Skip to main content

Precautionary principle

The precautionary principle


 is the concept that establishes it is better to avoid or mitigate an action or policy that has the plausible potential, based on scientific analysis, to result in major or irreversible negative consequences to the environment or public even if the consequences of that activity are not conclusively known, with the burden of proof that it is not harmful falling on those proposing the action. It is a major principle of international environmental law and is extended to other areas and jurisdictions as well.
This principle is important in that it allows one to anticipate harm and take appropriate precautions even in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful and what might be the level of harm. As a result, policy makers are able to make discretionary decisions to delay such an action until scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result. It is analogous to such commonplace aphorisms as “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," “better safe than sorry," “look before you leap," and the ancient medical principle associated with Hippocrates of "First, do no harm."
In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement. However, a rigid application of this principle also has drawbacks, such as ignoring possible risks associated with not doing the proposed activity or policy, perhaps resulting in banning a technology that brings advantages out of concern for potential negative impacts. Under such a scenario, the cellular phone might not have been permitted until it could be proved not to be a carcinogen. In the case of the pesticide DDT, if the precautionary principle were to be applied universally and narrowly, it would mean that DDT could not even be introduced into regions heavily infected by malaria because of the deleterious potential impacts of DDT on the fauna.
The precautionary principle recognizes a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. Its development as part of international law reflects a growing international recognition of the human responsibility to care for the environment and others and to find legal avenues to prevent actions that might cause severe or irreversible consequences to either.

Basic components

Many definitions of the precautionary principle exist, with precaution itself defined as “caution in advance,” “caution practiced in the context of uncertainty," or “informed prudence.” All definitions of the precautionary principle have three major components:
  1. Anticipate harm and take action to minimize potential harm. This is an expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm before it occurs and an obligation, if the level of harm may be high, for action to prevent or minimize such harm.
  2. Onus of proof on proponent. Under the precautionary principle, it is the responsibility of an activity proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not (or is very unlikely to) result in significant harm. This is an implicit reversal of the typical onus of proof, whereby harm needs to be demonstrated.
  3. Absence of scientific certainty not an obstacle. The precautionary principle is activated even when the absence of scientific certainty makes it difficult to predict the likelihood of harm occurring, or the level of harm should it occur. There is an obligation, if the level of harm may be high, for action to prevent or minimize such harm, with the control measures increasing with both the level of possible harm and the degree of uncertainty.
It is important to note that, although this principle operates in the context of scientific uncertainty, it generally is considered by its proponents to be applicable only when, on the basis of the best scientific advice available, there is good reason to believe that harmful effects might occur.

Diverse formulations of the precautionary principle

Rio Declaration.; One of the primary foundations of the precautionary principle, and globally accepted definitions, results from the work of the Rio Conference, or "Earth Summit" in 1992. Principle #15 of the Rio Declaration notes (UNEP 1992):
"In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. 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."
This definition is important for several reasons. First, it explains the idea that scientific uncertainty should not preclude preventative measures to protect the environment. Second, the use of "cost-effective" measures indicates that costs can be considered. This is different from a "no-regrets" approach, which ignores the costs of preventative action.
Note that this definition uses the term “precautionary approach” rather than “precautionary principle,” a not unimportant distinction given the power of law that the term "principle" is sometimes held to convey. (See "Principle" vs. "approach”.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

  The merchant of Venice and the cowards that fear  Enough enough already.     The Crimes; Lets cut straight to the chase.   The quote, which reads, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize,” was quickly identified by some users online as a quote by Kevin Alfred Strom. “Congrats, you just quoted Kevin Alfred Strom, an American neo-Nazi, who first said those words in 1993,” responded  one user. Another commented, “This quote is actually from Kevin Alfred Strom, a white supremacist and Holocaust denier who plead guilty to possession of child pornography.”  and as this is from Reuters, a platform one can trust.    You dear reader are now  a Holocaust denying kiddy diddler.    But the quote still stands.    To learn who rules over you , simply look who you cannot criticize.  Well, turn around, take off any rose colored inhibitors and look back at major events in his...

it's them again boo boo, their history

It's a pretty known fact that the Jews are chosen people and the Jewish homeland is Israel and the Jews believe in the Old Testament and that the Old Testament is about Jews.     However almost none of these facts are true nowhere in the Bible does it call the Jews gods chosen people and only about 5% of the people in the old testament could be called "Jews".    So now that you have branded me an anti-semite we can begin;    The term "anti semite"  literally means against Shem or his descendants however being anti-jewish isn't the same as being anti-semitic.       So let me explain the Semites are the descendants of a man named Shem who would father some of the world's most renowned Empires and dynasties such as the Syrian Empire and Babylonian empires. So why is it "anti-semetic" to say something against the Jews?  Well, just like stealing your religion, your homes, your money, and businesses some Jews also love stealing names...
  The Word Jew Is NOT In The Bible But Blunt Publisher Manipulation Is C H U R C H R E F O R M S E R I E S By Biblicism Institute “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” – Mark Twain The word Jew is nowhere to be found in the good book The word “Jew” did not come into existence until the year 1775 A.D., whereas the occurrences in the bible took place from around 4000 B.C. to 70 A.D. WHO IS A JEW? Its modern connotation points to someone who follows and adheres to a faith similar to that of the Pharisees of Judah, but  is not  of the tribe and stock of Judah. In other words, Jews are people from nations other than the 12 Hebrew tribes who practice a religion known as  Judaism/Pharisaism , the doctrine of the Pharisees. It is much like those who believe in Christ and are called Christians, in honor of the One whom they follow, and their religion is known as Christianity, the doctrine of Christ. If one were to say th...