Trade  

and  Environment

SESSION  2
 The  status  of  trade  law  relating  to
process  and  production  methods  and
extraterritorial  measures

• the application of trade law to measures that address how a product is made—process
and production methods (PPMs); and
• the application of trade law to measures aimed at conduct or activities outside the
territory of the state taking the measure—or extraterritoriality (ET).

1
 Pre-­‐1994
Tuna-­‐Dolphin  I

• National Treatment
• Article III:4 therefore obliges the United States to accord treatment to Mexican tuna no
less favourable than that accorded to United States tuna, whether or not the incidental
taking of dolphins by Mexican vessels corresponds to that of the United States vessels.

2
 Pre-­‐ 1994
Tuna-­‐Dolphin  II  (ET)
• measures taken so as to force other countries to change their policies, and that were
effective only if such changes occurred, could not be primarily aimed either at the
conservation of an exhaustible natural resource, or at rendering effective restrictions on
domestic production or consumption, in the meaning of Article XX(g).

• The issue was whether, in the pursuit of its environmental objectives, the United States
could impose trade embargos to secure changes in the policies which their contracting
parties pursued within their own jurisdiction. The Panel, therefore, had to resolve
whether the contracting parties, by agreeing to give each other in Article XX the right to
take trade measures necessary to protect the health and life of plants, animals and
persons or aimed at the conservation of exhaustible natural resources, had agreed to
accord each other the right to impose trade embargos for such purposes. The Panel had
examined this issue in the light of the recognized methods of interpretation and had
found that none of them lent any support to the view that such an agreement was3
reflected in Article XX.
 Post-­‐ 1995
• Panel: Shrimp-­‐Turtle
• measures aimed at compelling another party to change its policies to be consistent with the
enacting member’s policies are (1) a threat to the multilateral trading system as a whole, and (2)
against the object and purpose of the WTO Agreements and (3) therefore outside the scope of
Article XX in toto.
• AB:
• Maintaining, rather than undermining, the multilateral trading system is necessarily a fundamental
and pervasive premise underlying the WTO Agreement; but it is not a right or an obligation, nor is it
an interpretative rule which can be employed in the appraisal of a given measure under the
chapeau of Article XX.
• It appears to us however, that conditioning access to a Member’s domestic market on whether
exporting Members comply with or adopt a policy or policies unilaterally prescribed by the
importing Member may, to some degree, be a common aspect of measures falling within the scope
of one or another of the exceptions (a) to (j) of Article XX.… It is not necessary to assume that
requiring from exporting countries compliance with, or adoption of, certain policies (although
covered in principle by one or another of the exceptions) prescribed by the importing country,
renders a measure a priori incapable of justification under Article XX. Such an interpretation renders 4

most, if not all, of the specific exceptions of Article XX inutile, a result abhorrent to the principles of
interpretation we are bound to apply.
 Post-­‐ 1995
Shrimp-­‐Turtle
sufficient  nexus  test
• Environmental  motivation  for  a  measure
• competitiveness  motivation  linked  to  preventing  a  race  to  the  bottom  scenario
• Discrimination

• at “a balance must be struck between the right of a Member to invoke an

exception under Article XX and the duty of that same Member to respect
the treaty rights of the other members”
• The test require that states imposing such a measure seek “serious, across
the board negotiations with the objective of concluding bilateral or
multilateral agreements for the protection and conservation of sea turtles,
before enforcing the import prohibition against the shrimp exports of
those other Members.” 5
 WTO  obligations  and
multilateral  environmental  agreements

Shrimp-­‐Turtle  decisions:
for  Members  to  seek  to  negotiate  MEAs  in  good  faith  prior  to  enacting  
measures  with  extraterritorial  effect.
The  dispute  settlement  body:  must  give  appreciable  legal  weight  to  these  
MEAs.
What  happens  when  there  is  an  MEA  that  is  relevant  either  because  it  compels the  
measure  being  challenged  to  be  taken  or  because  it  enables  or  promotes  such  a  
measure?  
What  happens  if  general  principles  of  international  environmental  law  have  relevance  to  
a  WTO  right  or  obligation:  can  these  sources  then  be  referenced  for  understanding  the  
6
proper  interpretation  and  application  of  trade  law?  
Trade-­‐related  environmental  measures  in  MEAs
• discouraging  unsustainable  exploitation  of  natural  resources;
• discouraging  environmentally  harmful  production  processes;
• creating  market  opportunities  and  incentives  to  use  or  dispose  of  a  good  in  an  
environmentally  sound  manner;
• preventing  or  limiting  the  entry  of  a  harmful  substance  into  a  country;
• inducing  producers  to  internalize  the  costs  to  the  environment  caused  by  their  products  
or  production  processes;
• preventing  non-­‐Parties  from  exploiting  lower  environmental  standards  to  gain  unfair  
competitive  advantages;
• discouraging  the  migration  of  industries  to  countries  with  lower  environmental  
standards;
• reducing  the  incentives  for  countries  to  remain  outside  the  agreement  and  become  “free  
riders”  who  can  benefit  competitively  from  the  absence  of  MEA  standards;
• controlling  trade,  where  trade  provides  market  incentives  that  threaten  the  environment;
7

