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 .     

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.     

GENERAL AND PARTICULAR APPLYING ELEMENTS OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE

In the context of WTO dispute settlement, the precautionary principle is a predominant concept, in the face of serious risks and scientific uncertainty, that is often characterized as “better safe than sorry.” Although the precautionary principle appears in various treaties, declarations, and even laws, it is often formulated in abstract terms, leading to the great ambiguity of its primary elements. The Panel and the Appellate Body always avoid discussing the precautionary principle in WTO cases due to its obscure definition. On March 13, 2012, the United States, the European Union, and Japan each requested consultations with China as China’s measures that made restrictions on the exportation of rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum had been in conflict with their national interest. After examining the matter at issue, the Panel and the Appellate Body rejected China’s arguments regardless of its repeated claims about its consideration of environmental protection. With the case as the starting point, this article focuses on the precautionary principle and explores its status and elements, in order to establish a two-dimensional model of the precautionary principle that is applicable in international trade.     

Community Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: a Difficult Relationship Between Law and Science

Abstract: The European Community legislator regulates the area of genetically modified organisms according to the precautionary principle, which implies keeping a distance from scientific results in decision-making. However, a positivist approach continues to exist within the same legislation. Paradoxically, this approach is promoted by the means of implementation of the precautionary principle. But to a large extent, it takes root in the context of the interpretation of the principle by the Community legislator, who attempts to eliminate disparities between the national legislations and to conform to World Trade Organization norms.     

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.     

The Precautionary Principle in General International Law: Combating the Babylonian Confusion

The purpose of this article is to contribute to the clarification of the legal scope of the precautionary principle. The primary focus is on general international law, so as to determine as accurately as possible what it is that 'the' precautionary principle entails. The legal development, status and implications of the principle pass in review. A definition is presented of a right and a duty of States to take precautionary action, which is deemed representative of the current state of customary international law. Several particularly controversial issues receive separate treatment, including the burden of proof, the role of uncertainty and the application of the precautionary principle to human health protection. Special attention is paid to the practical relevance of the various findings, which are placed in the context of recent developments.     

Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes – A Case Study

There is generally no agreed doctrinal definition of universal jurisdiction in customary and conventional international law. However, this does not preclude any definition, which embodies the essence of the concept as the ability to exercise jurisdiction irrespective of territoriality or nationality. Therefore, the concept of universal jurisdiction applies to a situation where “the nature of (an) act entitles a State to exercise its jurisdiction to apply its laws, even if the act has occurred outside its territory, has been perpetrated by a non-national, and even if (its) nationals have not been harmed by the acts.”     

国际法上的风险预防原则

风险预防原则已经成为国际和国内环境保护法律制度的一项重要的基本原则。该原则要求我们在进行任何的经济活动之前就对该活动可能会对自然环境和生态系统造成的影响进行风险预测,并相应采取针对性的措施,从而更好地保护自然环境和生态系统。但如何将该原则运用到危险废物越境转移领域,仍然有待我们进行理论上的探讨。应加强对危险废物越境转移中运用该原则等方面的探讨。     

School liability for student injury from school violence: comparison between South Korea and the USA

This paper examines school liability for school violence-related student injury in South Korea and the US. The study found that the US courts considered only violence-related behaviors of the perpetrator when judging whether violence can be foreseen; thus drug abuse or verbal abuse by the perpetrator were not considered as a part of his/her violent history. On the other hand, the Korean courts considered perpetrators’ nonviolent behavior, such as low academic achievement or negative attitudes toward academic work, as indicators of violent history. Regarding the extent of school liability, while in Korea, schools were not held responsible for injuries to non-school-related persons caused by their students’ violent acts in public, in the US, the court required schools to take legal responsibility for such cases happening during field trips. These findings help to reconsider school liability for school violence and generate suggestions for more reasonable and universal legal standards.     

The European Community and the Adoption of International Food Standards within the Codex Alimentarius Commission

Abstract: This article examines the way the European Community defends its interests in food safety matters within the Codex Alimentarius Commission. It shows that the European Community has strengthened its position as a policymaker within the Codex Commission. It also describes how the European members of the Codex Commission engaged (with mixed results) in the defence of certain principles typical of European food policy. These controversial principles are the precautionary principle, the need to consider factors other than science in determining food standards, and the need to label and make traceable food derived from biotechnology. Lastly, the article evaluates the function of the Codex Commission. Since, in at least two cases the discussions within the Codex Commission did not prevent WTO litigation, the value of the Codex Commission may be questioned. However, the overall assessment of the Codex Commission's activity is positive, since it provides an important and not easily replaceable forum to debate food safety issues, which are particularly sensitive for Codex members of the European Community.     

