Scientific rationality and risk in international law

Jacqueline Peel

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511779879.004

3 - Scientific rationality and risk in international law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2011

Jacqueline Peel

Show author details

Jacqueline Peel: Affiliation:
University of Melbourne

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

In areas of international law concerned with issues of risk, rules and processes of global governance with significant behind-the-border impacts are of growing importance. The potential reach of global risk governance into the domestic regulatory sphere of sovereign states has made questions over legitimacy increasingly pertinent for the broader acceptance of international risk regulation. This is particularly so in the context of an emerging (world) ‘risk society’ that posits the control of risk as a central concern of modern government.

Drawing on analogies with national risk regulation, expertise in the form of scientific knowledge is often looked to as a means for strengthening the legitimacy claims of global decision-making processes dealing with highly technical and complex matters of health and environmental risk. Acceptance of science as a sound foundation for international risk regulation is underpinned by the perception that scientific knowledge offers an objective and universally applicable basis for rational decision-making, as well as the close association between notions of risk, and the scientific understanding of them, that has developed in contemporary times. Indeed, science and technology can be said to have provided the foundations of ‘a dynamic, homogenizing global culture’; one that now creates ‘continuously intense levels of interaction between and across territorial communities’.

Type: Chapter
Information: Science and Risk Regulation in International Law , pp. 58 - 110

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779879.004 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2010

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Beck, Ulrich, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London: SAGE Publications, 1992)Google Scholar

Beck, Ulrich, World Risk Society (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999)Google Scholar

Lawrence, Roderick J. and Després, Carole, ‘Futures of Transdisciplinarity’, Futures, 36 (2004), 400CrossRef Google Scholar

,European Environment Agency, Late Lessons from Early Warnings: the Precautionary Principle 1896–2000 (Luxembourg: European Union, 2001)Google Scholar

Douglas, Mary and Wildavsky, Aaron, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 10Google Scholar

Horlick-Jones, Tom and Sime, Jonathan, ‘Living on the Border: Knowledge, Risk and Transdisciplinarity’, Futures, 36 (2004), 447–50CrossRef Google Scholar

Sunstein, Cass, Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment (Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar

Haas, Peter, ‘Science Policy for Multilateral Environmental Governance’, in Kanie, Norichika and Haas, Peter (eds.), Emerging Forces in Environmental Governance (Tokyo: United Nations University, 2004), p. 116Google Scholar

Kennedy, David, ‘The Politics of the Invisible College: International Governance and the Politics of Expertise’, European Human Rights Law Review, 5 (2001), 463, 472Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), p. 250Google Scholar

Litfin, Karen T., Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), p. 8Google Scholar

Davies, Margaret, Asking the Law Question: the Dissolution of Legal Theory (Sydney: Lawbook Co., 2002), p. 115Google Scholar

Baringer, Philip S., ‘Introduction: the “Science Wars”’, in Keith M. Ashman and Philip S. Baringer (eds.), After the Science Wars (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 1, 4Google Scholar

O'Hear, Anthony, Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), p. 14Google Scholar

Popper, Karl, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 4th edn, (London: Hutchinson, 1980)Google Scholar

Shermer, Michael, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, 2nd edn, (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1997), p. 17Google Scholar

Sardar, Ziauddin, ‘Above, Beyond, and at the Center of the Science Wars’, in Ashman, Keith M. and Baringer, Philip S. (eds.), After the Science Wars (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 120Google Scholar

Merton, Robert K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (University of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 267–8Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila, ‘The Dilemma of Environmental Democracy’, Issues in Science and Technology, 13(1) (1996), 64Google Scholar

Harding, Sandra, The Science Question in Feminism (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1986), p. 231Google Scholar

Goldberg, Steven, Culture Clash: Law and Science in America (New York University Press, 1994), p. 7Google Scholar

Schofer, Evan, ‘Science Associations in the International Sphere, 1875–1990: the Rationalisation of Science and the Scientisation of Society’, in Boli, John and Thomas, George M. (eds.), Constructing World Culture: International Non-Governmental Organisations since 1875 (Stanford University Press, 1999), p. 264Google Scholar

Finnemore, Martha, ‘International Organizations as Teachers of Norms: the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and Science Policy’, International Organization, 47(4) (1993), 565CrossRef Google Scholar

