The Precautionary Principle: A Thrill Ride on the Roller Coaster of Energy and Climate Law

The International Energy Agency has reported that, in 2007, fossil fuels were the source of 66% of global energy production, while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that 60% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 were carbon dioxide emissions from the stationary energy sector. This article relies on recent case law in Australia to assess the extent to which the precautionary principle is a relevant consideration for development consent authorities determining applications for energy-generation facilities, including coal-fired power stations, coal mines, wind farms and uranium mines. What emerges is that there is really no certainty that the precautionary principle will be applied consistently by Australian courts to determine the legal responsibilities of decision makers assessing energy projects. In this sense, the precautionary principle has taken a thrill ride on the roller coaster of energy and climate law in Australia .     

我国环境保护中风险预防原则的缺失及完善

科学技术的迅速发展给人类带来了惊喜的同时也带来了巨大的风险.在环境领域,科技发展的并发症已经使生态遭受严重破坏而难以回复,而潜在的环境风险则使人们感到害怕而又无奈.正是在这样的背景下,为了应对具有科学不确定性环境问题,风险预防原则应运而生.本文通过研究外国环境法中关于风险预防原则的法律制度和实践,分析了我国环境法中风险预防原则存在的问题,提出了完善该原则的相关建议.     

The legal regime for application of the precautionary principle in India: future directions for the GM regulatory regime

The precautionary principle is one of the most contentious principles in contemporary international legal developments. The very fact that it is a principle of international environmental law has been questioned by many legal scholars. However, this does not take away the fact that the precautionary principle continues to be applied widely across sectors both internationally and nationally. The nature and scope of its application has varied widely according to the context and sector within which it has been applied. The central issue which this article seeks to address is the regulatory and the policy making space that is available to the Government of India in the context of the obligations as undertaken under the Cartagena Protocol and under various other international treaties. The regulatory space would also be affected by the domestic legal developments across sectors in which the principle has been applied. India’s recent decision on the large-scale commercialisation of Bt-Cotton has already created much debate regarding its appropriateness given the realities of Indian farm practices. More specifically, it has also led to a rethinking of the role and application of the precautionary principle in addressing these realities. Considering that the Indian policy on biotechnology is currently being drafted, it is important to look into the scope of applying the precautionary principle in taking any decision on genetically modified organisms (GMO) in terms of their distribution of risks, incorporating the social and equity impacts of such decisions.

论预先防范原则在国际环境法中的地位

预先防范原则是在20世纪80、90年代出现在国际环境法领域的一种新的处理缺少确切科学证据的环境风险的主张.迄今已有至少八个国际环境条约载入了与预先防范原则有关的内容,虽然具体用词不尽相同;与预先防范原则有关的案例也已经有数个.以这些为研究对象,探讨预先防范原则在国际环境法上的地位.现在预先防范原则还没有形成国际环境法领域的习惯法,但很多国家愿意在处理缺少确切科学证据的环境风险时,使用与其相关的方法或措施.     

风险预防原则理论与实践反思——兼论风险预防原则的核心问题

尽管风险预防原则已经获得了广泛的认可,但其在理论和实践两个层面都具有较大的争议性。欲破解风险预防原则的内在困境,应在明晰存在的真正问题的基础上作出解释并提出可能的解决之道,避免仅仅依据法律文本进行＂空对空＂的分析。风险预防原则存在的真正问题是其法律效力问题,这就要求我们放宽研究的视野,从法律实效和社会实证入手,探究风险预防原则如何在社会中发挥效果。     

行政强制救济若干理论问题探析

学理概念行政强制与法律概念行政强制措施不配套。从定义要求、语词构造以及法理分析,行政强制权属于行政权范畴,行政强制则包括行政执行强制和行政即时强制。与强制执行不同的是,行政强制属于行政模式,而非司法主导的混合模式。在宪法上界定行政与司法的分野,结合我国实际并借鉴域外经验对行政强制进行统一立法是行政强制救济的前提与基础。在合作行政时代,行政强制法制化的事前和事中救济过程比事后救济更为重要。     

Privacy and the precautionary principle

The precautionary principle – which implies that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing protective measures – has been adopted as a standard of environmental and health protection in international and European legislation. This article offers an overview of the precautionary principle as a legal standard applicable to European privacy and data protection legislation. For this reason, it takes particularly into account the guidelines of this legislation as well as the privacy impact assessment framework, raised by the European Commission through the Recommendation on Radio-Frequency Identification applications. In brief, the article stresses the role of the precautionary principle in improving privacy protection through liability, prudence and transparency.     

Eyes Wide Shut: On Risk,Rule of Law and Precaution

The rule of law offers legal certainty, laying down boundaries to the state's playing field. The precautionary approach stipulates that the absence of scientific certainty is no reason not to act to prevent harm. Here, uncertainty frames action. The precautionary approach potentially expands the state's playing field, and this expansion might well undermine the precepts of the rule of law. The certainty‐uncertainty axis exposes a tension between the rule of law and the precautionary approach in what Ulrich Beck has termed the world risk society in second modernity. It is this tension that is the focus of analysis in this article.     

