Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sustainable development, sustainable decisions and the precautionary principle

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the key foundations of sustainable development is the precautionary principle, a concept that has given rise to a considerable amount of controversy. For some, it is a barrier to technological progress and development, for others a means of preventing potentially harmful applications of science. What does this principle actually mean? What is its contribution to sustainable development in general and to decision-making in response to natural hazards in particular? How should it be applied? This paper will consider whether an examination of the relationship between science and law can assist in answering questions such as these, and thus provide some greater clarity about this important principle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham J (2004) Scientific expertise and regulatory decision-making: standards, evidential interpretation and social interests in the pharmaceutical sector. In: Edmond G (ed) Expertise in regulation and law. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 51–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Agenda 21 (1992) United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992, Agenda 21. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm

  • Beck U (1992) Risk society. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U, Bonss W, Lau C (2003) The theory of reflexive modernization: problematic, hypotheses and research programme, 20 Theory. Cult Soc 2:1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beierle T, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen S (1994) The precautionary principle in Germany: enabling government. In: O’Riordan T, Cameron J (eds) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Cameron may, London, pp 31–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnley G (2000) Risk analysis under fire. RISK Newslett First Quarter, 3

  • Charnley G, Donald Elliott E (2002) Risk versus precaution: environmental law and public health protection. Environ Law Report 32(2):10363–10366

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole SA (2004) Jackson Pollock, Judge Pollak, and the dilemma of fingerprint evidence. In: Edmond G (ed) Expertise in regulation and law. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 98–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Conseil d’Etat (2005) Rapport public 2005 – Jurisprudence et avis de 2004 – Responsabilité et socialisation du risqué (Etudes et Documents n.56). Conseil d’Etat, Paris

  • Cukierman A (1994) Central bank independence and monetary control. Econ J 104:1437–1448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale VH, English MR (eds) (1999) Tools to aid environmental decision making. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Damro C, Luaces-Méndez P (2003) The Kyoto Protocol’s Emissions Trading System: an EU-US Environmental Flip-Flop. Working Paper of the University of Pittsburg, University Center for International Studies, European Union Center

  • Esty DC (2004) Environmental protection in the information age. N Y Univ Law Rev 79:115–211

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2000) Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM (2000) 1

  • European Commission (2001a) Report of the working group ‘Democratising expertise and establishing scientific reference systems’ (Group 1b) Pilot: R. Gerold, Rapporteur: A. Liberatore, May 2001

  • European Commission (2001b) White Paper on European Governance, COM (2001) 428

  • Fisher E (2001) Is the precautionary principle justiciable? J Environ Law 13(3):315–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz S, Shepherd I, Wilkinson D, Ravetz J (2000) Science and Governance in the European Union: a contribution to the debate. Sci Public Policy 27(5):327–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Godard O (2005) Le principe de précaution et la proportionalité face à l’incertitude scientifique. In: Conseil d’Etat, pp 377–392

  • Goldstein BD, Carruth RS (2003) Implications of the precautionary principle for environmental regulation in the United States: examples from the control of hazardous air pollutants in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. Law Contemp Probl 66:247–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Haenni R (2003) Ignoring ignorance is ignorant. University of Konstanz Center for Junior Research Fellows, Philosophy and Probability Working Paper Series No. 6

  • Harremoës P, Gee D, MacGarvin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne B, Guedes Vaz S (eds) (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000. Environmental issue report No 22. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

  • Hood C, Rothstein H, Baldwin R (2001) The government of risk. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton R (2004) MMR: science and fiction—exploring the vaccine crisis. Granta Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • King G (1991) “Truth” is stranger than prediction, more questionable than causal inference. Am J Polit Sci 35(4):1047–1053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlas J, Besnard P (1995) An algebraic study of argumentation systems and evidence theory. University of Fribourg, Theoretical Computer Science Research Group, Technical Report No. 95-13

  • Kossobokov V (2006) Quantitative earthquake prediction on global and regional scales. In: Ismail-Zadeh A (ed) Recent geodynamics, georisk and sustainable development in the Black Sea to Caspian Region, AIP Conference Proceedings, vol 825. Melville, New York, pp 32–50

