Is the precautionary principle justiciable?

Journal of Environmental Law

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 314-334

  Fisher, Elizabeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; LEGAL SYSTEM; PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE;

EID: 0035200394     PISSN: 09528873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jel/13.3.315     Document Type: Article

References (181)

1. R. Macrory, 'Editor's Foreword', 9 Journal of Environmental Law (1997) 219.
2. Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (May 1992) para 3.5.1. See R. Harding and E. Fisher (eds), Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle (Federation Press, 1999).
3. S. Boehmer-Christiansen, 'The Precautionary Principle in Germany: Enabling Government' in T. O'Riordan and J. Cameron (eds), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle (Earthscan, 1994) at 31.
4. The precautionary principle is one of the principles included in the Loi Barnier, Loi no 95-201 of 2 February 1995. See J. Dutheil de la Rochere, 'Environmental Law in France' in N. Koeman (ed), Environmental Law in Europe (Kluwer Law, 1999) at 226-33.
5. Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM(2000) 1 final.
6. BSE Inquiry into BSE and Variant CJD in the United Kingdom, Final Report, Vol 15, Government and Administration (2000) at Annex 2; Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), Report: Mobile Phones and Health (2000) at ch 6; and DETR, Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management: Revised Departmental Guidelines (2000) at 1.6.
7. BSE Inquiry into BSE and Variant CJD in the United Kingdom, Final Report, Vol 15, Government and Administration (2000) at Annex 2; Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), Report: Mobile Phones and Health (2000) at ch 6; and DETR, Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management: Revised Departmental Guidelines (2000) at 1.6.
8. BSE Inquiry into BSE and Variant CJD in the United Kingdom, Final Report, Vol 15, Government and Administration (2000) at Annex 2; Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), Report: Mobile Phones and Health (2000) at ch 6; and DETR, Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management: Revised Departmental Guidelines (2000) at 1.6.
9. W. Gullett, 'The Precautionary Principle in Australia: Policy, Law and Potential Precautionary EIAs', 11 Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 93 (2000) at 107.
10. Justiciability describing 'grounds that are defined or definable, ascertained or ascertainable, involving the exercise of prescribed standards' Kerr Committee as quoted by P. Cane, 'Merits Review and Judicial Review: The AAT as Trojan Horse', 28 Federal Law Review 213 (2000).
11. Another important issue is that of the interaction of the principle with legal duties to ensure free movement of good and trade. For example, WTO Appellate Body, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (HORMONES) AB-1997-4, 16 Jan 1998 (Article 5, WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and PhytoSanitary Measures) and 6-473/98, Kemikalieinspektionen v Toolex Alpha AB [2000] ECR I-5681 (Article 28 of the EC Treaty).
12. There are equally a number of fascinating legal issues about the role of the principle within the realms of European Community jurisprudence but there is no room in this article to concentrate on them.
13. A. Deville and R. Harding, Applying the Precautionary Principle (Federation Press, 1997).
14. For examples of different formulations see Harding and Fisher, supra at Appendix and ch 1.
15. Boehmer-Christiansen, supra and K. von Moltke, 'The Vorsorgeprinzip in West German Environmental Policy' in Royal Commission of Environmental Pollution, Best Practicable Environmental Option (HMSO, 1988), Appendix 3.
16. Boehmer-Christiansen, supra and K. von Moltke, 'The Vorsorgeprinzip in West German Environmental Policy' in Royal Commission of Environmental Pollution, Best Practicable Environmental Option (HMSO, 1988), Appendix 3.
17. For a discussion of the international experience see generally D. Freestone and E. Hey (eds), The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The Challenge of Implementation (Kluwer Law, 1996).
18. Article 174(2).
19. Cm 1200 (London: HMSO, 1990) at 11.
20. Cm 2426 (London: HMSO, 1994) at para 3.12.
21. DETR, A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom (HMSO, 1999) at 4.1.
22. S. Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle: Towards Effective Risk Regulation (Harvard UP, 1993) and R. Baldwin and M. Cave, Understanding Regulation (Oxford UP, 1999) at ch 9.
