Uncertainty Regarding the Precise Normative Implications of the So-called ‘Precautionary Principle’

Method
in Environmental Law

Title
of Assignment:  ‘Uncertainty regarding the precise normative
implications of the so-called “precautionary principle” in EU environmental law
exemplifies the drawbacks of relying upon such vague legal constructs in the
elaboration of environmental law and policy.’ 
Critically Discuss.

Word
Count:
4005 Words

INTRODUCTION

The Precautionary
Principle in its least difficult frame states: “When a movement raises
dangers of damage to human well-being or nature, prudent steps ought to be
taken regardless of whether some circumstances and end results connections are
not completely settled experimentally”. This Principle is the reason for
European Environmental law and assumes an expanding job in creating natural
wellbeing strategies also. It additionally is utilised in environmental
decision making in Canada and in a few European nations, particularly in
Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. The Precautionary Principle improves the
accumulation of hazard data for, among different things, high creation volume
synthetic substances and hazard-based investigations all in all. It doesn’t
kill the requirement for good science or for science-based hazard evaluations.
Public participation is energised in both the survey procedure and the decision
making process. The Precautionary Principle empowers, and at times may require,
the straightforwardness of the hazard evaluation process on wellbeing danger of
synthetic substances both for general wellbeing and the earth. A discussion
proceeds on whether the Principle should grasp the “polluter pays”
principle and place the obligation regarding giving danger evaluation on the
industry. The best components of a prudent methodology request great science
and test mainstream researchers to enhance strategies utilised for risk
assessment.

As the Environmental law
occasionally
works in the territories complicated by abnormal state of logical vulnerability, the
preparatory standard is presently rising as a rule of law setting up whether
the improvement procedure is economical or not. Lawful process joined to the
use of ecological insurance dependent on prudent rule requires the capable open
and private power holders to avoid or end conceivable dangerous action.

Scarcely any
arrangements for hazard administration have made as much contention as the Precautionary
Principle. In its most straightforward frame, the Precautionary Principle
becomes an integral factor when an action raises a risk of damage to human
wellbeing or nature or a cause and effect relationship has not been built up
experimentally. Under such conditions, the Precautionary Principle recommends
that positive move be made even without complete logical data. The
Precautionary Principle has engendered much controversy, in part because
critics of the Principle have interpreted “precautionary” decisions
as veiled forms of trade protectionism. Recent example include delays in
approving genetically engineered crops in the European Union.

The starting point of
the Precautionary Principle can be followed to the ecological development of
the mid-1970s and specifically to Germany with the ‘vorsorgeprinzip’ or prescience guideline[1]. At the centre of this
standard is the conviction that society should look to maintain a strategic
distance from natural harm via cautious forward arranging. The ‘vorsorgeprinzip’ formed into a crucial
guideline of German ecological law, adjusted by standards of financial
reasonability, and has been utilized to actualize arrangements to address
corrosive rain, a dangerous atmospheric division, and North Sea contamination.
Characterising Precautionary Principle is troublesome since there does not
appear to be a solitary definition. In fact, one legal analysis[2] has identified 14
different formulations of the principle in treaties and non-treaty
declarations.

Deficient data,
uncertain proof and public controversy can make it hard to accomplish agreement
over the suitable reaction to hazardous substances or exercises, yet these are
accurately the sorts of conditions that regularly request firm choices. The
precautionary principle is intended to help with basic decision making under
vulnerability and is a centre standard of EU ecological law, cherished in
Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The exemplary
meaning of “a precautionary approach” originates from the 1992 Rio Declaration
on Environment and Development, which expresses that:

“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” (UNEP 1992).”

As it were, a
precautionary methodology catches that administrative intervention may, in any
case, be genuine, regardless of whether the supporting proof is inadequate or
theoretical and the financial expenses of direction are high. Better to be as
careful as possible. In the Communication on the Precautionary Principle from
2000[3], the European Commission
elucidated that:

“Recourse
to the precautionary principle presupposes that potentially dangerous effects
deriving from a phenomenon, product or process have been identified, and that
scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient
certainty.

The
implementation of an approach based on the precautionary principle should start
with a scientific evaluation, as complete as possible, and where possible,
identifying at each stage the degree of scientific uncertainty.” (European
Commission, 2000, COM (2000) 1
final).

