Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: science and risk regulation in international law
- 2 Global risk governance and its legitimacy
- 3 Scientific rationality and risk in international law
- 4 Competing risk regulatory paradigms: sound science and the precautionary principle
- 5 Science and WTO regulation of SPS risk
- 6 Case studies of science and risk regulation in international law
- 7 Democratising global risk governance
- 8 What role for science in international risk regulation?
- Index
- CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW
- References
3 - Scientific rationality and risk in international law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: science and risk regulation in international law
- 2 Global risk governance and its legitimacy
- 3 Scientific rationality and risk in international law
- 4 Competing risk regulatory paradigms: sound science and the precautionary principle
- 5 Science and WTO regulation of SPS risk
- 6 Case studies of science and risk regulation in international law
- 7 Democratising global risk governance
- 8 What role for science in international risk regulation?
- Index
- CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW
- References
Summary
Introduction
In areas of international law concerned with issues of risk, rules and processes of global governance with significant behind-the-border impacts are of growing importance. The potential reach of global risk governance into the domestic regulatory sphere of sovereign states has made questions over legitimacy increasingly pertinent for the broader acceptance of international risk regulation. This is particularly so in the context of an emerging (world) ‘risk society’ that posits the control of risk as a central concern of modern government.
Drawing on analogies with national risk regulation, expertise in the form of scientific knowledge is often looked to as a means for strengthening the legitimacy claims of global decision-making processes dealing with highly technical and complex matters of health and environmental risk. Acceptance of science as a sound foundation for international risk regulation is underpinned by the perception that scientific knowledge offers an objective and universally applicable basis for rational decision-making, as well as the close association between notions of risk, and the scientific understanding of them, that has developed in contemporary times. Indeed, science and technology can be said to have provided the foundations of ‘a dynamic, homogenizing global culture’; one that now creates ‘continuously intense levels of interaction between and across territorial communities’.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Science and Risk Regulation in International Law , pp. 58 - 110Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
, Late Lessons from Early Warnings: the Precautionary Principle 1896–2000 (Luxembourg: European Union, 2001)Google Scholar
and , Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 10Google Scholar
and , ‘Living on the Border: Knowledge, Risk and Transdisciplinarity’, Futures, 36 (2004), 447–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment (Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar
, ‘Science Policy for Multilateral Environmental Governance’, in and (eds.), Emerging Forces in Environmental Governance (Tokyo: United Nations University, 2004), p. 116Google Scholar
, ‘The Politics of the Invisible College: International Governance and the Politics of Expertise’, European Human Rights Law Review, 5 (2001), 463, 472Google Scholar
, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), p. 250Google Scholar
, Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), p. 8Google Scholar
, Asking the Law Question: the Dissolution of Legal Theory (Sydney: Lawbook Co., 2002), p. 115Google Scholar
, ‘Introduction: the “Science Wars”’, in Keith M. Ashman and Philip S. Baringer (eds.), After the Science Wars (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 1, 4Google Scholar
, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, 2nd edn, (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1997), p. 17Google Scholar
, ‘Above, Beyond, and at the Center of the Science Wars’, in and (eds.), After the Science Wars (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 120Google Scholar
, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (University of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 267–8Google Scholar
, ‘The Dilemma of Environmental Democracy’, Issues in Science and Technology, 13(1) (1996), 64Google Scholar
, The Science Question in Feminism (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1986), p. 231Google Scholar
, ‘Science Associations in the International Sphere, 1875–1990: the Rationalisation of Science and the Scientisation of Society’, in and (eds.), Constructing World Culture: International Non-Governmental Organisations since 1875 (Stanford University Press, 1999), p. 264Google Scholar
, ‘International Organizations as Teachers of Norms: the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and Science Policy’, International Organization, 47(4) (1993), 565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Is Science Necessary?: Essays on Science and Scientists (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1989), p. viiGoogle Scholar
and (eds.), Robert Oppenheimer: Letters and Recollections (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), p. 317
, Making Science: Between Nature and Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 5Google Scholar
, ‘Challenging Expert Rule: The Politics of Global Governance’, Sydney Law Review, 27(1) (2005), 8–9Google Scholar
