Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
rst component of the principle restricts the circumstances in
which it should be applied to those where there are reasonable grounds
for believing that harmmay be caused. What level and type of evidence is
needed for this requirement to be satis
The
ed is unclear although it is gen-
erally accepted that more-than-hypothetical risks should be present. 27 The
desire to avoid wholly unnecessary restraint is understandable. However,
the need to make a case for precaution in situations that are typically
marked by a dif
culty with predicting outcomes seems contradictory and
likely to result in more instances of harm than of excessive caution. As
Dovers and Handmer argue, it is paradoxical to expect that we should
become knowledgeable about ignorance before precautionary action is
taken to prevent environmental harm that, in better-informed circum-
stances, we would actively seek to avoid. 28
De
nitions of the precautionary principle in international, European
and national law have further restricted its application by stating that
possible harm resulting from a hazard should exceed a threshold. 29
Typical requirements are that this should be
'
or both. 30 Trouwborst advises that, for the precautionary principle to
apply in customary international law, the anticipated environmental
harm should be
'
serious
'
or
'
irreversible
'
signi
cant
-
that is, at a minimum, tangible and
. 31 Commentatorsviewthisasanecessitytopreventpre-
caution being required in lawwhere its use is not merited by the potential
consequences of an action. 32 Even so, it could have the counterproduc-
tive effect for environmental protection of preventing the precautionary
treatment of situations where there is a high degree of uncertainty over
outcomes. De Sadeleer echoes Dovers and Handmer in questioning
whether
appreciable
'
the desire to determine damage on the basis of these criteria
leads to a paradox since its occurrence remains subject to scienti
'
c
. 33 As he observes, this is particularly the case for ecological
uncertainty
'
27 R. von Schomberg,
in E. Fisher,
J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg (eds) Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives
and Prospects
'
The Precautionary Principle and its Normative Challenges
'
(Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006), p. 40; de Sadeleer,
'
Environmental Principles
'
, pp. 157
-
162; Trouwborst,
'
The Precautionary Principle in
General International Law
'
,188.
28
S. R. Dovers and J.W. Handmer,
'
Ignorance, the precautionary principle and sustainability
'
(1995) 24 Ambio, 93; M. B. A. van Asselt and E. Vos,
'
The Precautionary Principle and the
Uncertainty Paradox
'
(2006) 9 Journal of Risk Research,317
-
8.
29 de Sadeleer,
30
'
Environmental Principles
'
, pp. 161
-
7.
Ibid .
31 Trouwborst,
'
The Precautionary Principle in General International Law
'
,188
-
9.
32 de Sadeleer,
33
'
Environmental Principles
'
, pp. 162
-
3.
Ibid ., pp. 166
-
7.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search