The precautionary principle is often underemphasized in discussions of international environmental law, but this principle is important as it shifts the burden of proof to those “proposing” the harmful activities. This shift represents a fundamental departure from traditional legal approaches that require affected parties to demonstrate harm after it has occurred. Instead, the precautionary principle prioritises foresight and responsibility, requiring states and private actors to justify potentially harmful conduct before irreversible damage is done. It is significant because it promotes preventive action before harm occurs, serving as a valuable risk-management tool against future pandemics and environmental crises. In a global context characterised by scientific complexity and long-term environmental risks, such preventive logic is essential for effective governance.

It is also viewed through a governmentality lens, as a way states manage uncertainty. From this perspective, the precautionary principle operates not only as a legal rule but also as a governance technique through which states regulate future risks and populations. However, critics argue that its reliance on the broad notion of “uncertainty” allows governments to justify far-reaching actions during crises without waiting for clear evidence, raising concerns about overreach. The one clear example would be the measures taken by the Chinese government during Covid. These measures illustrate how precautionary reasoning can be mobilised to legitimise extensive state intervention, thereby blurring the line between legitimate prevention and excessive control. This tension highlights the challenge of ensuring that precaution is applied proportionately rather than opportunistically.

Notwithstanding such critiques, the precautionary principle has gained considerable recognition within international environmental law. The precautionary principle has been “declared a general principle to guide the development of international environmental law.” This characterisation underscores its normative importance and its role in shaping the evolution of environmental governance at the international level. The principle was incorporated into the 1992 Rio Declaration as Principle 15, which states that the “lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental........

© Courting The Law