The European Commission
likewise alludes to the requirement for ‘sensible reason for worry’ about
potential dangers. Significantly, this implies the rule should just to be utilised
if a hazard is regarded to be conceivable. Any administrative measures
presented because of the precautionary rule ought to likewise be liable to
survey in light of new logical information, and may be changed or nullified as
new logical information end up accessible.

In this sense, the
Communication gives a well ordered manual for applying the guideline;
nonetheless, it isn’t prescriptive and is intended to be flexible, allowing for
the assortment of conditions in which the standard may work. The Commission
noticed that it is at last for decision-makers and the courts to tissue out the
points of interest.

The Communication is
only one record of the precautionary principle; others can be found in various
legitimate settings. Indeed, even inside EU law, the precautionary principle is
exceedingly pliant and performs a wide range of capacities (Scotford, 2017).
Therefore, this rule is viewed as more unpredictable and dynamic than the
guideline of avoidance, which tends to better-comprehended dangers to the
environment. In actuality, it is hard to draw a sharp line among ‘precautionary
measure’ and ‘counteractive action’, given that science dependably involves
components of uncertainty and vulnerability. One remarkable contrast, in any
case, is that the guideline of counteractive action has not created an
indistinguishable dimension of discussion from the prudent rule — conceivably
in light of the fact that following up on realised dangers is less
questionable, given the EU’s accentuation on ‘evidence-based approach’.

The precautionary
guideline has been connected to a differing scope of fields, including wellbeing
assurance, natural direction, biodiversity administration and developing
advancements. It might be hard to achieve concurrence on precisely how to
execute the prudent rule, since understandings of hazard can shift among
decision makers, partners and nationals. Almost certainly the precautionary
principle will keep on starting discussions about the most ideal methods for
managing natural change.

SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY

Scientific uncertainty
is critical in understanding how and why the prudent guideline applies (von
Schomberg, 2012). The improvement of ‘proof based arrangement’ has featured the
difficulties of managing ecological vulnerability (Stirling, 2016). It is implausible
to anticipate that administrative science will give absolutely indisputable
data to governments on general wellbeing or ecological issues — as some
component of vulnerability is an unavoidable piece of scientific inquiry. It
very well may be hard to decide precisely when and the proper behaviour on
potential dangers and how to act upon them. (Uggla et al., 2012). Authoritative
responses to such inquiries are not accessible: standards like the
precautionary principle are not rules that recommend particular activities or
results.

The significance of
uncertainty is likewise more mind-boggling than may be clear. Science and
innovation study have demonstrated that uncertainty can come from in excess of
a basic absence of information or lacking models of hazard appraisal.
Uncertainty may likewise exist as indeterminacy (where we don’t have a clue
about every one of the variables affecting the causal chains), ambiguity (where
there are conflicting assurances), and ignorance(where we don’t comprehend that
we don’t have any idea). The precautionary principle can assume a critical job
intending to these numerous layers of uncertainty.

To outline whether and
how the precautionary principle may apply to various sorts of uncertainty, Von
Schomberg (2012) thinks about four situations:

• The precautionary
principle isn’t expected to apply to ‘theoretical impacts and fanciful hazard’;
rather, it ought to be founded on a logical examination of the issue. In fact,
this has been affirmed on various events by the Court of Justice of the EU.[4]

• The precautionary
principle won’t make a difference where the coveted dimension of insurance is
characterised and the danger of mischief can be evaluated. This circumstance
can be managed to utilise ‘ordinary’ chance administration apparatuses.

• Where a movement or
substance represents a conceivable danger of damage yet there is deficient
logical proof or an absence of understanding with regards to the nature or size
of the reasonable antagonistic impacts, a precautionary methodology can be
legitimised.

• A precautionary
methodology may be justified where the potential damages are known yet the
specific reason impact connections can’t be deductively settled.

As is clear, there is no
single way to deal with the precautionary principle. Persson (2016) proposes
that ‘additional insurance’ might be defended when managing critical qualities,
(for example, wellbeing and ecological security), despite the fact that these
are methodically minimised by more conventional choice techniques; or when we
presume that the choice may prompt irreversible and extreme outcomes, and where
the qualities in question are likewise crucial; or when it is more essential to
maintain a strategic distance from false negatives than false positives. Understandings
of the precautionary principle will keep on creating as originations of
uncertainty develops.

CASE STUDY: SCIENTIFIC
UNCERTAINTY AND CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION

(Urgenda Foundation v.
Kingdom of the Netherlands)

An ongoing lawful
examination recommends that utilising the precautionary principle in
environmental change-related legitimate cases could expand the odds of
accomplishment by beating issues of logical vulnerability that are generally
abused by respondents (Omuko, 2016).

Dissatisfactions over
the inability to handle environmental change have driven some open intrigue
gatherings, people and neighbourhood governments to indict enterprises and
national governments, especially in Australia and the United States. In an
ongoing precedent in Europe, an argument was brought against the Dutch
government by a Dutch NGO (Hague District court, 2015). In this milestone case,
the court decided that the administration was ignoring its obligations to
address environmental change sufficiently and requested it to check the
Netherlands’ discharges. Be that as it may, this precedent is a special case to
the general example. Somewhere else, most environmental change-related cases
don’t prompt effective decisions. Omuko (2016) contends that the fundamental
boundary to progress is the ‘confirmation issue’. This alludes to two related
issues:

• The principal issue is the ‘drop in the sea’ issue. This is a contention regularly utilized by litigants to guarantee that their emanations are too little contrasted with worldwide outflows with bringing about any genuine effect.

• The second issue is a logical vulnerability. Despite the fact that there is solid logical proof of environmental change and its effects, it isn’t conceivable to connect a particular effect to a particular wellspring of outflows — as is normally required by courts.

The precautionary
principle might be utilised in these circumstances to take defensive measures
despite an absence of proof of damage or clear causal connections. Practically
speaking, it might enable courts to acknowledge general proof of environmental
change and its effects. For example, proof of worldwide ocean level ascent
could imply that disintegration at a particular beach front site is likely.
This methodology was taken in an Australian case, where the court acknowledged
the general accord that environmental change will prompt a danger of
extraordinary climate occasions, and, accordingly, did not concede a building
license to develop coastline apartments.[5]

The prudent standard
could likewise move the weight of verification to the respondent. This happened
in the United States where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
required to demonstrate that ozone-depleting substance emanations from the
vehicle business don’t add to environmental change. The EPA neglected to
demonstrate this and was requested to direct transport discharges. The court
adopted a preparatory strategy for this situation, contending that the EPA
couldn’t stay away from its commitments on account of some ‘lingering
vulnerability’ (Supreme Court of the United States, 2007).

Omuko (2016) contends
that expanded utilisation of the preparatory rule in a suit could prompt more
fruitful judgements and, therefore, put more noteworthy weight on governments
and organizations to be more proactive in their reaction to environmental
change.

IMPACT OF PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN ENVIRONMENTAL
MATTERS

The precautionary
principle has emerged as a result of the observation that the pace of
endeavours to battle issues, for example, environmental change, biological
community debasement, and asset consumption is to moderate and that natural and
medical issues keep on developing more quickly than culture’s capacity to
distinguish and amend them.[6]

The prudent guideline is
an intrigue to reasonability routed to approach creators who must make choices
about items or exercises that could be truly destructive to general wellbeing
and environment.[7]

Inconsistency with
Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the general
standards of law are likewise wellsprings of worldwide law. Standards ought to
be considered as one of the gauges, among others. That permits assessment of
the legitimacy of law. Additionally, standards can possibly aid the translation
of different guidelines. At long last, standards have an ability to fill the
holes.

The precautionary
principle is a controlling rule that gives accommodating criteria to decide the
most sensible strategy in defying circumstances of potential dangers. It is
open-finished and adaptable guideline which makes a plausibility and a
motivating force for social learning.

This guideline expresses
that proof of damage, instead of a complete confirmation of mischief, should
provoke strategy activity and upholding the presence of mind. The standard
makes it unmistakable those choices and improvements in science and innovation are
basically founded on qualities and just to a lesser degree on logical
actualities and advancement. Consequently, prudent rule typifies the thought;
as opposed to anticipating logical conviction that controllers should act fully
expecting natural mischief to guarantee that this damage does not happen.

The preparatory
guideline may just be conjured with the fullest conceivable logical assessment,
the assurance, beyond what many would consider possible, of the level of
logical vulnerability. In addition, it ought to be implanted with a hazard
assessment and an assessment of the potential outcomes of inaction, and also
the support of every single invested individual in the investigation of prudent
steps, when the aftereffects of the logical assessment and additionally the
hazard assessment are accessible.

COMMON PROCEDURES APPLIED FOR PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

There are real
boundaries as for revelation, get to, utilize, intelligibility, cost and nature
of data. In particular, end-clients are not having the capacity to discover
those, or are not having consent to gets to those, or there are confinements
forced on clients. Usually hard to consolidate information at the cost that is
past the financial plan of the user.[8]

The general standards of
hazard administration stay relevant when the precautionary principle is
conjured. Said standards are those of proportionality, non-segregation,
examination of the advantages and expenses of activity or absence of activity
and the examination of logical development.[9]

Proportionality implies
fitting measures to the picked dimension of security. To be specific, the
hazard can once in a while be diminished to zero, yet inadequate hazard
appraisals may enormously decrease the scope of alternatives open to change
supervisors. In spite of the fact that an aggregate boycott may not be a
corresponding reaction to a potential hazard in all cases, in specific cases,
it is the sole conceivable reaction to a given hazard.

The rule of
non-separation traces that equivalent circumstances ought not to be dealt with
in an unexpected way and those diverse circumstances ought not to be treated
similarly, except if there are target reason for doing as such.

Consistency depicts that
measures ought to be of practically identical extension and nature to those
effectively taken in proportionate regions in which every logical datum are
accessible.

Analysing expenses and
advantages involves looking at the general expense of activity and absence of
activity, in both the short and long haul. Its extension is more extensive than
a basic financial money saving advantage investigation, and incorporates
non-monetary contemplations, for instance on the adequacy of conceivable
alternatives and their agreeableness to the general population.

Measures dependent on
the precautionary principle ought to be kept up in as much as logical data is
fragmented or uncertain if the hazard is as yet thought about too high to be in
any way forced on society, in perspective of a picked dimension of assurance.

States that force an
earlier endorsement (advertising authorisation) prerequisite on items that they
regard unsafe from the earlier invert the weight of demonstrating damage, by
regarding them as hazardous except if and until the point that organizations do
the logical work important to exhibit that they are sheltered. Where there is
no earlier authorisation method, it might be up to the client or to open
specialists to exhibit the idea of a peril and the dimension of the danger of
an item or process. In such cases, a particular prudent step may be assumed to
position the weight of confirmation upon the maker, producer or shipper,
however, this can’t be made a general principle.

IMPLEMENTATION

The preparatory
standard, or fore-caring, adds to the change our conduct, actually and by and
large. It reminds us to recognize botches, concede our numbness, and act with
prescience and alert to counteract harm. It additionally evacuates the
boundaries to that sort of prudent action.[10]

The plan of action to
the prudent rule comprises a vital part inside the general structure of hazard
and all the more especially inside setting of hazard administration which
compares to the basic leadership stage.

To be specific, the
preparatory guideline may just be conjured in case of a potential hazard and
can never legitimize subjective choices. The preparatory guideline may just be
summoned when the three starter conditions are met: recognizable proof of
possibly unfavourable impacts; assessment of the logical information
accessible; the degree of logical uncertainty.[11]

From the minute when the
prudent guideline is perceived in global law, it additionally turns out to be a
piece of the general standards of natural law, with undisputed authenticity in
managing the elucidation and the utilization of every single lawful standard in
power. The prudent rule necessitates that the primary weight of giving proof to
security lays on the proposers of another innovation or action.

RESPONSES
AND CRITICISM

A typical feedback of the
precautionary principle is that it is not well characterised. Concerns identify
with uncertain terms, for example, ‘irreversible mischief’ or ‘absence of full
logical conviction’. For instance, Sandin (2006) censures the Rio Declaration’s
definition for just revealing to us what not to do, and for not characterizing
a ‘genuine risk’. Critics have recommended that these definitional issues
undermine lawful conviction (Morris, 2000) and create conflicting and deceitful
choices (Marchant and Mossman, 2004). Some contend that specific forms of the
guideline are deadening since they offer no direction and restrict all
approaches (Sunstein, 2003).