Perutz, Max F., Is Science Necessary?: Essays on Science and Scientists (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1989), p. viiGoogle Scholar

Smith, Alice Kimball and Weiner, Charles (eds.), Robert Oppenheimer: Letters and Recollections (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), p. 317

Cole, Stephen, Making Science: Between Nature and Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 5Google Scholar

Kennedy, David, ‘Challenging Expert Rule: The Politics of Global Governance’, Sydney Law Review, 27(1) (2005), 8–9Google Scholar

Koskenniemi, Martti, ‘The Fate of Public International Law: Between Technique and Politics’, Modern Law Review, 70(1) (2007), 14CrossRef Google Scholar

Birnie, Patricia and Boyle, Alan, International Law and the Environment, 3rd edn, (Oxford University Press, 2009)Google Scholar

Sands, Philippe, Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd edn, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 26–30CrossRef Google Scholar

Andresen, Steinaret al., Science and Politics in International Environmental Regimes: Between Integrity and Involvement (Manchester University Press, 2000), p. 3Google Scholar

Jaeger, Carloet al., Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational Action (London: Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2001), p. 9Google Scholar

Birnie, Patricia and Boyle, Alan, International Law and the Environment, 2nd edn, (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 24–7Google Scholar

Clark, William C., Mitchell, Ronald B. and Cash, David W., ‘Evaluating the Influence of Global Environmental Assessments’, in Clark, William C.et al (eds.), Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), p. 1Google Scholar

Susskind, Lawrence E., Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating More Effective Global Agreements (New York: Oxford University Press, 2994), p. 63Google Scholar

Porter, Gareth, Welsh-Brown, Janet and Chasek, Pamela S., Global Environmental Politics, 3rd edn), (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000), pp. 18–19Google Scholar

Agrawala, Shardul, ‘Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, Climatic Change, 39 (1998), 614Google Scholar

Haas, Peter M., Saving the Mediterranean: the Politics of International Environmental Cooperation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990)Google Scholar

Haas, Peter, ‘Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination’, International Organization, 46(1) (1992), 1CrossRef Google Scholar

Giddens, Anthony, The Consequences of Modernity (Stanford University Press, 1990), pp. 106–10Google Scholar

Lupton, Deborah, Risk (London: Routledge, 1999), p. 5Google Scholar

Douglas, Mary, ‘Risk as a Forensic Resource’, Daedalus, 119(4) (1990), 1, 2Google Scholar

Bernstein, Peter, Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk (New York: John Wiley, 1996), pp. 2–6Google Scholar

Waring, Alan and Glendon, A. Ian, Managing Risk (London: International Thomson Business Press, 1998)Google Scholar

Giddens, Anthony, ‘Risk and Responsibility’, Modern Law Review, 62(1) (1999), 1, 3CrossRef Google Scholar

Renn, Ortwin, ‘Concepts of Risk: A Classification’, in Krimsky, Sheldon and Golding, Dominic (eds.), Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992), p. 53Google Scholar

Ruckelshaus, William, ‘Risk, Science and Democracy’, Issues in Science and Technology, 3(1) (1985), 26Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila, Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 265CrossRef Google Scholar

Society, Royal, Risk Assessment: Report of a Royal Society Study Group (London: Royal Society, 1983)Google Scholar

,National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 3Google Scholar

,Royal Society Study Group, Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management (London: The Royal Society, 1992)Google Scholar

Stern, Paul and Fineberg, Harvey (eds.), Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1996)

Knight, Frank H., Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Boston, MA: Hart, 1921), p. 26Google Scholar

Klinke, Andreas and Renn, Ortwinn, ‘A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-Based, and Discourse-Based Strategies’, Risk Analysis, 22(6) (2002), 1078–80CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Burgman, Mark A., Risks and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Management (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 75–81CrossRef Google Scholar

Slovic, Paul, The Perception of Risk (London: Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2000)Google Scholar

Fischhoff, Baruch, ‘Psychology and Public Policy: Tool or Toolmaker?’, American Psychologist, 45(5) (1990), 647CrossRef Google Scholar

Sandman, Peter M., ‘Risk Communication: Facing Public Outrage’, Management Communication Quarterly, 2(2) (1988), 235CrossRef Google Scholar

Breyer, Stephen, Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993)Google Scholar

Margolis, Howard, Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues (University of Chicago Press, 1996)Google Scholar

