The in dubio pro natura principle in the light of scientific evidence:state responsibility
El principio in dubio pro natura a la luz de la evidencia científica: la responsabilidad del Estado
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS
Every papper included in the magazine can be reproduced whole or in part, provided that respect for its original content, the source is acknowledged and is used with non-commercial academic. Legal mission and its content is protected under a license Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-
Misión Jurídica is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivar 4.0 International License.
Based on a work in http://unicolmayor.edu.co/publicaciones/index.php/mjuridica/index.
Permits that go beyond what is covered by this license can be found at http://unicolmayor.edu.co/publicaciones/index.php/mjuridica/index.
The In Dubio Pro Natura has evolved as a separate principle from the precaution principle under environmental law. This article aims to analyse both the In Dubio Pro Natura principle and the precaution principle in the light of scientific evidence and state responsibility. The precaution principle applies as a general rule in cases in which there are potential risks of serious environmental damage irrespective of the existence of scientific certainty over the said risks. On the other hand, the In Dubio Pro Natura principle offers a higher degree of protection to the environment and their interests than the obligation to act with precaution since it is the basis for preferring the interpretation of norms that grants the highest degree of protection to the environment. The author of this article, argues that in scenarios in which state authorities have a higher degree of responsibility over the handling of a situation and could control the adverse effects of a threat to the environment, public health or sustainability, for instance in extractivist projects, the use of the In Dubio Pro Natura principle should be preferred. Conversely, this article examines the global fight against climate change and the setting of global goals in one hand and the potential risks new technologies may have over biodiversity on the other as two examples where the In Dubio Pro Natura principle cannot be applied. In the first case, there is scientific consensus over the urgency to address climate change. However, in spite of global commitments, the individual state responsibility and control over this course of action is weak. In the second scenario, the author refers to the regulation to the use of new technologies where national authorities exercise a higher degree of control in cases where there is not enough certainty over the risks posed to the environment or public health. In these cases, the precaution principle is preferred.
Article visits 16 | PDF visits 9
Downloads
- AVEN, T. (2013), The concepts of risk and probability: An editorial”, Health, Risk & Society vol. 15 no. 2, 117–122.
- BALDIN, S. et. al (2022), The In Dubio Pro Natura Principle: an attempt of a comprehensive legal reconstruction, Revista General de Derecho Público Comparado 32/2022, pp. 168-199.
- BALMORI, A. (2021), Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects, Sci Total Environ 2021;767: 144913, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144913>
- BROWN, P. (2020), Studying COVID-19 in light of critical approaches to risk and uncertainty: research pathways, conceptual tools, and some magic from Mary Douglas, Health, Risk & Society vol. 22, 1-14.
- BRYNER, N. (2015), Aplicación del principio In Dubio Pro Natura para el cumplimiento de la legislación ambiental, Congreso Interamericano de Derecho Ambiental, Washington, Organization of American States' General Secretary
- BURGESS, A. (2004), Cellular phones, public fears, and culture of precaution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Communication from the European Commission on the precautionary principle (COM(2000) 1 final, 02 February, 2000.
- COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2020), Council conclusions on shaping Europe’s digital future. Brussels; <https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/44389/st08711-en20.pdf>.
- COINTE, B. et al (2023), A history of the 1.5°C target. WIREs Climate Change, 14(3), e824. <https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.824>
- DOUGLAS, M. (2001), “Dealing with uncertainty”, Ethical perspectives (vol. 8 no. 3), 145-155
- EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2013), Late lessons from early warnings II: science, precaution and innovation report 1/2013.
- GANDHI, OP. (2019), Microwave emissions from cell phones exceed safety limits in Europe and the US when touching the body, IEEE Access 2019.
- Human Rights Committee, no. 2728/2016, October 24, 2019.
- Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (2019), Businesses and Human Rights: Inter-American Standards” report, adopted by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, November 01, 2019.
- IEGMP, (2000), Mobile Phones and Health. Chilton, UK: Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, National Radiological Protection Board
- JANSEN, T. et al. (2017), Breaking Down Uncertain Risks for Risk Communication: A Conceptual Review of the Environmental Health Literature, Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy vol. 9, Wiley Periodicals, 4-38
- LAW, A. and MCNEISH, W. (2007), Contesting the new irrational actor model: a case study of mobile phone mast protest. Sociology, 41 (3), 439-456.
- LEVITT, BB, LAI, HC, MANVILLE, AM. (2021), Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment, Rev Environ Health 2021;37:81–122. <https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0050>.
- KORTHALS, M. (2011), “Ethics of environmental health”, The SAGE handbook of health care ethics: Core and emerging issues, 2011, 413-426
- MORAGA, P. (2015), Análisis de la aplicación principio precautorio en el marco jurídico chileno, Moraga, Pilar et al., El principio precautorio en el derecho comparado, Santiago de Chile, LOM, 2015.
- NYBERG, N., MCCREDDEN, J., WELLER, S. & HARDELL, L. (2022), The European Union prioritises economics over health in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies, Reviews on Environmental Health, <https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2022-0106>
- OECD (2023), Understanding and Applying the Precautionary Principle in the Energy Transition, OECD Publishing, Paris, <https://doi.org/10.1787/5b14362c-en>
- ORESKES, N. (2005), “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”, in Science (New York, N.Y, vol. 306), 1686.
- Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, December 12, 2015.
- ROBINSON, N. (2014), Fundamental Principles of Law for the Anthropocene? in Environmental. Policy & Law, 44, 2014.
- Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 14 June 1992.
- RUGGIE, J. (2008), Protect, Respect & Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights”, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization vol. 3, issue 2, 189-212.
- Tătar vs. Romania, European Court of Human Rights, no. 67021/01, January 27, 2009.
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 09 May 1992.
- VAN BEEK, L., ET AL (2022). Navigating the political: An analysis of political calibration of integrated assessment modelling in light of the 1.5C goal. Environmental Science and Policy, 133, 193–202 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci. 2022.03.024>.
- WATSON, RT et al. (2001), Global Climate Change- the latest assessment: Does global warming warrant a health warning? in Global Change and Human Health, Volume 2, No. 1, 2001
- WIEDEMANN, P. and SCHÜTZ, H. (2005), The Precautionary Principle and Risk Perception: Experimental Studies in the EMF Area, Environmental Health Perspectives 113:4 CID, <https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7538>
- WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (2020), WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 13 April 2020, World Health Organization, 13 April, 2020 <https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19--13-april-2020 >, accessed 30 August, 2023.
Misión Jurídica is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 International License. </ A >
ISSN 1794-600X - Print version
