precautionary principle in environmental law pdf

Cambridge University Press, Cambridgeįoster CE (2016) Methodologies and Motivations: Was Japan’s Whaling Programme for Purposes of Scientific Research? In: Fitzmaurice M, Tamada D (eds) Whaling on the Antarctic: The Significance and Implications of the ICJ Judgment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 353–374įoster C (2011) Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals Expert, Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality. In: Tams C, Sloan J (eds) The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridgeįitzmaurice M (2013) The Development of International Law by the ICJ. Oxford University Press, Oxfordĭuvic-Paoli L-A (2018) The Prevention Principle in International Environmental Law. International & Comparative Law Quarterly 69: 239–259Ĭrawford J (2008) Brownlie’s Principles of International Law. Oxford University Press, OxfordĬraik N (2020) The Duty to Cooperate in the Customary Law of Environmental Impact Assessment. Graham and Trotman, London, pp 363–379Ĭassese A (2005) International Law. In: Francioni F, Scovazzi T (eds) International Responsibility for Environmental Harm. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Hampshireīoyle A (1991) Making the Polluter Pay: Alternatives to State Responsibility in the Allocation of Transboundary Environmental Costs. Oxford University Press, Oxfordīosselmann K (2008) The Principle of Sustainability: Transforming Law and Governance.

26, para 99.īirnie P et al (eds) (2009) International Law and the Environment. Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Strait of Johor (Malaysia v Singapore), above n 51, p. The same implicit recognition is reflected in the Order for Provisional Measures of the Tribunal in the Land Reclamation case, where the Tribunal stated that ‘given the possible implications of land reclamation on the marine environment, prudence and caution require that Malaysia and Singapore establish mechanisms for exchanging information and assessing the risks or effects of land reclamation works and devising ways to deal with them in the areas concerned’. ITLOS, Mox Plant case (UK v Ireland), above n 49, p. In the Mox Plant case, the Tribunal referred to the precautionary principle by stating that ‘prudence and caution require that Ireland and the United Kingdom cooperate in exchanging information concerning risks or effects of the operation of the MOX plant and in devising ways to deal with them, as appropriate’. Ibid., Separate Opinion Judge Laing, para 16. The analysis of each of these specific issues falls beyond the scope of this chapter, for more see Pineschi 2013, pp. According to Pineschi there are at least three specific issues that can be found in the Chamber’s Opinion (1) the scope of the obligation of prior EIA ratione materiae (2) the scope of the obligation of prior EIA ratione personae and (3) the functional relationship of the EIA obligation with the duty of cooperation with potentially affected States. These Rules and Regulations, however, contain criteria that are applicable in a very limited context with specific actors, and thus may not readily be extended to other instances in which the duty also arises. In the specific context of activities in the Area, the Chamber was able to clarify the content of the duty to conduct EIA under the specific Rules and Regulations concerning the activities in the Area. The Seabed Dispute Chamber of ITLOS took a step forward and, in contrast to the judgment of the ICJ in the Pulp Mills case, provided some guidelines on the scope and content of the obligation of EIA for deep seabed mining operations and its implementation.

Precautionary principle in environmental law pdf