Causation in negligence: from anti-jurisprudence to principle--individual responsibility as the cornerstone for the attribution of liability

Causation is one of the most esoteric and poorly defined legal principles. The common law standards of the "but for" test and common sense are, in reality, code for unconstrained judicial choice. This leads to a high degree of unpredictability in negligence cases. Changes to the causation standard following the torts reforms have done nothing to inject principle into this area of law: the concept of "appropriateness" is no more illuminating than common sense. Despite this, the trend of recent High Court decisions offers some prospect of clarifying the test for causation. Key themes to emerge are an increased emphasis on individual responsibility and the associated concept of coherency with other legal standards. This article examines the doctrinal reasons underpinning the increasingly important role of these ideals and suggests how they can be accommodated into the test for causation to inject greater coherence and predictability into this area of law.     

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.     

What does “knock and announce” mean? An analysis of<Emphasis Type="Italic">Wilson v. Arkansas</Emphasis> and its progeny

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Wilson v. Arkansas (1994) that the common law “knock-and-announce” principle formed part of the “reasonableness” inquiry under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court’s opinion gave little guidance as to what would be unreasonable under these circumstances. Some critics expressed concern that this lack of guidance would lead to many variations among lower courts. Other observers discerned a signal that little should be deemed “unreasonable” in the context of “knock and announce.” These criticisms are analyzed through a review of lower court interpretations of Wilson.     

How to enforce European law? A new history of the battle over the direct effect of Directives, 1958–1987

This article explores the well‐known saga of the European Court of Justice's introduction of direct effect of Council Directives on the basis of new comprehensive archival research. The expansion of the doctrine of direct effect to include Directives was part of a drive of the Legal Service of the European Commission and the ECJ to strengthen the enforcement of European law. This threatened the deeper balance of competences between the European Community and its Member States and consequently led to a sharp response from the national parliaments and courts. The force of these responses and the deep crisis that had evolved in the late 1970s between France and the ECJ, led to a change in the EC's case law that limited the direct effect of Directives to the vertical relation between citizens and the respective Member State and excluded any horizontal effect. The story is an example of how the activist ECJ of the 1970s ran into resistance from the Member States and had to modify its doctrinal advances. It also suggests that the successful acceptance of the constitutionalisation of the Treaties of Rome pursued by the ECJ was by no means secure by the late 1970s.     

Interpretation of Law and Judges Communities

The principle of omnia sunt interpretanda refers to the derivational conception and derivational theory of interpretation. The principle appears in disputes concerning the role of a judge in the process of interpretation, and this has produced an effect that Polish theory of law is currently getting closer to the conceptions presented in the American debate on activism and textualism. In the practice of jurisdiction, the principle of omnia sunt interpretanda is mostly invoked outside theoretical context. It becomes a manifestation of a new dimension of judicial independence, namely an independent authority over the meaning of legal text. In the following paper the legal cultures and legal theories involved in the dispute are being disclosed in order to put in question the possibility of achieving a clear result of interpretation against a background of a crisis of the relations between law and law-making state, which manifests itself in the peculiar process of legal institutions becoming autonomous in relation to state institutions. In this context, the aforementioned principle constitutes the manifestation of the way in which courts come up with a new definition of the role of the third (sui generic) power. The certain organizational requirements placed upon the courts (especially the SAC and provincial administrative courts) are being scrutinized in order to find out in which mode it is possible to at least reduce the degree of inconsistency of the results of interpretation. Here, the attempt to organize a community of judges for the activities of legal interpretation undertaken by them plays a crucial role.     

互联网法院的程序法困境及出路

互联网法院借助互联网技术审理特定类型的涉互联网案件,以全流程在线办理为原则,改变了诉讼行为发生的时空条件.互联网法院在现阶段面临的程序法困境主要包括设立依据有违法定法官原则、管辖范围的界定不够妥当、在线庭审的规则创新冲击民事司法之基本原则、诉讼规则忽视对当事人处分权和平等权的保障等方面.从立法上明确互联网法院的试点法院...     

社区集体经济组织改制目标定位与职能重构之法律研析

社区集体经济组织源于传统的农村集体经济组织,相关立法虽对其体制、职能等有所表述,但一直未明确其法律性质及地位,故城市化社区集体经济组织转型发展正遭遇目标定位模糊等现实困扰;文章基于立法考证与实践分析,针对社区集体经济组织发展中的突出问题,就其目标定位与职能重构提出相应的法律政策建议。