23. S. Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle: Towards Effective Risk Regulation (Harvard UP, 1993) and R. Baldwin and M. Cave, Understanding Regulation (Oxford UP, 1999) at ch 9.
24. W. Twining and D. Miers quoted in R. Baldwin, Rules and Government (Clarendon Press, 1995) at 7.
25. E. Fisher, 'Drowning by Numbers: Standard Setting in Risk Regulation and the Pursuit of Accountable Public Administration' 20 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (2000) 109-30.
26. National Research Council, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Academy Press, 1996) at 18, and M. Douglas, Risk and Blame (Routledge, 1992) at ch 2.
27. National Research Council, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Academy Press, 1996) at 18, and M. Douglas, Risk and Blame (Routledge, 1992) at ch 2.
28. L. Fuller, 'The Forms and Limits of Adjudication' 92 Harvard Law Review (1978) at 395-7.
29. On the history of this J. Cole, The Power of Large Numbers (Cornell UP, 2000) at chs 1-2.
30. S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers (Harvard UP, 1990) and National Research Council, Science and Judgement in Risk Assessment (National Academy Press, 1994) at ch 2.
31. S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers (Harvard UP, 1990) and National Research Council, Science and Judgement in Risk Assessment (National Academy Press, 1994) at ch 2.
32. For a more detailed discussion of this point see Fisher, supra at 115-16.
33. B. Cook, Bureaucracy and Self-Government: Reconsidering the Rote of Public Administration in American Government (John Hopkins UP, 1996), and B. Williams and A. Matheny, Democracy, Dialogue and Environmental Dispute: The Contested Languages of Social Regulation (Yale UP, 1995).
34. B. Cook, Bureaucracy and Self-Government: Reconsidering the Rote of Public Administration in American Government (John Hopkins UP, 1996), and B. Williams and A. Matheny, Democracy, Dialogue and Environmental Dispute: The Contested Languages of Social Regulation (Yale UP, 1995).
35. Cook, supra at 3.
36. Compare the deliberative institutional model set out in the Royal Commission of Environmental Pollution, Air Pollution Control: An Integrated Approach, 5th report (HMSO, 1976) at ch 9 with the more analytically bound one for the new Food Standards Agency as set out in the Food Standards Act 1999.
37. J. Segal, 'An Industry Perspective on the Precautionary Principle' in Harding and Fisher (eds), supra, and National Consumer Council, Public Health and the Precautionary Principle: A Consumer View on the Precautionary Principle (2000).
38. J. Segal, 'An Industry Perspective on the Precautionary Principle' in Harding and Fisher (eds), supra, and National Consumer Council, Public Health and the Precautionary Principle: A Consumer View on the Precautionary Principle (2000).
39. V. Walker, 'Keeping the WTO From Becoming a 'World Trans-Scientific Organisation: Science Policy and Fact-Finding in the Growth Hormone Dispute' 31 Cornell International LJ (1998) 251-320, and WTO Appellate Body, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (HORMONES) AB-1994, 16 Jan 1998.
40. V. Walker, 'Keeping the WTO From Becoming a 'World Trans-Scientific Organisation: Science Policy and Fact-Finding in the Growth Hormone Dispute' 31 Cornell International LJ (1998) 251-320, and WTO Appellate Body, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (HORMONES) AB-1994, 16 Jan 1998.
41. E. Fisher and R. Harding, 'The Precautionary Principle: Towards a Deliberative, Transdisciplinary, Problem-Solving Process' in Harding and Fisher, supra.
42. T. Porter, Trust in Numbers (Princeton UP, 1996), and L. Tribe, 'Technology Assessment and the Fourth Discontinuity: The Limits of Instrumental Rationality', 46 Southern California Law Review (1973) 616.
43. T. Porter, Trust in Numbers (Princeton UP, 1996), and L. Tribe, 'Technology Assessment and the Fourth Discontinuity: The Limits of Instrumental Rationality', 46 Southern California Law Review (1973) 616.
