Errors and inaccuracies are common in legal commentary and analyses of the duty to take precautions in the event of an attack. I address these misconceptions and clarify America`s obligation under the law of armed conflict to take precautions to minimize harm to civilians. The weak version [of the precautionary principle] is the least restrictive and allows preventive measures in the face of uncertainties, but does not require them (e.g. the 1992 Rio Declaration; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992). To reach the injury threshold, there must be indications of both the probability of occurrence and the severity of the consequences. Some, but not all, require consideration of the cost of safeguards. Weak formulations do not prevent a trade-off between benefits and costs. Factors other than scientific uncertainties, including economic considerations, may be legitimate grounds for postponing action. In the case of weak wording, the requirement to justify the need for action (burden of proof) usually falls on those advocating precautionary measures. There is no mention of attribution of liability for environmental damage. Strong versions justify or require precautionary measures, and some also establish liability for environmental damage, which is effectively a strong form of the polluter pays principle. For example, the Earth Charter states: “When knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach. Impose the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm and hold those responsible for environmental damage.

The refutation of the evidence requires persons proposing an activity to demonstrate that the product, process or technology is sufficiently “safe” before approval is granted. Proving “no environmental harm” before a measure is implemented implies that the public is unwilling to accept an environmental risk, regardless of the economic or social benefits that may result (Peterson, 2006). In extreme cases, such a requirement could include the prohibition of entire categories of potentially hazardous activities or substances (Cooney, 2005). Over time, the precautionary principle has gradually shifted from what appears in the Rio Declaration to a stronger form, which arguably acts as an obstacle to development in the absence of clear evidence that it will not cause harm. [25] Different interests represented by the different groups that proposed the principle led to great variability in its formulation: one study identified 14 different formulations of the principle in contracts and non-contractual statements. [19] R.B. Stewart (2002)[20] reduced the precautionary principle to four basic versions: History and legal framework of guarantees Where the occurrence of damage, even if it cannot be foreseen in the current state of scientific knowledge, may cause serious and irreversible damage to the environment, public authorities must, in compliance with the precautionary principle and the areas within their competence, require the implementation of risk assessment procedures and the adoption of interim measures proportionate to the risk in order to prevent the occurrence of such damage. [32] Body Shop International, a UK-based cosmetics company, has integrated the precautionary principle into its 2006 chemicals strategy. [42] The application of the precautionary principle is often criticized. After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011, people lost confidence in the safety of nuclear power plants and the authorities decided to close most Japanese facilities. This decision most likely avoided serious damage to the environment and public health.

However, critics have pointed to the negative trade-offs of this decision. Due to the closure of a major energy source, Japan had to meet the resulting energy needs by importing fossil fuels, resulting in higher energy prices and increased greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change. Multilateralism has provided the world with excellent tools and solutions for sustainable development, but today this system shows the need to integrate new perspectives in order to make urgent collective decisions. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted flaws in national and international systems that are a strong call for institutions to better respond to global challenges such as climate change and ecosystem degradation. Well-thought-out principles – such as the precautionary principle – are useful foundations for the future. If you decide to leave your home or office, you will take precautions, which is one of the expressions of the precautionary principle. To make this example less theoretical, this precaution also applied to decision-makers concerned about the potential impact of COVID-19 in early 2020. When news of the emergence of this new strain of coronavirus reached the authorities, there was not enough information about its impact. It would be fair to say that in January 2020, it was hard to imagine the global impact of the virus.

However, there was enough data on similar viruses to make the decisions governments would have to make. Some critics point to the Ministry of Defense`s rejection of the requirement in Article 57(2)(a)(ii) of Article 57(2)(ii) to take “all” feasible precautions. As mentioned above, this criticism is erroneous in that it suggests that the US legal obligation flows directly from PA I. However, the most profound error may be a misunderstanding of the function that the terms “all” and “feasible” serve in the duty of precaution. The term “all” – to the extent applicable under customary international law applicable to non-international armed conflicts – refers to precautions that meet the feasibility criterion described above. To the extent that critics take offense at the United States. As for their legal obligation to take precautions in the event of an attack, it seems that they should focus on the term “feasible” rather than “everything”. The Stockholm Conference was an important step in coordinating the efforts of States to protect the environment. It could be argued that it paved the way for the inclusion of many concepts that are now widely accepted in international environmental law.