ABSTRACT
The precautionary principle or approach, while firmly grounded in international environmental law,1 fisheries law2 and in common sense,3 may be likened to a life raft swirling in tricky currents. While the principle has great potential to save lives and salvage the environment by requiring anticipatory precautionary and preventative measures in the face of scientific uncertainty4 and by having a core notion of placing the burden of proof on those who propose change,5 it is buffeted by political and practical implementation challenges.6 Debate continues over terminology with some preferring the term precautionary approach because of its less onerous legal connotations.7 Exactly what should trigger precautionary action remains controversial with the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development suggesting a threshold of “serious or irreversible” harm.8 The extent the precautionary approach should be driven by “sound science” and risk assessment9 versus social values and public perceptions is a further area of contention.10 The Rio Declaration calls on states to apply the precautionary approach. This leaves open the question as to which persons and institutions within states should be made responsible for making precautionary determinations and judgments.11