• enhancing  compliance  with  MEA  rules.

 Environment  related  trade  cases
Pre  94
• 1987  Superfund  case
GATT  and  Polluter  pays  principle
The  Panel  then  went  on  to  a  conventional  statement  of  the  view  that  its  mandate  was  to  
examine  the  case in  the  light  of  the  GATT  provisions.
Post  94
• Reformulated  Gasoline  case
AB  states  that  the  inclusion  of  a  specific  reference  in  the  new  Understanding  on  Dispute  
Settlement  coming  from  the  Uruguay  Round  “reflects  a  measure  of  recognition  that  the  
General  Agreement  is  not  to  be  interpreted  in  clinical  isolation  from  public  international  
law.”
• Beef  Hormones  case
precautionary  principle  was  reflective  of  customary  international  law,  or  at  least  was  a  
general  principle  of  law.
8
AB  then  suggested  it  was  unnecessary  to  reach  a  conclusion  on  it  for  the  purposes  of  the  
dispute.
 Shrimp-­‐Turtle  decision
• exhaustible  natural  resources  in  Article  XX(g)  : evolutionary,  not  static
the  AB  considers  the  content  of  the
1982  United  NationsConvention on  the  Law  of  the  Sea,  
the  1992  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity,
Agenda  21  from  the  1992  Rio  UNCED  Conference,
the  Convention  on  the  Conservation  of  Migratory  Species  of  Wild  Animals  
and  the  Convention  on  International  Trade  in  Endangered  Species.

• AB  on  party  /non  party  all  the  parties  to  the  dispute,  let  alone  the  WTO,  are  signatories  or  parties  to  all  the  
outside  agreements  they  cite.
They  cite  the  1992  Rio  Declaration  on  Environment  and  Development  as  part  of  the
legal  and  policy  developments  that  lead  to  the  integration  of  the  concept  of  sustainable
development  into  the  fabric  of  the  WTO.
All  of  the  above  gets  factored  into  crafting  the  balance  that  the  AB  seeks  between  the
right  to  enact  measures  for  the  protection  of  the  environment  and  the  duty  to  meet
one’s  obligations  under  the  WTO  Agreements.   9
• They  state,  “Having  said  this,  our  task  here  is  to  interpret  the  language  of  the  chapeau,  
seeking  additional  interpretive  guidance,  as  appropriate,  from  the  general  principles  of  
international  law.”
• The  AB  also  refers  to  Principle  12  of  the  1992  Rio  Declaration  and  to  the  concluded  MEAs  
already  listed  above  to  support  its  view  that  measures  to  address  common  environmental  
problems  should  be,  as  far  as  possible,  based  on  international  consensus  as  opposed  to  
unilateral  action.  Hence,  the  AB  uses  these  sources  of  law  not  just  to  address  the  
environmental  issues  but  also  the  development  and  trade  issues.
• The  AB  uses  the  regional  MEA  concluded  by  the  United  States  with  Brazil,  Costa  Rica,  
Mexico,  Nicaragua  and  Venezuela  on  the  protection  of  turtles  during  shrimp  harvesting  to  
help  in  its  analysis of  whether  alternative,  non-­‐unilateral  measures  were  available  to  the  
U.S.,  and  whether  such  alternatives  might  be  less  discriminatory  or  trade  restrictive.
• It  does  so  even  though  it  notes,  once  again,  that  not  all  the  parties  to  the  dispute  are  
signatories  to  that  Convention  and  it  had  not  yet  even  been  ratified by  any  of  the  
signatories.
10
 Precautionary  principle  
and  the  role  of  science  under  International  law  
and  the  WTO
• International  law
• precise  content,  and  existing  variations  in  its  formulation
• Elements
• Status
• WTO
• Do  the  WTO  Agreements  reject  any  application  of  the  precautionary  principle?
• Do  the  WTO  Agreements  allow  a  role  for  the  PP  in  the  interpretation  of  their  rights  and  
obligations?  
• How  might  this  be  reflected,  if  it  is?  
• How  is  precaution  and  the  role  of  science  balanced,  if  it  is?
11
 Precautionary  principle  
Elements

• 1992  Rio  Declaration  on  Environment  and  Development

• In  order  to  protect  the  environment,  the  precautionary  approach  shall  be  widely  applied  by  states  according  to  
their  capabilities.  Where  there  are  threats  of  serious  or  irreversible  damage,  lack  of  full  scientific  certainty  shall  
not  be  used  as  a  reason  for  postponing  cost-­‐effective  measures  to  prevent  environmental  degradation.

 ‫ ﺩدﺭر‬  .‫ ﻧﻤﺎﯾﻨﺪ‬  ‫ ﺭرﺍاﺍاﻋﻤﺎﻝل‬  ‫ ﻭوﺳـﻴﯿﻌﯽ‬  ‫ ﺍاﺣﺘﻴﯿـﺎﻁطﯽ‬  ‫ ﺗـﺪﺍاﺑﻴﯿﺮ‬  ‫ ﺧـﻮﺩد‬  ‫ ﺍاﻣﮑﺎﻧﺎﺕت‬  ‫ ﺑﺎ‬  ‫ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ‬  ‫ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ‬  ‫ ﺩدﻭوﻟﺘﻬﮭﮫﺎ‬  ،٬‫ ﺯزﯾﺴﺖ‬  ‫ ﻣﺤﻴﯿﻂ‬  ‫ ﺍاﺯز‬  ‫ ﺣﻔﺎﻅظﺖ‬  ‫ﺑﺮﺍاﯼی‬ •
 ‫ ﺩدﺭر‬  ‫ ﺗﺄﺧﻴﯿﺮ‬  ‫ ﺑﺮﺍاﯼی‬  ‫ ﺑﻬﮭﮫﺎﻧﻪ ﺍاﯼی‬  ‫ ﻧﺒﺎﯾﺪ‬  ‫ ﻋﻠﻤـﯽ‬  ‫ ﻗﻄﻌـﯽ‬  ‫ ﺩدﻻﯾﻞ‬  ‫ ﻭوﺟﻮﺩد‬  ‫ ﻋﺪﻡم‬  ،٬‫ ﺟﺒﺮﺍاﻥن‬  ‫ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ‬  ‫ ﻏﻴﯿﺮ‬  ‫ ﯾﺎ‬  ‫ ﺷﺪﯾﺪ‬  ‫ ﺻﺪﻣﺎﺕت‬  ‫ ﻭوﺭرﻭوﺩد‬  ‫ ﺧﻄﺮ‬  ‫ﺻﻮﺭرﺕت‬
.‫ ﺷـﻮﺩد‬ ‫ ﺯزﯾﺴـﺖ‬ ‫ ﻣﺤـﻴﯿﻂ‬ ‫ ﺑـﻪ‬ ‫ ﺻـﺪﻣﻪ‬ ‫ ﻭوﺭرﻭوﺩد‬ ‫ ﺍاﺯز‬ ‫ ﭘﻴﯿﺸـﮕﻴﯿﺮﯼی‬ ‫ ﺑـﺮﺍاﯼی‬ ‫ ﻣـﺆﺛّﺮ‬ ‫ ﺗﺪﺍاﺑﻴﯿﺮ‬ ‫ﺍاﺗّﺨﺎﺫذ‬

• threats  of serious  or  irreversible damage,

• lack  of  full  scientific  certainty
• shall  not  be  used  as  a  reason  for  postponing cost-­‐effective measures

12
 Threshold  of  ‘Significant’  Harm

• Council  Recommendation  C(90)164  on  Integrated  Pollution  Prevention  and  Control;

“the  absence  of  complete  information  should  not  preclude  precautionary  action  to  mitigate  
the  risk  of  significant harm  to  the  environment.”
1992  Convention  on  the  Protection  and  Use  of  Transboundary  Watercourses  and  
International  Lakes
avoidance  of  emissions  that  may  have  a  “significant  adverse  effect  on  the  environment  [..]  
within  an  area  under  the  jurisdiction  of  another  Party.”

