Philosophy and the Precautionary Principle

How can we reasonably justify a climate policy goal if we accept that only possible consequences from climate change are known? Precautionary principles seem to offer promising guidelines for reasoning in such epistemic situations. This chapter presents two versions of the precautionary principle (PP) and defends one of them as morally justifiable. However, it argues that current versions of the PP do not allow discrimination between relevant climate change policies. Therefore, the chapter develops a further version of the PP, the Controllability Precautionary Principle (CPP), and defends its moral plausibility. The CPP incorporates the following idea: in a situation when the possible outcomes of the available actions cannot be ranked with regard to their value, the choice between available options for action should rest on the comparison of how well decision makers can control the processes of the implementation of the available strategies.

Download Full-text

Insufficient Knowledge in Kunduz: The Precautionary Principle and International Humanitarian Law

Journal of Conflict and Security Law ◽

10.1093/jcsl/krz033 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 25 (1) ◽

pp. 53-79

Author(s):

Emma J Marchant

Keyword(s):

Precautionary Principle ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Federal Court ◽

International Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

The Precautionary Principle ◽

Lack Of Information ◽

Operational Application ◽

Federal Court Of Justice ◽

Insufficient Knowledge

Abstract The targeting protocols applied by forces during armed conflict are some of the most secretive documents held by any military. However, their role in applying principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) means that they are key to understanding their development. This piece is primarily concerned with practical and operational application of the precautionary principle under IHL; how much knowledge is sufficient to carry out an attack lawfully during modern armed conflict. In order to establish if a standard has developed with the increase in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance technology, this piece uses the framework of an investigation into an incident in Kunduz, Afghanistan in 2009. I explore the difficulties of obtaining information post-incident, the differential standards expected by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), and the manner in which these can be evaluated through the principles of proportionality, distinction and precautions in attack. The piece looks at the interrelated issues raised by the Rules of Engagement and Tactical Directives, as well as the problems surrounding the clarity of intelligence available. I argue that this case is demonstrative of the failings inherent in the application and practical use of the precautionary principle outlined by IHL. The lack of transparency afforded in, and after, incidents of this nature prevents objective analysis and so the development of IHL can be obfuscated. I conclude that the lack of information following incidents of this kind confuses any intelligence standard that exists under IHL.

Download Full-text

Applying the Precautionary Principle to Private Persons : Should it Affect Civil and Criminal Liability?

Les Cahiers de droit ◽

10.7202/043702ar ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 43 (1) ◽

pp. 63-78 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Bruce Pardy

Keyword(s):

Precautionary Principle ◽

Environmental Law ◽

Criminal Liability ◽

Strict Liability ◽

Criminal Punishment ◽

International Environmental Law ◽

The Precautionary Principle ◽

The Past ◽

Precautionary Action ◽

Domestic Law

The precautionary principle, developed in international environmental law, is a prospective concept. It can be used to decide what should be allowed to occur in the future. The question addressed in this article is whether, in domestic law, the precautionary principle should be applied retrospectively. Should precautionary behaviour be used as a standard to apply to the past actions of private persons, so as to judge whether those persons have acted legally ? In the civil realm, the answer is « yes ». Applying the precautionary principle in civil cases removes foreseeability requirements, and transforms liability based on fault into strict liability. In the criminal sphere, retrospective application of the precautionary principle is not appropriate. To require precautionary action on the part of an accused in an environmental prosecution transforms strict liability into absolute liability, and creates the potential for criminal punishment in the absence of culpability.

Download Full-text