44. Principle 15.
45. European Commission, supra at 8.
46. Deville and Harding, supra at 31-2; and J. Cameron, 'The Precautionary Principle: Core Meaning, Constitutional Framework and Procedures for Implementation' in Harding and Fisher, supra at 35.
47. Deville and Harding, supra at 31-2; and J. Cameron, 'The Precautionary Principle: Core Meaning, Constitutional Framework and Procedures for Implementation' in Harding and Fisher, supra at 35.
48. G. Durnil, 'How Much Information Do We Need Before Exercising Precaution?' in C. Raffensberger and J. Tickner (eds), Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle (Island Press, 1999), and European Commission, supra at 13-14. 38 See Section 5.1.
49. On the judicial application of such criteria see Vertical Telecoms Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2000] NSWLEC 172, and Miltonbrook Pty Ltd v Kiama Municipal Council [1998] NSWLEC 281.
50. For an official discussion of this point see IEGMP, supra at 6.16.
51. Harding and Fisher (1999), supra at Part Five.
52. Which is not to say one cannot have precautionary scientific approaches. See L. Buhl-Mortensen and S. Welin, 'The Ethics of Doing Policy Relevant Science: The Precautionary Principle and the Significance of Non-significant Results', 4 Science and Engineering Ethics (1998) 401, and K. Shrader-Frechette, Method in Ecology: Strategies for Conservation (Cambridge UP, 1993).
53. Which is not to say one cannot have precautionary scientific approaches. See L. Buhl-Mortensen and S. Welin, 'The Ethics of Doing Policy Relevant Science: The Precautionary Principle and the Significance of Non-significant Results', 4 Science and Engineering Ethics (1998) 401, and K. Shrader-Frechette, Method in Ecology: Strategies for Conservation (Cambridge UP, 1993).
54. Ibid.
55. For one example of how to deal with scientific uncertainty in risk assessment see B. Johnson and P. Slovic, 'Presenting Uncertainty in Health Risk Assessment: Initial Studies of its Effects on Risk Perception and Trust', 15 Risk Analysis (1995) 485-94.
56. Fisher and Harding, supra at 290.
57. IEGMP, supra at 6.16.
58. A. Weale et al, Environmental Governance in Europe (Oxford UP, 2000) at 158.
59. Memorandum by P. Schomberg to the House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities, Second Report: EC Regulation of Genetic Modification in Agriculture (HL11-II, 1999).
60. Deville and Harding, supra.
61. Weale, supra at 157.
62. Von Moltke, supra.
63. European Commission, supra and von Moltke, supra.
64. Schomberg, supra.
65. Fisher and Harding, supra and A. Irwin, Citizen Science (Routledge, 1995).
66. Fisher and Harding, supra and A. Irwin, Citizen Science (Routledge, 1995).
67. Fisher and Harding, supra at 294.
68. Williams and Matheny, supra.
69. On the tri-partite system of governmental powers see C. Edley, Administrative Law (Yale UP, 1993). On different theories of public administration see G. Frug, 'The Ideology of Bureaucracy in American Law', 97 Harvard LR (1984) 1276.
70. On the tri-partite system of governmental powers see C. Edley, Administrative Law (Yale UP, 1993). On different theories of public administration see G. Frug, 'The Ideology of Bureaucracy in American Law', 97 Harvard LR (1984) 1276.
71. On accountability and scientific uncertainty see Fisher, supra and Porter supra.
72. On accountability and scientific uncertainty see Fisher, supra and Porter supra.
73. Gullett, supra and J. Whitehouse, 'The Legal Profession: Translating Principles into Practice' in Sustainability: Principles to Practice, Proceedings - Fenner Conference on the Environment 1994 (Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, 1996) at 59.
74. Gullett, supra and J. Whitehouse, 'The Legal Profession: Translating Principles into Practice' in Sustainability: Principles to Practice, Proceedings - Fenner Conference on the Environment 1994 (Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, 1996) at 59.
