I begin with two admissions. First, I am relatively new to risk regulation, and indeed academia in general, so this piece is based on still quite nascent views. Second, I fell into risk regulation scholarship almost by accident – therefore I hope this piece will provide an illustration of how strong the intellectual draw of the field is, having already captured my imagination at least!

In the following three sections I set out my risk regulation journey, and the understanding of the field I have developed so far. After summarising how I was drawn to risk regulation, I attempt to reflect philosophically on the purposes of risk regulation research, after which I outline the questions that I believe risk regulation scholars should be asking now and in future years, along with my corresponding research priorities.

This paper examines the potential impact of the European Union’s Environmental Liability Directive (ELD)1 on the nanotechnology (NT) sector. In terms of risk governance the ELD represents a new paradigm, affording the environment an enhanced status both in legal and indeed ontological terms. However, the nature of the NT industry itself is such as to create complexity in the implementation of the ELD. Whilst the field of nano-toxicology is making advances, debate still prevails around issues pertaining to exposure, (eco)-toxicity, metrics, potential impact and legal causation. Levels of uncertainty remain high and hence measuring environmental impact is problematic. The paper addresses the potential environmental liability exposures of NT manufacturers and producers pursuant to the provisions of the ELD and by extension highlights the importance of the insurability of the liability risk all of which bears significance for the sustainability of the industry. It also examines the legal and regulatory challenges of the application of the ELD in the context of the NT industry, highlighting the challenges which this pervasive technology presents for regulatory policy. A cursory discussion of the legal theoretical underpinning of the directive helps to explain the rationale of the directive.

The practice of carrying out an environmental impact assessment (EIA) has gained strength in international law and jurisprudence, finding application in the case law of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). If, on the one hand, the ICJ has recognized the customary nature of this principle, on the other its application poses a set of challenges, mainly linked to the autonomy of this obligation from other international environmental law norms. More precisely, the obligation at issue has been applied in connection with the due diligence and notification principles, creating uncertainty about its scope, as well as about its substantive or procedural nature. Likewise, the autonomy of the obligation to perform an EIA has been challenged in relation to the definition of the content and scope of the obligation itself, which in turn is linked to the existence of applicable treaty provisions or of soft law. This article discusses the impact of these elements on the reasoning of the Court in the cases at issue, in order to demonstrate how such lack of autonomy can undermine the coherence of the reasoning itself and, therefore, an effective application of the principle.