• 1992  Biodiversity  Convention

“where  there  is  a  threat  of  significant reduction  or  loss  of  biological  diversity.”

• ILA  Declaration  on  Sustainable  Development,  paragraph  4.1.

avoiding  “human  activity  which  may  cause  significant harm  to  human  health,  natural  
resources  or  ecosystems.”
13
 Threshold  of  ‘Significant’  Harm

• 1994  ILC  Draft  Articles  on  the  Law  of  the  Non-­‐Navigational  Uses  of  International  
Watercourses:  (art  3  para  14  &15):
• The    expression      "to      a    significant    extent"      is    intended    to    require    that    the    effect    is    one    that    can    be    
established    by    objective    evidence    (provided    the    evidence    can  be    secured).    There    must    moreover    be    
a    real    impairment  of    use.    
• At    the    same    time,    the    term    "significant"      is    not  used      in    the      sense      of      "substantial".      What      are    to      
be  avoided      are    localized    agreements,    or    agreements      concerning    a    particular    project,    programme or    
use,    which  have    a    significant    adverse    effect    upon    third    watercourse  States.  While    such    an    effect    
must  be  capable    of  being  established    by    objective    evidence    and    not    be    trivial    in    nature,    it  need    not  
rise  to  the  level    of    being    substantial.
• “appreciable”  and  “tangible”,  as  opposed  to  “trivial”
• It  need  not,  however,  amount  to  the  level  of  being  “substantial

• 2001  Draft  Articles  on  Harm  Prevention  (art  2  (a)  para.  4)
• It  is  to  be  understood  that  ‘significant’  is  something  more  than  ‘detectable’  but  need  not  be  at  the  level  of  
‘serious’  or  ‘substantial’. The  harm  must  lead  to  a  real  detrimental  effect  on  matters  such  as,  for  example,  
human  health,  industry,  property,  environment  or  agriculture  in  other  States.  Such  detrimental  effects   14
must  be  susceptible  of  being  measured  by  factual  and  objective  standards.
 Serious  and/or  irreversible
• serious,  long-­‐lasting  and  irreversible  character  of  much  damage  to  the  environment
• This  recognition  is  reflected  in  formulations  requiring  precautionary  action  only  or  particularly  when  
serious  or  irreparable  harm  is  feared.
• 2001 Albatross Agreement: “threats of serious or irreversible adverse impacts or damage.”
• 1997 Gabcikovo-­‐Nagymaros case: “irreparable and enormous.”
• Southern Bluefin Tuna cases:
• Australia and New Zealand: “serious or irreversible damage to the environment”
• Tribunal: “act with prudence and caution to ensure that effective conservation measures are taken
to prevent serious harm to the stock of southern bluefin tuna.”
• 2003 Land Reclamation case : Singapore “Serious or irreversible damage”
• Canadian Environmental Protection Act(CEPA), “Situations where there is no threat of serious or
irreversible harm to human health, safety, the environment or resource conservation should not be
considered to be related to the precautionary approach.”
15
 Precautionary  Principle

• ‘Serious’  or  substantial  Harm

• An apparent indicator of seriousness, widespread harm is more likely to qualify as serious than locally restricted
• Irreversible Harm
• the potential irreversibility (or, synonymously, irreparability) of environmental impacts
• once an ecosystem is damaged “recovery to the original state may take decades or centuries and may
sometimes be impossible.”
• The International Law Commission has likewise acknowledged that “compensation in case of harm often
cannot restore the situation prevailing prior to the event or accident.” Whereas ‘serious’ is atypical direct
indicator on the scale of gravity, it is evident that ‘irreversible’, like ‘long-­‐term’, is in the first place associated
with the scale of time.
• Morris: “all change (and hence all damage) is irreversible in the strict sense that the precise structure of the
world that pertained before cannot once again come into being. (This is a consequence of the second law of
thermodynamics, wherein it is observed that the state of disorder (or entropy) of the universe is constantly
increasing. Attempting to reverse some ‘damage’ will result in other changes occurring to the state of the world.
Thus in recycling paper, energy and other resources are consumed and the fibres in the paper foreshortened,
with the result that although what results may look very similar to the paper that existed previously, it will not
be exactly alike and there will be fewer of whatever resources were consumed in its making.) This ultimately
16
negates the utility of including ‘irreversible’ as a criterion as distinct from ‘serious’”
 Combining  the  thresholds

• nothing  can  be  proven  absolutely  irreversible.

• vanishing of an entire island below the waters of the ocean
• Vanuatu “The proof, we fear, will kill us.”
• irreversible harm is the extinction of species of flora and fauna. The slogan “Extinction is forever!”

• No duty to take precautionary action unless potential environmental harm is of a serious or

irreversible nature.
• in situations where the adverse effects of a given activity on the environment are feared to be
significant but not serious or irreversible, the precautionary principle would be applicable,
• species extinctions
• excessive harvesting of wild plants
17
 combining  the  thresholds
and  legal  effects
inapplicable applicable

right Duty

minor  
Tangible substantial’
Trivial
Appreciable ‘serious
insignificant
measurable Or  irreversible

18
 Combining  the  thresholds
• 1991 Action Plan for the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Mediterranean Sea:
Many important aspects of cetacean biology, behaviour, range and habitats in the Mediterranean are poorly
known, but the actual degradation of the population is such that action can no longer be postponed, in line
with the precautionary principle [..].154

• Bamako Convention precaution means,

“preventing the release into the environment of substances which may cause harm to humans or the
environment without waiting for scientific proof regarding such harm.”

• The OSPAR Convention

prescribes recourse to the precautionary principle when there is “no conclusive evidence of a
causal relationship between inputs and the effects.”
• 1995 Straddling Stocks Agreement
“States shall be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate.”

19
• Alpharma Inc. v Council of the European Union, (ECJ)
“scientific uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks.”
 thresholds  of  uncertainty

gravity probability

Quantifiable  risk “known” “known”

uncertainty “known” unknown

ignorance unknown unknown

20
“lack  of  full  scientific  certainty  shall  not  be  used  as  a  
reason for  postponing”
• the precautionary principle demands action in spite of uncertainty, not because of it.
• 1992 Baltic Sea Convention
the precautionary principle has been specified to require preventive action when there is reason to assume
that emissions of substances or energy into the marine environment may be harmful, “even when there is no
conclusive evidence of a causal relationship between inputs and their alleged effects.”
• Same formulation
2002 ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution
The 1992 OSPAR Convention,
the 1996 LDC Protocol,
the 1997 Trilateral Wadden Sea Plan,
the European Commission’s Communication COM (2000)1,

“where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage from transboundary haze pollution, even without
full scientific certainty, precautionary measures shall be taken by Parties concerned.”
• The environmental law of Mozambique 21

the precautionary principle calls for the avoidance of significant or irreversible adverse environmental impacts
“independently from the existence of scientific certainty about the occurrence of such impacts.”
 Uncertainty  
• “There  is  a  threat  of  rain”
(1)  it  is  not  raining  yet;  
(2)  it  is  not  certain  that  it  will  rain  either;  but  
(3)  there  is  some  sign  that  rain  is  not  unlikely.

• PARCOM  Recommendation  89/1  on  the  Principle  of  Precautionary  Action;  HELCOM  
Recommendation  12/3,  first  operative  paragraph.  Paragraph  XVI  of  the  Second  North  Sea  
Declaration
precautionary  action  to  safeguard  the  marine  ecosystem  must  be  taken  particularly  “when  there  is  reason  to  assume  that  
certain  damage  or  harmful  effects  on  the  living  resources  of  the  sea  are  likely to  be  caused”  by  discharged  substances.

• OSPAR  Convention    and    Baltic  Sea  Convention  of  1992  

“when  there  are  reasonable  grounds  for  concern”  and  “when  there  is  reason  to  assume”  that  discharges  “may”  bring  about  
hazards.

• London  Dumping  Convention  

requiring  action  when  there  is  “reason  to  believe”  that  wastes  or  other  matter  dumped  into  the  ocean  are  “likely”  to  be  
harmful.

• Lastly,  the  three  coastal  states  of  the  Wadden Sea  

22
avoiding  activities  “which  are  assumed  to  have significant  damaging  impact  on  the  environment.”
 Uncertainty  

• Communication  COM(2000)1,
• “where  there  are  indications that  the  possible  effects  on  the  environment  [..]  may  be  potentially  dangerous  and  
inconsistent  with  the  chosen  level  of  protection,  ”as  well  as  “when  there  are  reasonable  grounds  for  concern  
that  potential  hazards  may  affect  the  environment.”
• Council  Resolution  on  the  Precautionary  Principle  2000
• Considers  that  use  should  be  made  of  the  precautionary  principle  where  the  possibility  of  harmful  effects  on  
health  or  the  environment  has  been  identified  and  preliminary  scientific  evaluation,  based  on  the  available  
data,  proves  inconclusive  for  assessing  the  level  of  risk.

23
 ITLOS  case  law

• Southern  Bluefin  Tuna  Order  of  1999

(Order  of  27  August  1999  in  the  Southern  Bluefin  Tuna  Cases  (Requests  for  Provisional  Measures)(New  Zealand  v  
Japan;  Australia  v  Japan).paragraphs  71,  74,  77,  79,  80  and  85.)
• After  contemplating  the  acceptance  by  all  parties  to  the  dispute  of  the  fact  that  the  depleted  state  of  the  
southern  blue  fin  tuna  stock  was  a  “cause  for  serious  biological  concern”.
• Australia  and  New  Zealand  : the  scientific  evidence  available showed  that  Japan’s  additional  fishing  effort could  
endanger  the  survival  of  the  stock
• ITLOS:  Tribunal  prescribed  precautionary  measures  to  avert  further  deterioration  – despite the  absence of  
scientific  certainty  regarding  the  effectiveness  of  past  conservation  measures  and  the  inability of  the  ITLOS  to  
“conclusively”  assess  the  scientific  evidence  before  it.

24
 ITLOS  case  law

• MOX  Plant
• (the  Order  of  3  December  2001  in  the  MOX  Plant  Case  (Request  for  Provisional  Measures)(Ireland  v  United  
Kingdom).
• Ireland:  the  precautionary  principle  entailed  that  the  United  Kingdom  must  “apply  caution,  and  take  preventive  
measures  even  where  there  is  no  conclusive  evidence”  of  a  causal  relationship  between  the  operation  of  the  
MOX  plant  and  related  shipments  of  radioactive  materials  one  hand,  and  marine  environmental  hazards  on  the  
other.
• sheer  possibility  and  the  probability  of  damage:
• UK  “generally  accepted  that  [the  precautionary  principle]  can  operate  only  where  there  are  some  reasonable  
grounds  for  concern.”:
[T]he  risk  of  harm  occurring  must  in  some  measure  be  a  real  risk.  It  cannot  be  simply  the  merest  suggestion  
that  harm  might  occur.  While  this  is  not  to  suggest  that  the  threshold  is  one  of  the  probability  of  harm  
occurring,  it  must  be  more  than  the  hypothetical  or  remote  possibility  of  such  harm.
• ITLOS:  “prudence  and  caution”  require  that  both  parties  cooperate  in  exchanging  information  and  in  designing  
methods  to  cope  with  risks  or  effects  associated  with  the  plant. 25
 ITLOS  case  law

• Land  Reclamation  by  Singapore  in  and  around  the  Straits  of  Johor  (Request  for  Provisional  
Measures)  (Malaysia  v  Singapore)
• Malaysia:
they  would  produce  considerable  changes  in  flow  regime,  sedimentation  and  coastal  erosion  in  nearby  areas
• Singapore:
while stressing that it took the principle “very seriously” and had in fact complied with it by taking “the most
rigorous preparatory arrangements to avoid dangers,” responded that the precautionary principle was limited in
that it did “not entitle Malaysia to require Singapore to suspend its reclamation works on the basis of no evidence
of serious or irreversible damage.
• ITLOS
Considering that it cannot be excluded that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the land reclamation works
may have adverse effects on the marine environment; [..]Considering that, given the possible implications of land
reclamation on the marine environment, prudence and caution require that Malaysia and Singapore establish
mechanisms for exchanging information and assessing the risks or effects of land reclamation works and devising
ways to deal with them in the areas concerned; [..]Directs Singapore not to conduct its land reclamation in ways
26
that might cause [..] serious harm to the marine environment.
 ICJ

• Nuclear  test  case  II  1995  (New  Zealand  v.  France)  :  a  missed  opportunity
• NZ:
• emphasized  the  importance  of  the  precautionary  principle
• Shift  the  burden  of  proof  on  a  state  wishing  to  engage  in  in  potentially  damaging  conduct    to  show  
in  advance  that  its  activities  would  not  cause  contamination  (para  34)
• Also  the  need  for  a  full  EIA  before  France  undertook  further  nuclear  testing  was  due  under  PP  (412)
• Court:
• dismissed  the  case  for  Jurisdiction
• Palmer  dissent:
• missed  opportunity  for  the  court  to  progressively  develop  the  field  of  environmental  law  
• The  pp  may  now  be  a  principle  of  CIL  relating  to  the  environment  
• EIA  and  PP 27
 ICJ

