7 On that score, the triple negative offers us nothing helpful. ![]() In the debates over climate change, deforestation, genetically modified organisms, and so on, practically no one is urging that nothing be done pending "full scientific certainty." The controversies are characteristically over how much, if anything, should be done in light of what we do and do not know both about the science and the costs. Other versions, such as the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, address would-be regulators with a triple negative: not having "full scientific certainty" is not a reason not to postpone "cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." 6 But "full scientific certainty" is a bit of a red herring. The United Nations' General Assembly Resolutionon the World Charter for Nature (1982), in addressing "activities which are likely to pose a significant risk to nature," declares that "where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities shall not proceed." 5 But of course the adverse effects of activities are never "fully understood" taken literally, the directive would be: "Don't do anything." 3 Notoriously, however, "the" precautionary principle's meaning-or "meanings," for it has been put forth in so many versions, often with cognate phrasing, 4 as to belie the pretensions of the definite article-remains obscure. The term has come to be routinely included in multilateral environmental agreements and declarations, 1 and is also appearing in local laws 2 and scattered judicial opinions. The "precautionary principle" is being widely proposed as a response. The risky byproducts of technology, combined with an enhanced appreciation of hazards, is making us edgier than ever. Progress has always brought, along with rosy prospects, shadowy perils. 18, 2000) and at the UNU Seminar Series Inter-Linkages and Biosafety: "The Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, the WTO, and the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission-Seeking Coherence Between Multilateral Regimes," at the New York United Nations Headquarters (Sept. ![]() He may be reached at This Article isbased on remarks presented at the Expert's Meeting on "Genetically Modified Foods, Biosafety, the Codex and the Regulation of International Trade" at the Institute for Advanced Studies of the United Nations University in Tokyo (Mar. Thomas McCarthy Trustee Professor of Law, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Is There a Precautionary Principle? Christopher D. 0 | Environmental Law Reporter | copyright © 2001 | All rights reserved
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |