Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:02:08.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Precautionary discourse: Thinking through the distinction between the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach in theory and practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2016

Nathan Dinneen
Nathan Dinneen*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology, 92 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623 [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This paper addresses the distinction, arising from the different ways the European Union and United States have come to adopt precaution regarding various environmental and health-related risks, between the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach in both theory and practice. First, this paper addresses how the precautionary principle has been variously defined, along with an exploration of some of the concepts with which it has been associated. Next, it addresses how the distinction between the precautionary principle and precautionary approach manifested itself within the political realm. Last, it considers the theoretical foundation of the precautionary principle in the philosophy of Hans Jonas, considering whether the principled-pragmatic distinction regarding precaution does or doesn't hold up in Jonas' thought.

Keywords

Precautionary principleprecautionary approachWTO Sanitary Phytosanitary AgreementHans JonasJonathan B. Wiener
Type
Research Articles
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , Spring 2013 , pp. 2 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Litfin, Karen, “Framing science: Precautionary discourse and the ozone treaties,” Journal of International Studies, 24(2), 1995: 251–277.Google Scholar
2. WTO AB, European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products, January 16, 1998 (EC-Hormones ABR).Google Scholar
3. Vanderswaag, David, “The precautionary principle and marine environmental protection: Slippery shores, rough seas, and rising normative tides,” Ocean Development & International Law, 33 (2002): 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Freestone, David, “The marine environment,” in Wiener, Jonathan B., Rogers, Michael D., Hammit, James K., and Sand, Peter, eds., The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press, 2011), pp. 177–200.Google Scholar
5. Conko, Gregory, “Safety, risk and the precautionary principle: Rethinking precautionary approaches to the regulation of transgenic plants,” Transgenic Research, 12 (2003): 639–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Whiteside, Kerry H., Precautionary Politics: Principle and Practice in Confronting Environmental Risk (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2006).Google Scholar
7. Fisher, Elizabeth, Jones, Judith, and von Schomberg, René, “Implementing the precautionary principle: Perspectives and prospects,” in Fisher, Elizabeth, Jones, Judith, and von Schomberg, René, eds., Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2006), pp. 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Wiener, Jonathan B., “Precaution in a multi-risk world,” in Paustenbach, Dennis J., ed., Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002), pp. 1509–1531.Google Scholar
9. Wiener, Jonathan B., “Precaution,” in Bodansky, Daniel, Brunnée, Jutta, and Hey, Ellen, eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 598–612.Google Scholar
10. Christoforou, Theofanis, “The precautionary principle, risk assessment, and the comparative role of science in the European Community, and the US legal system,” in Vig, Norman J. and Faure, Michael G., eds., Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004), pp. 17–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Kramer, Ludwig, “The roots of divergence: A European perspective,” in Vig, Norman J. and Faure, Michael G., eds., Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004), pp. 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Andorno, Roberto, “The precautionary principle: A new legal standard for a technological age,” Journal of International Biotechnology Law, 1 (2004): 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Jasanoff, Shelia, “A living legacy: The precautionary ideal in American law,” in Tickner, Joel A., ed., Precaution, Environmental Science, and Preventive Public Policy (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003), pp. 227–240.Google Scholar
14. Thompson, Paul B., Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective (Dorderecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2007), pp. 46–48.Google Scholar
15. Pereira Di Salvo, C. J. and Raymond, Leigh, “Defining the precautionary principle: An empirical analysis of elite discourse,” Environmental Politics, 19(1): 86–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Wiener, Jonathan B., Rogers, Michael D., Hammit, James K., and Sand, Peter, eds., The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press, 2011).Google Scholar
17. Thompson, Paul B., “The environmental ethics case for crop biotechnology: Putting science back into environmental practice,” in Light, Andrew and de-Shalit, Avner, eds., Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental Practice (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2003), pp. 187–217.Google Scholar
18. van den Belt, Henk, “Debating the precautionary principle: ‘Guilty until proven innocent’ or ‘innocent until proven guilty’?” Plant Physiology, 132(July 2003): 1122–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Tallacchini, Mariachiara, “Before and beyond the precautionary principle: Epistemology of uncertainty in science and law,” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 207(2005): S645–S651;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Ewald, François, “The return of Descartes' malicious demon: An outline of a philosophy of precaution,” in Baker, Tom and Simon, Jonathan, eds., Embracing Risk: The Changing Culture of Insurance and Responsibility (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), pp. 273–301.Google Scholar
21. Myhr, Anne Ingeborg and Myskja, Bjrn, “Precaution or integrated responsibility approach to nanovaccines in fish farming? A critical appraisal of the UNESCO precautionary principle,” Nanoethics, 5 (2011): 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Ahteensuu, Marko and Sandin, Per, “The precautionary principle,” in Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., Peterson, M., eds., Handbook of Risk Theory (Springer Science and Business Media B.V., 2012), pp. 961–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Turner, Derek and Hartzell, Lauren, “The lack of clarity in the precautionary principle,” Environmental Values, 13 (2004): 449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Wiener, Jonathan B., “The real pattern of precaution,” in Wiener, Jonathan B., Rogers, Michael D., Hammit, James K., and Sand, Peter, eds., The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press, 2011), pp. 519–565.Google Scholar
25. Wiener, Jonathan B. and Rogers, Michael, “Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe,” Journal of Risk Research 5, (4): 317–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Jasanoff, Shelia, Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. McSpadden, Lettie, “Industry's use of the courts,” in Kraft, Michael E. and Kamieniecki, Sheldon, eds., Business and Environmental Policy: Corporate Interests in the American Political System (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2007), pp. 233–262.Google Scholar
28. Wiener, Jonathan B., “Convergence, divergence, and complexity in US and European risk regulation,” in Vig, Norman J. and Faure, Michael G., eds., Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004), pp. 73–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. von Schomberg, René, “The precautionary principle and its normative challenges,” in Fisher, Elizabeth, Jones, Judith and von Schomberg, René, eds., Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2006), pp. 19–41.Google Scholar
30. Christoforou, Theofanis, “The precautionary principle in European Community law and science,” in Tickner, Joel A., ed., Precaution, Environmental Science, and Preventive Public Policy (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003), pp. 241–262.Google Scholar
31. Der Spiegel, “Germany reconsiders reactor lifespan extensions,” Spiegel Online International, March 14, 2011, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/phasing-in-the-phase-out-germany-reconsiders-reactor-lifespan-extensions-a-750836.htmlGoogle Scholar
32. Der Spiegel, “Nuclear phaseout is an ‘historic moment,”’ Spiegel Online International, May 30, 2011, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-world-from-berlin-nuclear-phaseout-is-an-historic-moment-a-765681.htmlGoogle Scholar
33. Godard, Olivier, “The precautionary principle and catastrophism on tenterhook: Lessons from a constitutional reform in France,” in Fisher, Elizabeth, Jones, Judith, and von Schomberg, René, eds., Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2006), pp. 63–87.Google Scholar
34. Bourg, Dominique and Whiteside, Kerry H., “France's Charter for the Environment: Of presidents, principles and environmental protection,” Modern & Contemporary France 2007, 15(2): 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Morris, Julian, “Defining the precautionary principles,” in Morris, Julian, ed., Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle, (Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000), pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
36. Bourg, Dominique and Whiteside, Kerry H., “Precaution and science-based environmental risk management: Complementary not contradictory,” in Paleo, Urbana Fra, ed., Building Safer Communities: Risk Governance, Spatial Planning and Responses to Natural Hazards (Lansdale, PA: IOS Press, 2009), pp. 88–104.Google Scholar
37. Hansen, Steffen Foss, von Krauss, Martin Krayer, and Ticnker, Joel A., “The precautionary principle and risk-risk tradeoffs,” Journal of Risk Research 2008, 11(4): 423–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Graham, John D. and Wiener, Jonathan B., “The precautionary principle and risk-risk tradeoffs: A comment,” Journal of Risk Research 2008, 11(4): 465–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Hansen, Steffen Foss and Tickner, Joel A., “Putting risk-risk tradeoffs in perspective: A response to Graham and Wiener,” Journal of Risk Research 2008, 11(4): 475–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Graham, John D. and Wiener, Jonathan B., “Empirical evidence for risk-risk tradeoffs: A rejoinder to Hansen and Tickner,” Journal of Risk Research 2008, 11(4): 485–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. McGarvey, Daniel J., “Merging precaution with sound science under Endangered Species Act,” Bioscience 2007, 57(1): 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Vecchione, Elisa, “Science for the environment: Examining the allocation of the burden of uncertainty,” EJRR 2011, 2: 227–239Google Scholar
43. Lemons, John, Shrader-Frechette, Kristin, and Canor, Carl, “The precautionary principle: Scientific uncertainty and type I and type II errors,” Foundations of Science 1997, 2: 207–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Tickner, Joel A., “The role of environmental science in precautionary decision making,” in Tickner, Joel A., ed., Precaution, Environmental Science, and Preventive Public Policy (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003), pp. 3–19Google ScholarPubMed
45. Sheridan, Thomas E., “Cows, condos, and the contested commons: The political ecology of ranching in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands,” Human Organization 2001, 60(2): 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46. Vogel, David, “The hare and the tortoise revisited: The new politics of consumer and environmental regulation in Europe,” British Journal of Political Science 2003, 33: 557–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47. Foster, Caroline E., “Precaution, scientific development and scientific uncertainty under the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,” RECIEL 2009, 18(1): 50–58.Google Scholar
48. Vecchione, Elisa, “Is it possible to provide evidence of insufficient evidence? The precautionary principle at the WTO,” Chicago Journal of International Law 2012, 13(1): 153–178.Google Scholar
49. Stoett, Peter, Global Ecopolitics: Crisis, Governance, and Justice (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), pp. 138–143.Google Scholar
50. Trebilcock, Michael, Howse, Robert, and Eliason, Antonia, The Regulation of International Trade, 4th ed. (New York: Routledge, 2013), pp. 293–308.Google Scholar
51. Vogel, David, “Trade and the environment in the global economy: Contrasting European and American perspectives,” in Vig, Norman J. and Faure, Michael G., eds., Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004), pp. 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. 52 WTO, “Understanding the WTO: The Agreements,” 2011, Geneva, Switzerland: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm4_e.htmGoogle Scholar
53. WTO, Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, 1995, Geneva, Switzerland: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htmGoogle Scholar
54. Wiener, Jonathan B., “The rhetoric of precaution,” in Wiener, Jonathan B., Rogers, Michael D., Hammit, James K., and Sand, Peter, eds., The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe (Washington DC: Resources for the Future Press, 2011), pp. 3–35.Google Scholar
55. Burke, Edmund, Reflections on the Revolution in France (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1989).Google Scholar
56. Jonas, Hans, The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).Google Scholar