75. N. Lacey, 'The Jurisprudence of Discretion: Escaping the Legal Paradigm' in K. Hawkins (ed), The Uses of Discretion (Clarendon Press, 1992) at 372.
76. L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action (Little Brown, 1965) at 320-4.
77. S. de Smith, H. Woolf and J. Jowell, Principles of Judicial Review (Sweet & Maxwell, 1999) at 3.
78. J. Jowell, 'Of Vires and Vacuums: The Constitutional Context of Judicial Review' in C. Forsyth (ed), Judicial Review and the Constitution (Hart, 2000) at 329-34.
79. What is and is not the constitutional competence of the courts is far easier to delineate in those jurisdictions with a written constitution. See Jaffe, supra at ch 3.
80. The close interrelationship can be seen by the labelling of each branch as legislative, administrative and judicial. See Edley, supra for a critique of this.
81. R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [1991] AC 521.
82. de Smith, Woolf and Jowell, supra at 15.
83. D. Oliver, 'Is the Ultra Vires Rule the Basis of Judicial Review?' in Forsyth, supra at 3.
84. Jowell, supra 329-34.
85. See the cases cited by de Smith, Woolf and Jowell, supra at 493-502; R v Cambridge District Health Authority ex parte B [1995] 2 All ER 129; and R v MAFF ex parte Geiden [2000] 1 CMLR 289. 71 [1999] 2 AC 418 at 430.
86. Upjohn Ltd v Licensing Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 [1999] 1 CMLR 825.
87. R v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Eastside Cheese Company [1999] 3 CMLR 123 at 140.
88. (1995) 7 JEL 224.
89. 227.
90. 234.
91. 231.
92. McEldowney v Forde [1971] AC 632 per Lord Hodson at 645 on judicial restraint for delegated legislation.
93. Pescatore argues the test of what has direct effect could really be understood as a test of this. See P. Craig and G. deBurca, EU Law: Cases and Materials, 2nd edn (Oxford UP, 1998) at 169.
94. M. Beloff, 'Judicial Review: 2001: A Prophetic Odyssey' 58 MLR (1995) at 153.
95. R v Durham CC ex parte Huddleston [2000] 2 CMLR 313.
96. R (on the Application of Murray) v Derbyshire County Council (CO/1493/2000, 6 October 2000).
97. CO/4878/99, 12 January 2000. It was defined is a similar aid to interpretation in R v Environment Agency ex parte Dockrange (00/4534/96, 22 May 1997) but not applied.
98. Para 9.
99. Leicester CC v Onyx (UK) Ltd ex parte Blackfordby and Boothcorpe Action Group (CO/1822/99, 15 March 2000) at para 65.
100. 235.
101. R v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum [1993] 1 WLR 1171 at 1177.
102. Newport BC v SS for Wales [1998] Env LR 174 and West Midlands Probation Committee v SSE [1999] JPL 388.
103. see de Smith, Woolf and Jowell, supra at ch 10.
104. E. Fisher and R. Harding, 'From Aspiration to Practice: The Precautionary Principle in Australia' in T. O'Riordan, J. Cameron and A. Jordan (eds), Re-Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, 2nd edn (London: Cameron May 2001).
105. In Australia the principle has been included in over 20 pieces of legislation. See Fisher and Harding 'From Aspiration to Practice' supra. Australian judges have held it is relevant even when it is not included in the legislative framework for the decision because it is a 'customary norm of international law', a 'common sense' principle, a principle of 'common law' or a mixture of these. Leatch v National Parks, and Wildlife Service (1993) 91 LGERA 270 at 282; Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc v Ministry for Environment (1997) 142 ALR 632 at 678 and North Queensland Conservation Council v GBRMPA [2000] AATA 925 at paras 165-72. Also see A. Mason, 'The Influence of International and Transnational Law on Australian Municipal Law' 7 Public LR (1996) at 27; and C. Barton, 'The Precautionary Principle in Australia: Its Emergence in Legislation and as a Common Law Doctrine' 22 Harvard Environmental LR (1998) 509.