, ‘The Fate of Public International Law: Between Technique and Politics’, Modern Law Review, 70(1) (2007), 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd edn, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
et al., Science and Politics in International Environmental Regimes: Between Integrity and Involvement (Manchester University Press, 2000), p. 3Google Scholar
et al., Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational Action (London: Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2001), p. 9Google Scholar
and , International Law and the Environment, 2nd edn, (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 24–7Google Scholar
, and , ‘Evaluating the Influence of Global Environmental Assessments’, in et al (eds.), Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), p. 1Google Scholar
, Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating More Effective Global Agreements (New York: Oxford University Press, 2994), p. 63Google Scholar
, and , Global Environmental Politics, 3rd edn), (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000), pp. 18–19Google Scholar
, ‘Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, Climatic Change, 39 (1998), 614Google Scholar
, Saving the Mediterranean: the Politics of International Environmental Cooperation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990)Google Scholar
, ‘Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination’, International Organization, 46(1) (1992), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk (New York: John Wiley, 1996), pp. 2–6Google Scholar
, ‘Concepts of Risk: A Classification’, in and (eds.), Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992), p. 53Google Scholar
, Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Risk Assessment: Report of a Royal Society Study Group (London: Royal Society, 1983)Google Scholar
, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 3Google Scholar
and (eds.), Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1996)
and , ‘A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-Based, and Discourse-Based Strategies’, Risk Analysis, 22(6) (2002), 1078–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, Risks and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Management (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Psychology and Public Policy: Tool or Toolmaker?’, American Psychologist, 45(5) (1990), 647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Risk Communication: Facing Public Outrage’, Management Communication Quarterly, 2(2) (1988), 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993)Google Scholar
, Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues (University of Chicago Press, 1996)Google Scholar
, Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Accounting for Risk in Multilateral Negotiations’, in and (eds.), Globalization and the Environment: Risk Assessment and the WTO (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2001), p. 126Google Scholar
and , ‘Trade and Risk Management: Exploring the Issues’, in David Robertson and Aynsley Kellow (eds.), Globalization and the Environment: Risk Assessment and the WTO (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2001), p. 229Google Scholar
, ‘The Big Chill: The WTO and Multilateral Environmental Agreements’, Global Environmental Politics, 4(2) (2004), 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990)Google Scholar
, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn, (University of Chicago Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘What Judges Should Know About the Sociology of Science’, Judicature, 77(2) (1993), 77Google Scholar
and (eds.), After the Science Wars (London: Routledge, 2000)
, ‘Philosophy and Scientific Realism’, in et al. (eds.), Critical Realism: Essential Readings (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 16Google Scholar
et al., The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (London: Sage, 1994)Google Scholar
, and , Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001)Google Scholar
(ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 2CrossRef
, ‘Climate Science and the Making of a Global Political Order’, in (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 65Google Scholar
, ‘Inconsistent Values in Risk Management’, in and (eds.), Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992), p. 346Google Scholar
, ‘Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventative Paradigm’, Global Environmental Change, 2(2) (1992), 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Science and Social Responsibility’, in and (eds.), Risk: Analysis, Assessment and Management (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1992), p. 141Google Scholar
and , ‘Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-Normal Science’, in and (eds.), Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992), p. 253Google Scholar
, ‘Risk and Social Learning: Reification to Engagement’, in and (eds.), Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992), p. 275Google Scholar
and , ‘How Biotechnology Regulation Sets a Risk/Ethics Boundary’, Agriculture and Human Values, 14 (1997), 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Cultural Theory and Risk Analysis’, in and (eds.), Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1992), p. 87Google Scholar
and , ‘Cultural Evaluations of Risk: “Values” or “Blunders”’, Harvard Law Review Forum, 119 (2006), 171Google Scholar
and , Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making (London: Frances Pinter, 1986), p. ixGoogle Scholar
, Ecological Sensitivity and Global Legal Pluralism: Rethinking the Trade and Environment Conflict (Portland: Hart Publishing, 2004), p. 120Google Scholar
, ‘Governing Trade in Genetically Modified Organisms: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety’, Environment, 42(4) (2000), 26Google Scholar