Interpretation and Application of the Precautionary Principle: Australia's Contribution

Australia has been a leading jurisdiction in the adoption of the precautionary principle, with widespread policy and legislative incorporation. This has paved the way for the development of a substantial jurisprudence on the interpretation and application of the principle. The international derivation of the version of the precautionary principle adopted in Australia, together with the wide range of areas in which the principle has been applied, for example biodiversity protection, environmental impact assessment, climate change, public health, etc., means that judicial consideration of the principle in Australia has the potential to form a body of common law with national and international application. Accordingly, this article reviews the adoption, interpretation and application of the precautionary principle in Australian environmental law, with a view to drawing out the general lessons this experience offers for interpretation of the principle in other, international settings .     

风险与法律:食品安全责任的分配如何可能

在现代社会,科技发展引起的食品安全风险日益增多。如何防范风险,确保食品安全,维护消费者健康,构成世界各国政府与公众关注的焦点;随之,法律结构也有了改变。由于风险所带来的不可预知性和不确定性,导致了因果关系链在经验世界中断裂,借助"肇事者原则"来确定过失与肇事者,并据此分配责任以补偿受害者,在举证上也就变得日益艰难。然而,人类要存续,法律要实现预期功能,仍需假定风险是可把握的、可控制的外在客观对象,并添加"预防原则"以重新分配食品安全责任,达到分散风险目的。为此,除了要构建食品安全主体的责任伦理外,还需实现从单纯惩罚机制向责任保险模式的转变。     

The Precautionary Principle as a Device for Greater Environmental Protection: Lessons from EC Courts

Given that the precautionary principle has never been defined in the EC Treaty, the EC jurisdictions have been playing a key role in determining the status as well as the scope of that principle. Although scholars have hitherto been paying heed to the case law on food safety, the literature has become a little thinner when one considers environmental case law. This article attempts to set the scene to explain how the precautionary principle can be invoked in different judiciary procedures at the EU level.     

法理即法律原理之解说

自清末民初以来,将法理解说为法律原理就成为法学界的通例,但其界定方式则有四种:一是径直以法律原理定位法理;二是将法律原理、法律原则并列来定位法理;三是将法理视为由法律原理推导出的法律一般原则;四是认为法理是指法律原则,但包括法律原理在内。法理和法律原理的存在是一种客观的必然:世上的万事万物都应有其存在和运行的原理,法律自然也不例外;法律作为人类的伟大创造,自身即蕴含着追求正义等法律价值的法理;法律的价值观念虽因时代、地区的不同而会有所差异,但其中的基础法理却不受时空影响;对法律的分析和研究舍法理之外别无他途。立足于已有的研究成果,可将法理界定为"在综合各种法律现象的基础上,由学者所抽象并为社会所认同的有关法律基础、法律根据、法律判准、法律渊源的基础性、普遍性原理"。同时,法理与自然规律、社会价值、内存于法典和单行法律中的法律原则以及事理、情理等存在明显的差异,不可混淆。     

论风险预防原则的适用要件——以国际环境法为背景

作为国际环境法的基本原则之一,风险预防原则已经在许多国际环境协定中得到了直接的规定或间接的反映。在适用风险预防原则的过程中,需要遵循以下三个方面的要件:1.适用风险预防原则的前提条件,包括风险阀值和科学不确定性的确定;2.依据风险预防原则进行决策的过程中需遵循的要件,包括成本效益分析以及根据不同的风险水平采取适当的预防措施;3.执行风险预防措施的过程中需遵循的要件,包括对措施的后期审查及相关科学信息的收集。     

IS ARTICLE 5.7 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT AN APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE?

The “Precautionary principle” is regarded as the new buzz phrase in the discussion of risk regulation relating to the areas of environment and health. Article 5.7 of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure (SPS Agreement) uses a similar approach to the protection of human, animal and plant life, and health. It is important to pay close attention to some of the relationships concerning the precautionary principle and Article 5.7. Firstly, when a member decides to take sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, they usually act from the perspective of prudence and precaution. In addition, the precautionary principle finds similar expression in Article 5.7. However, the precautionary principle has not been explicitly written in the SPS Agreement as a ground for justifying the SPS measures in situations that are inconsistent with the obligations set out in the Agreement. The case law shows that the Panel is very careful about the use of the language of precaution. The Appellate Body is reluctant to allow the precautionary principle to override the specific obligations in the Agreement. Whether Article 5.7 can be regarded as an application of the precautionary principle needs to be examined. Under the current discourse, however, this article finds that the precautionary principle cannot by any means be used as an interpretative tool for Article 5.7. Reliance on the precautionary principle to trigger Article 5.7 is supposed to be unsuccessful. As in situations where taking SPS measures threats the environment and health become irreversible, more attention should be paid to practical issues to ensure the necessity and efficacy of the measures.     

Applying Precaution in EU Authorisation of Genetically Modified Products—Challenges and Suggestions for Reform

In this article, I endeavour to examine concrete challenges that arise with regard to implementation of the precautionary principle in the field of European Union regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Developed by the European courts into a general legal principle, precaution requires EU regulators to strike a balance between scientific and political legitimacy when taking decisions on risk‐entailing products. Following this understanding, the current GMO legislation creates precautionary governance structures that allow for a broad input into the authorisation process, not only of scientific, but also of ‘other legitimate factors’. At the same time, it can be criticised for narrowly defining precaution as a decision rule, which, if applied correctly, will lead the decision maker to the ‘right’ decision. I argue that this misconception is one of the reasons why, in the current authorisation practice, the EU institutions fail to apply the principle in a balanced way, falling into the extremes of either purely science‐based decision making or a highly politicised precautionary rhetoric. I suggest that in order not to be paralysing, precaution should be understood as a procedural principle that provides for precautionary governance, thus enabling regulators to make appropriate risk choices.     

Food Safety and the Precautionary Principle: the Legitimate Moderation of Community Courts

Abstract: The precautionary principle, though not defined in the Community Treaties, has been the subject of numerous attempts at doctrinal systematisation. These efforts have, for the most part, dealt with organising how to adopt measures banning products or methods of production. Associated with this rigorous approach to the precautionary principle are questions on moratoriums and reversal of the burden of proof. Following this logic, one must understand that the precautionary principle obliges the initiator of a project (or the producer of foodstuffs) to prove the innocuousness of its product before putting it on the market. However, this concept of the precautionary principle, while held by the larger part of doctrinal opinion, is not shared by the Community courts. These have largely developed Community law on this point with a progressive corpus of decisions that give an increasingly specific definition of the concept. This attempt at definition leads to a rational presentation of the precautionary principle as a means of dealing with scientific uncertainty and not as a way of rejecting science. The aim of this article is to show that the conception held by Community courts, while apparently less protective of human health than the doctrinal conception, has the advantage of being effective; that is to say capable of practical application, while the more rigorous interpretation leads only to a protective Utopian dead-end, which its defenders find themselves incapable of progressing beyond.     

EU和WTO预防原则解释和适用比较研究

预防原则是国际法上重要的法律原则,其法律地位存在很大争议,不同国际组织对其认可和适用的程度不尽相同。欧盟的预防原则理念领先于其他国家和地区,在区域内的实践呈扩大的趋势。WTO框架内预防原则的实践则发展缓慢,由于宗旨的不同和背后利益集团的博弈,与欧盟的预防原则立法和实践存在较大差异。     

风险行政的预防原则

风险预防不同于危险防御,其适用于科学上不确定的风险行政领域,在我国具有法律原则的重要地位。为了更好地保护基本权利,国家可以根据预防原则设计风险预防机制,并在特定条件下采取一定的风险预防措施。但因为风险的不确定性,国家在采取风险预防措施时存在较大的裁量空间,也容易侵害经营自由、科研自由或引发贸易纠纷。故而,如果某产品有潜在的负面效果,经风险评估判明存在科学上的不确定性,方可决定采取风险预防措施。在采取措施时,国家应当遵守比例原则、平等对待原则等要求,应当说明理由,保障公众的参与机会,并根据情况变化在事后进行评估与调整,以提高措施的可接受性、充实风险信息。在风险预防措施的合法性引起争讼时,因存在科学上的不确定性而难以适用客观性举证责任,应由双方主体在各自的责任范围内举证说明,以帮助法院解明案情,适时作出裁判。     

论法律拟制思维在刑法中的重要性

刑法中存在普遍的＂有意将不同者等同视之＂的＂法律拟制＂现象,这种＂以假为真＂的作法并不必然与刑法的基本原则相违背,而有可能是在坚持刑法基本精神的前提下的一种刑事立法层面上的有效方式。所以,对刑法中拟制现象的研究不能仅限于＂刑法的拟制性规定＂,而应该以＂法律拟制＂本身所代表的标准来审视刑法中的拟制现象。     

保险损害补偿原则研究——兼论我国保险合同立法分类之重构

保险损害补偿是保险合同法上诸多制度体系的一个基石。我国保险立法虽确立了该原则并初步构建了制度体系,但由于该原则在保险法理论研究上并未受到应有的重视,迄今学理解释上对该原则多“食而未化”,仍有诸多观念上的错误或认识上的误区。本文运用法解释学、法史学及比较法学等分析方法,从保险损害补偿的范畴分析入手,对该原则的内核、规范目的、适用范围及其例外等作了深入阐释,以正本清源。从保险损害补偿原则及其制度的适用角度来考量,主张摒弃我国现行保险法所采的“财产保险”与“人身保险”之“二分法”,代之以“补偿性保险”与“定额性保险”之“二分法”,以利于法律的正确适用。