based on risk assessments (§5.1). Additionally, whether the measures are more trade-restrictive than required (§5.6) and whether there are arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions (§5.5) were often checked too. In recent cases, the WTO DSB reviewed whether the measures are based on international standards (§3.1) and whether the Members recognize the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence (§6.2) and ensure that their SPS measures are adapted to the SPS characteristics of the area (§6.1).
  The implications that this research holds for Korea are as follow.
Firstly, Korea will try to conduct comprehensive and specific risk assessments to obtain sufficient scientific evidence that demonstrates the measures are based on rigorous and scientific principles. Secondly, it will be necessary to prepare for newly-arising issues such as adaptation to regional conditions and equivalence. Third, there is a need to promote interest and understanding about international standards. Beginning with the publishing and updating of Korean translations for major international standards, it will also be important to actively contribute toward the establishment of proper international standards throughout negotiations, and to ensure that Korea's SPS policies develop in a manner that is in line with these international standards, thus reducing potential trade conflicts with our trade partners. Lastly, as Mega FTAs stipulate similar provisions to the guidelines of the SPS committee and recent decisions of the WTO DSB, it is important to keep an eye on the recent Mega FTAs' SPS Agreement.
  The SPS agreement does indeed contribute to the elimination of unreasonable sanitary standards. However, the SPS agreement is overly dependent on the concept of “scientia vincit omnia (scientific panacea),” as the purpose of the SPS agreement is to prevent SPS measures from being used as disguised protectionism. Therefore thorough preparation with respect to scientific evidence is required to introduce and maintain the sanitary-quarantine system. We expect Korea to take objective and proper SPS measures that fully protect human, animal or plant life or health by developing and improving the quarantine system.