Reactions to criticism of vagueness
incorporate the contention that irregularity isn’t caused by the rule itself,
yet rather by its application. Garnett and Parsons (2016) survey a choice of EU
cases which summon the standard and recommend that the choice on whether to
apply the prudent guideline in EU law can be vague, ‘with ambiguities natural
in figuring out what dimension of vulnerability and centrality of danger
legitimises conjuring the precautionary rule’ (Garnett and Parsons, 2017).

It has additionally been called
attention to that customary hazard evaluation is no more ‘characteristically
safe’ to control than other choice standards (Stirling, 2016). The prudent
standard ought not be comprehended as an exact equation but instead an
‘adaptable rule that guarantees that leaders are not disregarding issues of
logical vulnerability’ (Fisher, 2007).

Stirling (2016) underlines that the
prudent rule can be utilised in different courses, related to different hazard
appraisal and prescience apparatuses (Science for Environment Policy, 2016).
The guideline can be perused as a straightforward prerequisite to considering,
regardless of whether they are dubious, which is a methodology basic to all
standard fields of basic leadership in states of vulnerability (Grant and
Quiggin, 2013).

A further feedback of the prudent
standard is that it is hostile to logical and smothers advancement. This
contention is most usually coordinated at ‘solid’ elucidations of the standard
— which might be comprehended as a decision out all improvements that could
have unfriendly wellbeing or ecological outcomes. This elucidation of the rule
is assaulted on the premise that it is never conceivable to kill chance through
and through; there is no such thing as a zero-chance movement. A related dread
is that excessively prudent basic leadership will debilitate interest in
innovative advancement, driving ‘toward no path by any means’ (Sunstein, 2003).
The guideline is likewise some of the time misconstrued by commentators to
signify ‘unreasonable’ direction as opposed to insurance. A portion of these
worries is voiced by industry delegates dreading troublesome standards as a
result of the prudent guideline. In any case, others contend that applying the
guideline does not really mean more stringent or expensive direction and that
it could basically be utilized to guarantee better procedures of basic
leadership as opposed to a specific result.

It doesn’t pursue that safety
measure is un-or hostile to logical. What is informal, says Stirling (2016), is
to overlook numerous points of view on vulnerability. The way that the prudent
standard can energise more open exchange of the esteem judgements supporting
techniques for hazard evaluation and money saving advantage investigation can
be said to make the rule progressively, instead of less, sensible and
responsible. The prudent rule may likewise dodge circumstances in which
standard hazard investigation generally makes an inclination for taking risks
on inadequately comprehended dangers (Grant and Quiggin, 2013).

One reaction to contentions that the
prudent rule is excessively solid (and in this way incapacitating) or
excessively feeble (and in this manner futile) is that the rule might be
utilised for a scope of various purposes, (for example, fortified models,
checking measures or authorizing courses of action).

CONCLUSION

The precautionary principle is as a
feature of the bundle of standards of biologically economic improvement.
Control of advances, financial improvement and administrative examination
include adjusting of the expense of being excessively prohibitive in regard of
development with the dangers and cost of being excessively tolerant, in the
circumstance of logical vulnerability and numbness. The idea of preventive
actuation of the precautionary principle results in the taking of measures to
forestall ecological harm without holding up until the point that the truth and
reality of the dangers of natural harm turn out to be completely known.
Reasonability additionally recommends that some edge for blunder ought to be
held until the point that every one of the outcomes of the choice to continue
with the advancement plan, program or task are known. Potential blunders are
weighted for natural security.

The main condition for use of
prudent standards is a danger of genuine or irreversible ecological harm and
logical vulnerability with regards to natural harm. The second condition is the
level of logical vulnerability that requirements to existing with the end goal
to trigger use of the prudent standard fluctuates relying upon the magnitude of
natural harm utilised in the detailing of the primary condition point of
reference of the preparatory guideline. The prudent standard won’t make a
difference if there is no significant logical vulnerability (the second
condition isn’t fulfilled) yet there is a danger of genuine or irreversible
natural harm (the principal condition point of reference is fulfilled). In a
later case, measures will at present be taken yet these will be protection
measures to control or direct the generally certain risk of genuine or
irreversible natural harm, as opposed to prudent steps which are fitting in
connection to dubious dangers.

