Precautionary Principle
Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle was arguably developed and originally implemented in Germany and Sweden, and it is these nations that remain the leading proponents of it. For example, it was one of these nations (Germany) that put the precautionary principle on the international stage, and today with regard to environmental regulation (in particular chemicals) it is Sweden that is pushing forward precautionary legislation in the European Union. There is a conflict between those who support the principle and those who oppose it. For example, American policy-makers have become increasingly concerned with the use of the concept by the EU, seeing it as a threat to scientific risk analysis as the main tool for regulation used hitherto. Academics in the United States point out that the US had precautionary elements in their regulations during the 1970s; but these elements turned out to be excessively costly and faulty, and so were abandoned following a Supreme Court judgment in 1980 (in an infamous case concerning benzene) which insisted that regulation must depend on scientific proof of risk.
There is no one definition of the precautionary principle. One Swedish author, Per Sandin, lists 19 formulations, often individually vague and mutually contradictory.[1] The most commonly used definition is contained in the 1992 Rio Declaration, which stated that in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
One of the more rigorous analyze of the meanings of the precautionary principle have been put forward in work by Wiener and Rogers. They argue that there are three different formulations of the precautionary principle. These are:[2]
• Uncertainty does
The precautionary principle was arguably developed and originally implemented in Germany and Sweden, and it is these nations that remain the leading proponents of it. For example, it was one of these nations (Germany) that put the precautionary principle on the international stage, and today with regard to environmental regulation (in particular chemicals) it is Sweden that is pushing forward precautionary legislation in the European Union. There is a conflict between those who support the principle and those who oppose it. For example, American policy-makers have become increasingly concerned with the use of the concept by the EU, seeing it as a threat to scientific risk analysis as the main tool for regulation used hitherto. Academics in the United States point out that the US had precautionary elements in their regulations during the 1970s; but these elements turned out to be excessively costly and faulty, and so were abandoned following a Supreme Court judgment in 1980 (in an infamous case concerning benzene) which insisted that regulation must depend on scientific proof of risk.
There is no one definition of the precautionary principle. One Swedish author, Per Sandin, lists 19 formulations, often individually vague and mutually contradictory.[1] The most commonly used definition is contained in the 1992 Rio Declaration, which stated that in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
One of the more rigorous analyze of the meanings of the precautionary principle have been put forward in work by Wiener and Rogers. They argue that there are three different formulations of the precautionary principle. These are:[2]
• Uncertainty does
Bibliography: R. Burnett & V. Bath, Law of International Business in Australasia, The Federation Press, 2009. J. Mo, International Commercial Law, LexisNexis Butterworths, 4th edition, 2008. [5] Isaac, Grant E. y Kerr, William A., Genetically Modified Organisms at the World Trade Organization: A Harvest of Trouble (2003) 37 J. World Trade at 1083. [6] Macmil l an, Fiona, WTO and the Environment, London, Sweet & Maxwel l , 2001, at 7. [7] See preamble of Marrakech Agreement of the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, Legal Instruments of the Uruguay Round vol.1, 33 ILM 1154 (1994). [12] General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11 TIAS 1700 UNTS 194, as modified by Marrakech Agreement of the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, Legal Instruments of the Uruguay Round vol.1, 33 ILM 1154 (1994). [13] Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) (15 April 1994), & “WTO Agreement, Annex 1A, 69”. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/15-sps.pdf. [15] Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT, 1994. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/19-adp.pdf. [16] Grosko, Brett, “Genetic Engineering and Internacional Law: Conflict or Harmony? An analysis of the Biosafety Protocol, GATT, and the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement” (2001) 20 Va. Envtl. L. J. 295 at 308. [22] EC Measures Concerning Meat & Meat Products, Panel Reports: Case WI/DS26/R/USA, August 18, 1997 & WT/DS48/R/CAN, August 18, 1997; Appellate Body Report: WT/DS26/AB/R&WT/DS48/AB/R, January 16, 1998 in supra note 115. [30] Commission of the European Communities, “Communication of the application of the Precautionary Principle”, (2000). http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2000/com2000_0001en01.pdf.