106. In Australia the principle has been included in over 20 pieces of legislation. See Fisher and Harding 'From Aspiration to Practice' supra. Australian judges have held it is relevant even when it is not included in the legislative framework for the decision because it is a 'customary norm of international law', a 'common sense' principle, a principle of 'common law' or a mixture of these. Leatch v National Parks, and Wildlife Service (1993) 91 LGERA 270 at 282; Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc v Ministry for Environment (1997) 142 ALR 632 at 678 and North Queensland Conservation Council v GBRMPA [2000] AATA 925 at paras 165-72. Also see A. Mason, 'The Influence of International and Transnational Law on Australian Municipal Law' 7 Public LR (1996) at 27; and C. Barton, 'The Precautionary Principle in Australia: Its Emergence in Legislation and as a Common Law Doctrine' 22 Harvard Environmental LR (1998) 509.
107. In Australia the principle has been included in over 20 pieces of legislation. See Fisher and Harding 'From Aspiration to Practice' supra. Australian judges have held it is relevant even when it is not included in the legislative framework for the decision because it is a 'customary norm of international law', a 'common sense' principle, a principle of 'common law' or a mixture of these. Leatch v National Parks, and Wildlife Service (1993) 91 LGERA 270 at 282; Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc v Ministry for Environment (1997) 142 ALR 632 at 678 and North Queensland Conservation Council v GBRMPA [2000] AATA 925 at paras 165-72. Also see A. Mason, 'The Influence of International and Transnational Law on Australian Municipal Law' 7 Public LR (1996) at 27; and C. Barton, 'The Precautionary Principle in Australia: Its Emergence in Legislation and as a Common Law Doctrine' 22 Harvard Environmental LR (1998) 509.
108. Fisher and Harding, 'From Aspiration to Practice', supra.
109. For the principles of such merits review see Re Drake and Minister fur Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
110. Cane, supra.
111. Greenpeace Australia Ltd v Redbank Power Company Pty Ltd (1994) 86 LGERA 143, 154; Alumino (Aust) Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 [1996] NSWLEC 102; and Northcompass Inc v Hornsby Shire Council [1996] NSWLEC 213.
112. Bridgetown Greenbushes Friends of the Forest Inc v Executive Director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management (1997) WAR 102 at 119, and Miltonbrook Pty Ltd v Kiama Municipal Council [1998] NSWLEC 281.
113. (1994) 86 LGERA 143 at 154.
114. (1994) 84 LGERA 397. A similar approach to licensing was taken in Leatch v National Park and Wildlife Service (1993) 91 LGERA 270.
115. Also see NSW Glass and Ceramic Silica Sand Users Association v Port Stephens Council [2000] NSWLEC 149 in which the precautionary principle was used as justification for further groundwater monitoring and archaeological investigation before sandmining.
116. [1998] ACTAAT 250.
117. Alumino (Aust) Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 [1996] NSWLEC 102 and Northcompass Inc v Hornsby Shire Council [1996] NSWLEC 213.
118. [1998] SAEDRC 480. Although see Mcintyre v Christchurch CC A15/96 Planning Tribunal, 5 March 1996 where a precautionary approach was achieved by imposing stricter standards. See S. Berry and M. Williams, 'The Precautionary Principle of International Environmental Law in the New Zealand Domestic Law Context' 5 Environmental Liability (1997) 15-18.
119. Applied in Connell Wagner PL v City of Port Phillip, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, 1998/ 11530.
120. On the role of pre-existing regimes also see Dow Chemicals (Aust) Ltd v Director, Chemicals Notification and Assessment [1999] AATA 1023 at para 13.
121. (1998) 100 LGERA 1.
122. [1998] NSWLEC 136.
123. Para 27.
124. Unreported, High Court of New Zealand, 27 November 1995, CP 492/93.
125. 32.
126. Also see Davfast Pty Ltd v Ballina SC [2000] NSWLEC 128.
127. E. Fisher, 'Changing the Mindset? Implementing the Precautionary Principle in Australia', 7 Research in Social Problems and Public Policy (1999) 183-98.
128. (1997) 142 ALR 632.
129. 678-9.
130. 27 July 1998.
131. Gullett, supra at 124.
132. Nicholls v Director General of National Parks and Wildlife Service (1994) 84 LGERA 397 at 419.
133. 1999(1) UJ (SC) 426, 27 Jan 1999.
134. 433.
135. 433.
136. 438.
137. 441. Interesting because human rights is one of the few acceptable grounds of intervention in relation to the impact of a decision for UK courts. See de Smith, Woolf and Jowell, supra at 495 et seq.
138. Cane, supra.
139. 2000 SOL Case 673, 1 December 2000.
140. Jowell, supra at 331.
141. (1997) WAR 102.
142. 118.
143. 118.
144. [1998] AATA 805.
145. Para 75.
146. Para 124. The concept of 'risk weighted consequences' is taken from the statement of the precautionary principle in the non-legally binding Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment.
147. [1999] SA ERDC 86.
148. Para 24.
149. Para 41.
150. Tuna Boat Owners Association of South Australia v Development Assessment Commission [2000] SASC 238 at paras 55-60.
151. Para 27.
152. Para 30.
153. D. Galligan, Due Process and Fair Procedures (Oxford UP, 1996).
154. Galligan, supra at 227 and Lacey, supra.
155. Galligan, supra at 227 and Lacey, supra.
156. A.P. Pollution Control Board v Nayudu 1999 (1) UJ (SC) 426 and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India (1997) 9 JEL 387.
157. Barton, supra at 509; and C. Cranor, 'Asymmetric Information, the Precautionary Principle, and Burdens of Proof' in Raffensperger and Tickner, supra at 74-99.
158. Barton, supra at 509; and C. Cranor, 'Asymmetric Information, the Precautionary Principle, and Burdens of Proof' in Raffensperger and Tickner, supra at 74-99.
159. G. Ganz, Administrative Procedures (Sweet & Maxwell, 1974) at 19.
160. In the UK see Report of Committee of Minster's Powers, Cm 4060 (HMSO, 1932).
161. R. Posner, The Problems of Jurisprudence (Harvard UP, 1990) at 216.
162. For this reason in the United States a distinction has been made between legislative and adjudicative facts. See K. Davis, Administrative Law, 1st edn (West Publishing, 1958) at 115.03.
163. A. Chayes, 'The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation', 89 Harvard LR 1281 at 1297.
164. [2000] AATA 442.
165. Paras 121-2.
166. Para 182.
167. One could argue at the extreme that it embraces the arguments of Lord Hewart. See G. Hewart, The New Despotism (Ernest Benn, 1929).
168. Galligan, supra at 476.
169. Galligan, supra at 477.
170. Royal Commission of Environmental Pollution, Setting Environmental Standards (HMSO, 1998).
171. E. Fisher, Risk Regulation and Administrative Constitutionalism: The US, UK and EC (Hart, forthcoming 2002) at Ch. Three. Also see National Research Council, supra.
172. Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, Final Report (1941) and Galligan, supra at ch 16.
173. There is no room here to discuss this highly important issue but see Fisher, Risk Regulation and Administrative Constitutionalism, supra.
174. Galligan , supra at 487.
175. Lacey, supra.
176. Galligan, supra at 493.
177. E. Henderson, Foundations of English Administrative Law: Certiorari and Mandamus in the Seventeenth Century (Harvard UP, 1963) at 3, and Rooke's case (1598) 5 Co Rep 99b, 77 ER 209.
178. (CO/1822/99, 15 March 2000) at paras 65-6.
179. DETR, Environmental Court Project: Final Report (2000) at 1.2-1.3.6.
180. P. Stein, 'A Cautious Application of the Precautionary Principle', 2 Environmental LR 1 (2000) at 2.
181. P. Stein, 'Are Decision-Makers too Cautious with the Precautionary Principle?', 17 Environmental Planning and LJ (2000) at 3.