In applying the prudent guideline
there must be a proportionality of reaction or cost adequacy of room for
mistakes to demonstrate that the chose careful step isn’t unduly expensive.
Although, the precautionary principle has turned out to be inserted in the way
of life and routine with regards to EU ecological insurance, its character
implies that it will essentially proceed to advance and come to fruition under
changing and setting particular conditions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ahteensuu M,
   ‘Agricultural Biotechnology and The Precautionary Principle’ (2010) 4 Sociology
   Compass.
2. Camerun, James, Abouchar, Juli, The Precautionary
   Principle: A Fundamental Principle of Law and Policy of Protection of the
   Global Environment (1991) Boston College of International and Comparative Law
   Review, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp. 1-26.
3. Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal
   Health SA v Council of the European Union [2002] ECR II-03305
4. ‘EUR-Lex –
   L32042 – EN – EUR-Lex’ (Eur-lex.europa.eu, 2018)
   <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l32042>
   accessed 16 November 2018
5. Gardiner S,
   ‘A Core Precautionary Principle’ (2006) 14 Journal of Political Philosophy
6. Gippsland Coastal Board vs
   South Gippslands & Others:
   https://wwwvcatvicgovau/sites/default/files/resources/gippsland_coastal_board_v_south_gippsland_sc_and_otherspdf
7. Kriebel D
   and others, ‘The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science’ (2001) 109
   Environmental Health Perspectives
8. Kriebel DJ
   Tickner, ‘Reenergizing Public Health Through Precaution’ (2001) 91 American
   Journal of Public Health.
9. Lee Ho, ‘The
   Precautionary Principle Under German And International Environmental Law –
   Analysis and Comparison -‘ (2018) 20 Environmental Law and Policy
10. Myers N, ‘The Precautionary Principle Puts
    Values First’ (2002) 22 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society
11. Vanderzwaag D, ‘The Precautionary
    Principle and Marine Environmental Protection: Slippery Shores, Rough Seas, And
    Rising Normative Tides’ (2002) 33 Ocean Development & International Law.

[1] David Kriebel and Joel Tickner,
‘Reenergizing Public Health Through Precaution’ (2001) 91 American Journal of
Public Health.

[2] David Vanderzwaag, ‘The
Precautionary Principle And Marine Environmental Protection: Slippery Shores,
Rough Seas, And Rising Normative Tides’ (2002) 33 Ocean Development &
International Law.

[3] ‘EUR-Lex – L32042 – EN –
EUR-Lex’ (Eur-lex.europa.eu, 2018)
<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l32042>
accessed 16 November 2018.

[4] See: (Case T-13/99 Pfizer
Animal Health SA v Council of the European Union [2002] ECR II-03305).

[5] Gippsland Coastal
Board vs South Gippslands & Others: https://wwwvcatvicgovau/sites/default/files/resources/gippsland coastal_board_v_south_gippsland_sc_and_others
pdf.

[6]  David Kriebel and others, ‘The Precautionary Principle In
Environmental Science’ (2001) 109 Environmental Health Perspectives.

[7] Stephen M. Gardiner, ‘A Core
Precautionary Principle’ (2006) 14 Journal of Political Philosophy.

[8] Luttenberger,
Axel, Kos, Serdjo, Regulating the Provisions of European Marine Data and
Observation, International Conference IMLA 21, Fisheries and Marine Institute
of Memorial University of Newfouland, St. John’s, NL, Canada, 2013, pp. 69-73.

[9] Commission of the
European Communities, Communication from the Commission on the precautionary
principle, Brussels (2000) 1 final.

[10] Nancy Myers, ‘The Precautionary
Principle Puts Values First’ (2002) 22 Bulletin of Science, Technology &
Society.

[11] Camerun, James,
Abouchar, Juli, The Precautionary Principle: A Fundamental Principle of Law and
Policy of Protection of the Global Environment (1991) Boston College of
International and Comparative Law Review, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp. 1-26.