Sunstein, Cass, Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRef Google Scholar

Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Misfearing: A Reply’, Harvard Law Review, 119 (2006), 110, 110Google Scholar

Kellow, Aynsley, ‘Accounting for Risk in Multilateral Negotiations’, in Robertson, David and Kellow, Aynsley (eds.), Globalization and the Environment: Risk Assessment and the WTO (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2001), p. 126Google Scholar

Holland, Ian and Kellow, Aynsley, ‘Trade and Risk Management: Exploring the Issues’, in David Robertson and Aynsley Kellow (eds.), Globalization and the Environment: Risk Assessment and the WTO (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2001), p. 229Google Scholar

Eckersley, Robyn, ‘The Big Chill: The WTO and Multilateral Environmental Agreements’, Global Environmental Politics, 4(2) (2004), 24CrossRef Google Scholar

Ezrahi, Yaron, The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990)Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn, (University of Chicago Press, 1996)CrossRef Google Scholar

Feyerabend, Paul, Against Method, 3rd edn, (London: Verso, 1993), pp. 14–19Google Scholar

Barnes, Barry, Bloor, David and Henry, John, Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis (London: Athlone, 1996)Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila, ‘What Judges Should Know About the Sociology of Science’, Judicature, 77(2) (1993), 77Google Scholar

Ashman, Keith and Baringer, Philip (eds.), After the Science Wars (London: Routledge, 2000)

Norris, Christopher, ‘Truth, Science, and the Growth of Knowledge’, New Left Review, 210 (1995), 110Google Scholar

Bhaskar, Roy, ‘Philosophy and Scientific Realism’, in Archer, Margaretet al. (eds.), Critical Realism: Essential Readings (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 16Google Scholar

Gibbons, Michaelet al., The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (London: Sage, 1994)Google Scholar

Nowotny, Helga, Scott, Peter and Gibbons, Michael, Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001)Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 2CrossRef

Miller, Clark, ‘Climate Science and the Making of a Global Political Order’, in Jasanoff, Sheila (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 65Google Scholar

Whipple, Chris, ‘Inconsistent Values in Risk Management’, in Krimsky, Sheldon and Golding, Dominic (eds.), Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992), p. 346Google Scholar

Wynne, Brian, ‘Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventative Paradigm’, Global Environmental Change, 2(2) (1992), 111CrossRef Google Scholar

Wynne, Brian, ‘Science and Social Responsibility’, in Ansell, Jake and Wharton, Frank (eds.), Risk: Analysis, Assessment and Management (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1992), p. 141Google Scholar

Klein, Julie Thompson, ‘Prospects for Transdisciplinarity’, Futures, 36 (2004), 515, 516CrossRef Google Scholar

Funtowicz, Silvio and Ravetz, Jerome, ‘Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-Normal Science’, in Krimsky, Sheldon and Golding, Dominic (eds.), Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992), p. 253Google Scholar

Wynne, Brian, ‘Risk and Social Learning: Reification to Engagement’, in Krimsky, Sheldon and Golding, Dominic (eds.), Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992), p. 275Google Scholar

Levidow, , ‘Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management’, New Scientist, 136(1841) (1992), 44Google Scholar

Levidow, and Carr, Susan, ‘How Biotechnology Regulation Sets a Risk/Ethics Boundary’, Agriculture and Human Values, 14 (1997), 29CrossRef Google Scholar

Caplan, Pat (ed.), Risk Revisited (London: Pluto Press, 2000), pp. 12–13Google Scholar

Rayner, Steve, ‘Cultural Theory and Risk Analysis’, in Krimsky, Sheldon and Golding, Dominic (eds.), Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992), p. 87Google Scholar

Kahan, Dan M. and Slovic, Paul, ‘Cultural Evaluations of Risk: “Values” or “Blunders”’, Harvard Law Review Forum, 119 (2006), 171Google Scholar

Collingridge, David and Reeve, Colin, Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making (London: Frances Pinter, 1986), p. ixGoogle Scholar

Perez, Oren, Ecological Sensitivity and Global Legal Pluralism: Rethinking the Trade and Environment Conflict (Portland: Hart Publishing, 2004), p. 120Google Scholar

Gupta, Aarti, ‘Governing Trade in Genetically Modified Organisms: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety’, Environment, 42(4) (2000), 26Google Scholar