AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Edited Legal Collections Data

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Edited Legal Collections Data >> 2010 >> [2010] ELECD 597

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

de Sadeleer, Nicolas --- "The Principles of Prevention and Precaution in International Law: Two Heads of the Same Coin?" [2010] ELECD 597; in Fitzmaurice, Malgosia; Ong, M. David; Merkouris, Panos (eds), "Research Handbook on International Environmental Law" (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010)

Book Title: Research Handbook on International Environmental Law

Editor(s): Fitzmaurice, Malgosia; Ong, M. David; Merkouris, Panos

Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing

ISBN (hard cover): 9781847201249

Section: Chapter 9

Section Title: The Principles of Prevention and Precaution in International Law: Two Heads of the Same Coin?

Author(s): de Sadeleer, Nicolas

Number of pages: 19

Extract:

9 The principles of prevention and precaution in
international law: two heads of the same coin?
Nicolas de Sadeleer



Introduction
Given that prevention and precaution appear in some ways intimately linked ­ two heads of
the same coin ­ the aim of this chapter is to explore some of the key issues arising in discus-
sion on the status of these two principles in international law.

The principle of prevention

1. Prevention in a nutshell
Curative measures may remediate environmental damage, but they come too late to avert it. In
contrast, preventive measures do not depend on the appearance of ecological problems; they
anticipate damage or, where it has already occurred, try to ensure it does not spread. In any
case, common sense dictates timely prevention of environmental damage to the greatest extent
possible, particularly when it is likely to be irreversible or too insidious or diffuse to be effec-
tively dealt with through civil liability or when reparation would be extremely expensive.
However, the outlines of the preventive principle are difficult to discern; it gives rise to so
many questions that any attempt at interpretation calls for constant clarification. We may, for
example, ask whether a preventive measure presupposes complete knowledge of the risk to
be reduced, if all forms of damage must be foreseen, if intervention should take place at the
level of the sources of damage or of their effects, and whether it is preferable to monitor the
progress of damage or to avert damage the moment it becomes ...


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ELECD/2010/597.html