• Gabcikovo-­‐Nagymaros (  Hungary-­‐ Slovakia)    Danub River

• Hungry:
• Justify  the  termination  of  the  treaty  based  on  PP
• Court:
• “vigilance  and  prevention  are  required  on  account  of  the  often  irreversible  character  of  
damage  to  the  environment”
• No  detailed  analysis  on  the  pp.
• Parties  had  an  ongoing  obligation  to  negotiate  in  good  faith  a  joint  operational  regime  that  
must  take  into  account  the  norms  of  international  environmental  law    and  the  principles  of  
international  water  courses.

28
 ICJ

• Pulp  mills  on  the  river  Uruguay  (  Argentina  v.  Uruguay  )

• Argentina:  procedural  violations  of  the  treaty    (  notifications  and  consultations)
• Breaches  of  international  law  pollution  prevention  and  pp
• Pp  should  place  the  burden  on  Uruguay  to  prove  that  the  pulp  mills  would  not  cause  significant  
damages  to  the  environment  
• Court:
• Majority:  “while  a  precautionary  approach  may  be  relevant  in  the  interpretation  and  the  application  
of  the  provisions  of  the  statute,    it  doesn't’t  follow  that    it  operates  as  a  reversal  of  the  burden  of  
proof”  (  para  164)

29
 Seabed  dispute  chamber  of  ITLOS

• Advisory  opinion  on  the  responsibilities  and  obligations  of  states  sponsoring  persons  or  
entities  with  respect  to  activities  in  the  Area  Requested  by  the  Council  of  the  ISA
• Two  instruments    
• ALSO:
• Pp  is  an  integral  part  of  the  general  obligation  of  Due  Diligence  of  sponsoring  states  which  is  even  
applicable  outside  the  Regulations:
• “this  obligation  applies  in  situations  where  scientific  evidence  covering  the  scope  and  potential  negative  
impact  of  the  activity  in  question  is  insufficient  but  where  there  are  plausible  indications  of  potential  risks.  
A  sponsoring  state  would  not  meet  its  obligations  of  due  diligence  if  it  disregarded  those  risks.  such  
disregard  would  amount  to  a  failure  to  comply  with  the  precautionary  approach”
• Various  questions  left  open  re  Rio  15:  
• serious  or  irreversible  damage
• Cost-­‐effective  measures  
30
 WTO  and  PP

• no  explicit  mentions  of  the  word  “precaution”,

• an  indirect  equivalence  in  Article  5.7  of  the  WTO  Agreement  on  the  Application  of  Sanitary  and  Phytosanitary  
Measures  (the  SPS  Agreement):
“ In cases where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient, a Member may provisionally adopt sanitary or
phytosanitary measures on the basis of available pertinent information, including that from the relevant
international organizations as well as from sanitary or phytosanitary measures applied by other Members. In
such circumstances, Members shall seek to obtain the additional information necessary for a more objective
assessment of risk and review the sanitary or phytosanitary measure accordingly within a reasonable period
of time. “
(i) a Member may adopt provisional measures in such cases where “relevant scientific evidence is
insufficient” to conduct a risk assessment);
(ii) the provisional measures must be adopted on the basis of “available pertinent information” ;
(iii) the Member maintaining the provisional measures shall “seek to obtain the additional information
necessary for a more objective assessment of risk”
(iv) the Member maintaining the provisional measures shall review that measure “within a reasonable
period of time” 31
 WTO  and  PP

• Beef  Hormone  case    

• EU  ban  on  the  use  of  hormones  for  animal  growth  production  in  1989
• EU  ban  on  the  use  of  hormones  for  animal  growth  production  in  1989EU  banned  the  importation  of  hormone-­‐
treated  beef  based  on  the  fear  and  mistrust  of  its  population  for  hormones  in  beef  products,  irrespective  of  the  
lack  of  scientific  certainty  underlying  these  concerns.  
• “is  not  only  risk  ascertainable  in  a  science  laboratory  operating  under  strictly  controlled  conditions,  but  also  risk  
in  human  societies  as  they  actually  exist,  in  other  words,  the  actual  potential  for  adverse  effects  on  human  
health  in  the  real  world  where  people  live  and  work  and  die.”

32