IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i11p2026-2034.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Precautionary Principle Really Incoherent?

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Boyer‐Kassem

Abstract

The Precautionary Principle has been an increasingly important principle in international treaties since the 1980s. Through varying formulations, it states that when an activity can lead to a catastrophe for human health or the environment, measures should be taken to prevent it even if the cause‐and‐effect relationship is not fully established scientifically. The Precautionary Principle has been critically discussed from many sides. This article concentrates on a theoretical argument by Peterson (2006) according to which the Precautionary Principle is incoherent with other desiderata of rational decision making, and thus cannot be used as a decision rule that selects an action among several ones. I claim here that Peterson's argument fails to establish the incoherence of the Precautionary Principle, by attacking three of its premises. I argue (i) that Peterson's treatment of uncertainties lacks generality, (ii) that his Archimedian condition is problematic for incommensurability reasons, and (iii) that his explication of the Precautionary Principle is not adequate. This leads me to conjecture that the Precautionary Principle can be envisaged as a coherent decision rule, again.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Boyer‐Kassem, 2017. "Is the Precautionary Principle Really Incoherent?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2026-2034, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:11:p:2026-2034
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12774
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12774?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Per Sandin & Martin Peterson & Sven Ove Hansson & Christina Rudén & André Juthe, 2002. "Five charges against the precautionary principle," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 287-299, October.
    2. Jeryl Mumpower, 1986. "An Analysis of the de minimis Strategy for Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 437-446, December.
    3. Søren Holm & John Harris, 1999. "Precautionary principle stifles discovery," Nature, Nature, vol. 400(6743), pages 398-398, July.
    4. Martin Peterson, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 595-601, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Terje Aven, 2019. "Comments to Orri Stefánsson's Paper on the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1223-1224, June.
    2. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    3. H. Orri Stefánsson, 2019. "On the Limits of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1204-1222, June.
    4. Martin Peterson, 2017. "Yes, The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2035-2038, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oliver Todt & José Luis Luján, 2014. "Analyzing Precautionary Regulation: Do Precaution, Science, and Innovation Go Together?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(12), pages 2163-2173, December.
    2. Mikael Karlsson, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle, Swedish Chemicals Policy and Sustainable Development," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 337-360, June.
    3. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    4. H. Orri Stefánsson, 2019. "On the Limits of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1204-1222, June.
    5. Tim Lewens, 2010. "The risks of progress: precaution and the case of human enhancement," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 207-216, March.
    6. Alan Patterson & Craig McLean, 2018. "The regulation of risk: the case of fracking in the UK and the Netherlands," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 45-52.
    7. Lara Buchak, 2023. "Philosophical foundations for worst-case arguments," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 22(3), pages 215-242, August.
    8. Daniel Ammann & Angelika Hilbeck & Beatrice Lanzrein & Philipp Hübner & Bernadette Oehen, 2007. "Procedure for the Implementation of the Precautionary Principle in Biosafety Commissions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 487-501, June.
    9. Aldred, Jonathan, 2013. "Justifying precautionary policies: Incommensurability and uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 132-140.
    10. Yan Cai & Eunmi Kim, 2019. "Sustainable Development in World Trade Law: Application of the Precautionary Principle in Korea-Radionuclides," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, April.
    11. Louis H.J. Goossens, 1991. "Risk Prevention and Policy‐Making in Automatic Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 217-228, June.
    12. Terje Aven, 2019. "Comments to Orri Stefánsson's Paper on the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1223-1224, June.
    13. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Different Types of Uncertainties in the Context of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1515-1525, October.
    14. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.
    15. John Paterson, 2007. "Sustainable development, sustainable decisions and the precautionary principle," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 42(3), pages 515-528, September.
    16. Henckens, M.L.C.M. & Ryngaert, C.M.J. & Driessen, P.P.J. & Worrell, E., 2018. "Normative principles and the sustainable use of geologically scarce mineral resources," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 351-359.
    17. Irene Lorenzoni & Nick F. Pidgeon & Robert E. O'Connor, 2005. "Dangerous Climate Change: The Role for Risk Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1387-1398, December.
    18. Björn Lundgren & H. Orri Stefánsson, 2020. "Against the De Minimis Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 908-914, May.
    19. Hausken, Kjell, 2021. "The precautionary principle as multi-period games where players have different thresholds for acceptable uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    20. Aven, Terje, 2019. "The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:11:p:2026-2034. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.