  • Laverty KJ (1996) Economic “short-termism”: the debate, the unresolved issues, and the implications for management practice and research. Acad Manage Rev 21(3):825–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebessis N, Paterson J (2001) Developing new modes of governance. In: De Schutter O, Lebessis N, Paterson J (eds) Governance in the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp 259–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt RE (2004) The swing of the pendulum in Europe: from Precautionary Principle to (Regulatory) Impact Assessment. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies Working Paper 04-07

  • Luskin RC (1991) Abusus non tollit usum: standardized coefficients, correlations, and R2s’. Am J Polit Sci 35(4):1032–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majone G (2002) What price safety? The precautionary principle and its policy implications. J Common Mark Stud 40(1):89–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarity TO (2003) On the prospect of “Daubertizing” judicial review of risk assessment. Law Contemp Probl 66:155–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Rethinking science: knowledge and the public in the age of uncertainty. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson J (2003) Trans-science, trans-law and proceduralization. Soc Legal Stud 12(4):525–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson M (2003) Transformative decision rules. Erkenntnis 58:71–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper K (1972) The logic of scientific discovery (6th Impression – Revised). Hutchison, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Raul AC, Dwyer JZ (2003) Regulatory Daubert: a proposal to enhance judicial review of agency science by incorporating Daubert principles into administrative law. Law Contemp Probl 66:7–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz J (2004) The post-normal science of precaution. Futures 36:347–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik D (2003) Is the precautionary principle unscientific? Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 34:329–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rio Declaration (1992) Report of The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992, Annex I, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126–1annex1.htm

  • RISKGOV (2004) Comparative analysis of risk governance for radiological and chemical discharges of industrial installations. Final Report of the RISKGOV project, funded by the 5th Framework Nuclear Energy – Research and Training Programme of the European Commission (EC), contract number: FIKR-CT2001-00168. http://www.riskgov.com/WP4-RISKGOV-FinalReport.pdf

  • Sandin P, Peterson M, Hansson SO, Rudén C, Juthé A (2002) Five charges against the precautionary principle. J Risk Res 5(4):287–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott J, Vos E (2002) The juridification of uncertainty: observations on the ambivalence of the precautionary principle within the EU and the WTO. In: Joerges C, Dehousse R (eds) Good governance in Europe’s integrated market. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 267–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon H (1978) Rationality as process and as product of thought. Am Econ Rev 68: 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • TRUSTNET (1999) The TRUSTNET framework: a new perspective on risk governance. http://www.trustnetgovernance.com/library/pdf/Eframewk.PDF

  • TRUSTNET (2004) Towards inclusive risk governance: TRUSTNET 2. Work carried out under the European Atomic Energy Community R&T specific programme ‘Nuclear energy, Key action 2: Nuclear fission 1998–2002’, Area: ‘Radiation Protection’, Contract N FIKR-CT-2000-20070. http://www.trustnetgovernance.com/library/pdf/Eframewk2.pdf (see also for details of the continuation of this project, http://www.trustnetinaction.com/sommaire.php3)

  • UNDP (2004) Reducing disaster risk: a challenge for development. United Nations Development Programme, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, New York

  • UNDP (2005) A global review: UNDP support to institutional and legislative systems for disaster risk management (Executive Summary). http://www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/documents/wedo/ils/ils_esummary.pdf

  • Wagner WE (2003) The “bad science” fiction: reclaiming the debate over the role of science in public health and environmental regulation. Law Contemp Probl 66: 63–133

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to participants at the Workshop “Risk Science, Society and Sustainability” sponsored by NATO, Euroscience and IUGG, held at Stockholm on 26 August, 2004, and to my colleagues on the TRUSTNET-IN-ACTION project present at a meeting in Vienna on 23 February, 2005 for comments on earlier versions of this paper. I am also grateful to Julian Webb and Anne-Michelle Slater for helpful comments on the later version.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Aberdeen, Taylor Building, Old Aberdeen, AB24 3UB, UK

    John Paterson

Authors
  1. John Paterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Paterson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paterson, J. Sustainable development, sustainable decisions and the precautionary principle. Nat Hazards 42, 515–528 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-9071-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-9071-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation