Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T02:48:14.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a common understanding of the precautionary principle?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2009

Ariane König
Ariane König
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Kennedy School for Government, Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Analysis
Information
Foreign Policy Bulletin , Volume 11 , Issue 1-2 , January 2000 , pp. 127 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

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

REFERENCES

American Trucking Association v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
Appelgate, J. S. 2000. The precautionary preference: an American perspective on the precautionary principle. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 6, 413–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashford, N. A. and Caldart, C. C. eds. 1994. Chapter 2. Administrative Law. In ‘Technology Law, and the Working Environment’. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 44–45.Google Scholar
BMI (Federal Interior Ministry). 194. Dritter Immissionsschutzbericht. Drucksache, Bonn 10/1355, 53.Google Scholar
Bodansky, D. 1994. The precautionary principle in US environemental law. Chapter 12. In ‘Interpreting the precautionary principle’, O’Riordan, T. and Cameron, J., eds, London, Cameron May ltd, pp. 203–227.Google Scholar
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. 1994. The precautionary principle in Germany – enabling government. Chapter 2. In ‘Interpreting the precautionary principle’, O’Riordan, T. and Cameron, J., eds, London, Cameron May ltd, pp. 31–59.Google Scholar
CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission). 2000a. Comments offered by the United States on the European Commission’s Communication on the Precautionary Principle. Document CX/GP 00/3 -Add.5, p2.Google Scholar
CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission). 2000b. Risk analysis: Government’s comments in reply to CL 1999/16-GP. Document CX/GP 00/3 -Add.1, pp 10–13.Google Scholar
CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission). 2000c. Risk analysis: Document CX/GP 00/3, pp 47–55.Google Scholar
Case C-157/9 National Farmers Union. 1998. Judgement of 5.5.98, ECR 1998, page I-2211.Google Scholar
Cameron, J. 1994. The status of the precautionary principle in international law. Chapter 15. In ‘Interpreting the precautionary principle’, O’Riordan, T. and Cameron, J., eds, London, Cameron May ltd, pp. 262–289.Google Scholar
Clean Air Act, 42, U.S.C. 7409–7412.Google Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992. I.L.M. 31, 818.Google Scholar
Dratwa, J. 2000. The precautionary principle – stakes and options for policy making. European Parliament Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Unit. PE 168.385.Google Scholar
EPA. 1999. EPA’s updated air quality standards for smog (ozone) and particulate matter.Google Scholar
Ethyl Corp. v. EPA541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976).Google Scholar
European Commission. 2000a. Communication from the European Commission on the precautionary principle. COM(2000)1-C5–014/2000.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2000b. Comments from the European Commission Services to the Codex Secretariat. Replies to the questions raised by the United States Codex Conference Room Document. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/ifsi/eupositions/ccgp/ccgp01_en.htmlGoogle Scholar
European Parliament. 2000. Committee on the environment, public health and consumer policy. Report on the Commission Commu nication on the Precautionary Principle. COM(2000)1-C5–014/2000 2000/2086(COS).Google Scholar
FAO/WHO. 1995. Application of risk analysis to food standard issues. Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation. Geneva, 13–17 March. WHO, Geneva. http://www.fao.org/es/esn/risk/risktext.htmGoogle Scholar
FAO/WHO. 1997. Risk management and food safety. Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation. Rome, 27–31 January. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/es/esn/risk/risktext.htmGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. 2000a. Perspectives on the precautionary principle. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 6, 383–386.Google Scholar
Graham, J. 2000b. Making sense of the precautionary principle. Harvard center for risk analysis - risk in perspective 7, 1–5.Google Scholar
Graham, J. D. and WienerJ., B. J., B. eds. 1995. In ‘Risk vs. risk – tradeoffs in protecting health and the environment’. Harvard University Press. Cambridge Massachusetts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenpeace. 2000. WTO must apply the precautionary principle. (visited 10 November 2000). http://www.Greenpeace.orgGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. 2000. Governing trade of transgenic crops. Environment 42. 23–33.Google Scholar
Hammitt, J. K. 2000. Global Climate Change: Benefit-cost analysis vs. the precautionary principle. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 6, 387–398.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. 2000. Commentary: between risk and precaution – reassessing the future of GM crops. Journal of Risk Research. 3, 277–282.Google Scholar
Levidoff, L., Carr, S., and Wield, D. 2000. Genetically modified crops in the European Union: regulatory conflicts as precautionary opportunities. Journal of Risk Research. 3, 189–208.Google Scholar
Miller, H. I. and Conko, G. 2000. The science of biotechnology meets the politics of global regulation. Issues in Science and Technology. National Academies if Sciences. XVII, 47–54.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D. and Smith, A. E. 2000. Global climate change and the precautionary principle. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 6, 399–412.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. M. and Henrion, M. eds. 1990. The nature and sources of uncertainty. In ‘Uncertainty – a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis’. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, pp. 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffensberger, C. and Tickner, J., eds. 1999. Introduction. In ‘Protecting public health and the environment: implementing the precautionary principle’. Washington D.C. Island Press, pp 1–12.Google Scholar
Official Journal of the European Communities. 1997. C340/145.Google Scholar
O’Riordan, T. and Cameron, J., eds. 1994. History and contemporary significance of the precautionary principle. In ‘Interpreting the precautionary principle’, O’Riordan, T. and Cameron, J., eds, London, Cameron May ltd, pp 12–30.Google Scholar
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. 1992. I.L.M. 31, 874.Google Scholar
Sandin, P. 1999. Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 5, 889–907.Google Scholar
Sand, P. 2000. The precautionary principle, a European perspective. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 6, 445–458.Google Scholar
Tait, J. 2000. More Faust than Frankenstein: the European debate about the precautionary principle and risk regulation of genetically modified crops. Journal of Risk Research. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C.Google Scholar
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 1992. I.L.M. 30, 773.Google Scholar
Von Moltke, K. 1988. The Vorsorgeprinzip in West German Environmental Policy. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 12th Report, Best Practicable Environmental Option, Appendix 3, HMSO, London, February 1988.Google Scholar
Wagner, W. 2000. The precautionary principle and chemical regulation in the US. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 6, 459–478.Google Scholar