The precautionary principle in general international law: Combating the Babylonian confusion

Review of European Community and International Environmental Law

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 185-195

  Trouwborst, Arie ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; INTERNATIONAL LAW; PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE;

BABYLONIA;

EID: 34548540543     PISSN: 09628797     EISSN: 14679388     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9388.2007.00553.x     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. As will be explained below, the two terms are interchangeable.
2. For an overview and analysis see A. Trouwborst, Evolution and Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law (Kluwer Law International, 2002); and A. Trouwborst, Precautionary Rights and Duties of States (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006).
3. T. O'Riordan et al. (eds), Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle (Cameron May, 2000); J. Morris (ed.), Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle (Butterworth Heinemann, 2000); I.M. Goklany, The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal (Cato Institute, 2001); P. Harremoes et al. (eds), Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896-2000 (Earthscan, 2002); C.R. Sunstein, Risk and Reason: Safety, Law and the Environment (Cambridge University Press, 2002); S. Marr, The Precautionary Principle in the Law of the Sea: Modern Decision Making in International Law (Kluwer Law International, 2003); W.Th. Douma, The Precautionary Principle: Its Application in International, European and Dutch Law (dissertation, Groningen, 2003); G.E. Marchant and K.L. Mossman, Arbitrary and Capricious: The Precautionary Principle in the European Union Courts (AEI Press, 2004); R. Cooney and B. Dickson (eds), Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle: Risk and Uncertainty in Conservation and Sustainable Use (Earthscan, 2005); J. Peel, The Precautionary Principle in Practice (The Federation Press, 2005); C.R. Sunstein, Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (Cambridge University Press, 2005); N.J. Myers and C. Raffensperger (eds), Precautionary Tools for Reshaping Environmental Policy (The MIT Press, 2005); A. Arcuri, Governing the Risks of Ultra-Hazardous Activities: Challenges for Contemporary Legal Systems (dissertation, Rotterdam, 2005); E. Fisher et al. (eds), Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects (Edward Elgar, 2006); K.H. Whiteside, Precautionary Politics: Principle and Practice in Confronting Environmental Risk (The MIT Press, 2006); M. Jablonowski, Precautionary Risk Management (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006); N. de Sadeleer (ed.), Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Approaches from Nordic Countries and the EU (Earthscan, 2007); L. Butti, The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Law: Neither Arbitrary nor Capricious if Interpreted with Equilibrium (Giuffré Editore, 2007); and those mentioned in n. 2 above.
4. University of Groningen, 2003: W.Th. Douma, n. 3 above; Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2005: A. Arcuri, n. 3 above; Utrecht University, 2006: A. Trouwborst, n. 2 above. Ph.D. projects are ongoing at Maastricht University and the University of Amsterdam.
5. J. Ellis, 'Overexploitation of a Valuable Resource? New Literature on the Precautionary Principle', 17 EJIL (2006), 445.
6. On this topic, see J. Verschuuren, Principles of Environmental Law (Nomos, 2003); N. de Sadeleer, Environmental Principles (Oxford University Press, 2002).
7. C. Raffensperger and J. Tickner (eds), Protecting Public Health and the Environment (Island Press, 1999).
8. E.g. see J. Morris. n. 3 above; G.E. Marchant and K.L. Mossman, n. 3 above; and C.R. Sunstein (2002, 2005), n. 3 above.
9. R. Pieterman and J.C. Hanekamp, The Cautious Society? An Essay on the Rise of the Precautionary Culture (Heidelberg Appeal Netherlands, 2002), at 16.
10. See L. Butti, n. 3 above, at x; also compare his subtitle with the title of G.E. Marchant and K.L. Mossman, n. 3 above.
11. The number of cases decided by the EU Court of First Instance and Court of Justice (ECJ) involving the principle is approaching 100. See V. Heyvaert, 'Overleven in het Europees Gemeenschapsrecht: Het Voorzorgsbeginsel tussen Integratie en Identiteitsverlies', 54 Sociaal-Economische Wetgeving (2006), 306.
12. See, for instance, G.E. Marchant and K.L. Mossman, n. 3 above.
13. See A. Trouwborst (2002), n. 2 above.
14. See A. Trouwborst (2006), n. 2 above.
15. For instance, the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (Washington DC, 3 November 1995), paras 23(i), 24 and 111(a) refer to 'precautionary approach'; while 104(b)(i), 118(b)(i) and 124(b)(i) to 'precautionary principle'.
16. See General Assembly Resolution S/19-2 on a Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 (28 June 1997), para. 14.
17. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UN Doc A/CONF. 151/26/Rev. 1, 14 June 1992) ('Rio Declaration').
18. 'In doubt, in favour of nature'.
19. Declaration of the Second International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea (London, 25 November 1987).
20. For an overview of the principle's evolution in international law, see A. Trouwborst (2002), n. 2 above, at 7-31.
21. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Oral Pleadings on the Request for Provisional Measures by Argentina (CR 2006/ 48, 9 June 2006), available at .
22. See A. Trouwborst (2002), n. 2 above, at 33-286.
23. See ICJ 8 July 1996, Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, [1996] ICJ Rep. 226, para. 29; ICJ 25 September 1997, Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Case (Hungary v. Slovakia), [1997] ICJ Rep. 7, para. 140 ('Gabcíkovo- Nagymaros'); ICJ 13 July 2006, Order on Provisional Measures in Pulp Mills (Argentina v. Uruguay), not yet reported, para. 72.
24. Dissenting Opinion appended to the ICJ Order of 13 July 2006 in Pulp Mills, ibid.
25. See A. Trouwborst (2006), n. 2 above.
26. These will be discussed without constantly referring to corresponding pages from A. Trouwborst, ibid., except when citing literally.
27. Ibid., at 159.
28. Adapted from figure 11 in ibid., at 290.
29. Judge Preston of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Hornsby Shire Council, [2006] NSWLEC 133, para. 159.
30. For instance, according to the International Law Commission, for environmental harm to qualify as 'significant' it must embody a 'real detrimental effect' which, when it comes about, is 'susceptible of being measured', although clearly it 'need not be at the level of "serious" or "substantial" '. See Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm, [2001] YILC II, Part 2, Commentary to Article 2(a).
31. See R. Suskind, The One Percent Doctrine (Simon and Schuster, 2006).
32. Council Regulation 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid to the coal industry, [2002] OJ L205/1, Preamble, para. 7.
33. See also the genuine surprise about the quoted passage of V. Heyvaert, n. 11 above, at 311.
34. See Rio Declaration, n. 17 above, Principle 15 (emphasis added).
35. Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Cartagena, 29 January 2000), Articles 1, 10(6) and 11(8). The object of the precautionary principle under the Protocol is to offer protection against 'adverse effects [of living modified organisms] on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health'.
36. See Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Stockholm, 22 May 2001), Article 1: 'Mindful of the precautionary approach as set forth in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration ... the objective of this Convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants'.
37. Other instances are the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki, 9 April 1992), Article 3(2); Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (Paris, 22 September 1992), Article 2(2)(a); and Protocol on Water and Health to the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (London, 17 June 1999), Article 5(a). These three agreements are exclusively adhered to by European States.
38. See, for instance, Commission Communication of 2 February 2000 on the Precautionary Principle, COM (2000) 1, at 8-9, or a random selection from the jurisprudence of the ECJ.
39. One of the objectives of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Dubai, 6 February 2006) is defined in para. 14(e) of the 'Overarching Policy Strategy' as follows: 'Appropriately to apply the precautionary approach, as set out in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration ... while aiming to achieve that chemicals are used or produced in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment'. For a summary of the negotiations, see P. Barrios et al., 'Summary of the International Conference on Chemicals Management and Ninth Special Session of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum: 4-9 February 2006', 16:54 Earth Negotiations Bulletin (2006).
40. WTO AB 16 January 1998, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R ('Beef Hormones'), para. 123 (original emphasis). The Appellate Body also submitted that 'the precautionary principle, at least outside the field of international environmental law, still awaits authoritative formulation' (ibid., emphasis added).
41. WTO 29 September 2006, EC Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS291/R. After reproducing the paragraphs from Beef Hormones just quoted from, the Panel observes in para. 7.88 of its report that provisions applying the precautionary principle 'have been incorporated into numerous international conventions and declarations, although, for the most part, they are environmental conventions and declarations. Also, the principle has been referred to and applied by States at the domestic level, again mostly in domestic environmental law' (footnotes omitted; emphasis added).
42. See, for instance, G.E. Marchant and K.L. Mossman, n. 3 above.
43. As the WTO Appellate Body noted in Beef Hormones, n. 40 above, para. 124: 'responsible, representative governments commonly act from perspectives of prudence and precaution where risks of irreversible, e.g. life-terminating, damage to human health are concerned'.
44. See N. de Sadeleer, 'The Precautionary Principle in European Community Health and Environmental Law: Sword or Shield for the Nordic Countries?', in N. de Sadeleer, n. 3 above, 10, at 11.
45. Treaty Establishing the European Community (Rome, 25 March 1957), Article 174(2) (introduced by the Treaty on European Union amendments (Maastricht, 7 February 1992)).
46. Ibid., Articles 152-153.
47. The ECJ and several WTO panels bear ample witness to this, as do the Australian courts that had to decide more than 25 cases on mobile phone towers and the precautionary principle in a decade. On the latter, see J. Peel, 'When (Scientific) Rationality Rules: (Mis)Application of the Precautionary Principle in Australian Mobile Phone Tower Cases', 19:1 JEL (2007), 103.
48. Gravity and probability are quantifiable.
49. Gravity is quantifiable, probability is not.
50. Neither gravity nor probability are quantifiable.
51. For a more elaborate discussion, see A. Trouwborst (2002), n. 2 above, at 35-44.
52. See Treaty Establishing the European Community, n. 45 above, Article 174(2).
53. Trail Smelter Arbitral Tribunal, Trail Smelter (United States v. Canada), (1938/1941), 3 RIAA 1905, at 1965.
54. Report of the Third International Meeting on the Establishment of the Proposed South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization (Reñaca, 4 May 2007), available at .
55. UN General Assembly Resolution 61/105 on sustainable fisheries (8 December 2006), para. 83(c).
56. First phrase of the Interim Measures, which are included as Annex F in Report of the Third International Meeting on the Establishment of the Proposed South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization, n. 54 above.
57. Ibid., para. 6.
58. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, [1992] OJ L206/7.
59. ECJ (Grand Chamber) 7 September 2004, Case C-127/02, Cockle Fisheries [2004] ECR I-7405.
60. Ibid., paras 44-45.
61. Ibid., para. 44.
62. Ibid., para. 61.
63. Ibid., para. 58.
64. The value of, for instance, conserving a species is 'quite literally, incalculable', as the US Supreme Court put it nearly 30 years ago in the classic case Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, (1978) 437 US 153, at 179.
65. E. Hey, 'The Precautionary Concept in Environmental Policy and Law: Institutionalizing Caution', 4 GIELR (1992), 303, at 309-310.
66. K. Wolfke, 'Some Persistent Controversies Regarding Customary International Law', 24 NYIL (1993), 1, at 7.
67. For a discussion of potential candidates, see A. Trouwborst (2002), n. 2 above, at 278-282.
68. Verbatim record of the sitting on 24 October 2002 in the Dispute Concerning Access to Information under Article 9 of the OSPAR Convention (Ireland v. UK), unreported, at 24 (Brady), available at .
69. ICJ 20 December 1994, Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v. France), [1995] ICJ Rep. 288.
70. See Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros, n. 23 above.
71. Southern Bluefin Tuna (Requests for Provisional Measures) (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), (1999) 38 ILM 1624.
72. MOX Plant (Request for Provisional Measures) (Ireland v. UK), (2002) 41 ILM 405.
73. Land Reclamation (Request for Provisional Measures) (Malaysia v. Singapore), ITLOS Case No 12 (8 October 2003).
74. See Pulp Mills, n. 23 above.
75. D. Freestone, 'The Continued Rise of the Precautionary Principle', in A. Boyle and D. Freestone (eds), International Law and Sustainable Development (Oxford University Press, 1999), 135, at 141; S. Marr, n. 3 above, at 43; and Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna, 23 May 1969), Article 31(3)(c).
76. LOSC stands for UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982).
77. See MOX Plant, n. 72 above, para. 97. At para. 112, Ireland argued that radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea would be 'incompatible with the United Kingdom's obligations under Part XII of the LOSC, particularly when read in the light of the precautionary principle'.
78. E. Denza, 'The Relationship Between International and National Law', in M.D. Evans (ed.), International Law (Oxford University Press, 2006), 423.
79. Supreme Court of India 28 August 1996, Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 5 SCC 647, [1996] AIR (SC) 2715.
80. Spray-Tech v. Hudson, [2001] 2 SCR 241, available at . See J. Abouchar, 'Case Notes: Spray-Tech v. Hudson (Ville)', 11:1 RECIEL (1999), 104.
81. J.L. Brierly, The Law of Nations (Clarendon Press, 6th edn, 1963).