IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v13y2024i2p22-d1365308.html

The Invocation of the Precautionary Principle within the Investor–State Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Not Seizing the Occasion

Author

Listed:
  • Naimeh Masumy

    (Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, 6211 LH Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Deakin Law School, Deakin University, Geelong Victoria, VIC 3220, Australia)

  • Sara Hourani

    (School of Law, Middlesex University, London NW4 4BT, UK)

Abstract

The principal purpose of this article is to demonstrate how the precautionary principle can be included in the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) deliberative process by providing a legal solution that would permit the invocation and implementation of this concept within the ISDS operational framework. The precautionary principle has been widely applied in the environmental management field, yet its role within the ISDS framework has remained relatively underutilised. To analyse this issue, this paper first explores the operational justification of the precautionary principle and how decision-makers should endorse it in order to fully recognise and address environmental concerns on a legal level. Next, the article proceeds to examine recent ISDS cases in which the precautionary principle was invoked and compares various risk assessment techniques to illustrate how it may be incorporated into the deliberative process and harmonised with other standards. The paper suggests that the forward-looking nature of the precautionary principle has paramount importance in disputes involving oil and gas, particularly in cases where oil and gas activities are believed to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions that could worsen global warming. This paper advances the argument that a wider application of the principle could better equip ISDS tribunals to address the limitations of scientific knowledge, especially under circumstances where significant or irreversible environmental damage may occur.

Suggested Citation

  • Naimeh Masumy & Sara Hourani, 2024. "The Invocation of the Precautionary Principle within the Investor–State Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Not Seizing the Occasion," Laws, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:13:y:2024:i:2:p:22-:d:1365308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/13/2/22/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/13/2/22/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Owens, 2004. "Siting, sustainable development and social priorities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 101-114, March.
    2. Bernard Goldstein & Russellyn S. Carruth, 2004. "The Precautionary Principle and/or Risk Assessment in World Trade Organization Decisions: A Possible Role for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 491-499, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    2. Mustajoki, Jyri & Hamalainen, Raimo P. & Lindstedt, Mats R.K., 2006. "Using intervals for global sensitivity and worst-case analyses in multiattribute value trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 278-292, October.
    3. Yasminah Beebeejaun, 2017. "Exploring the intersections between local knowledge and environmental regulation: A study of shale gas extraction in Texas and Lancashire," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(3), pages 417-433, May.
    4. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.
    5. Shackley, Simon & Mander, Sarah & Reiche, Alexander, 2006. "Public perceptions of underground coal gasification in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3423-3433, December.
    6. Harriet Bulkeley, 2006. "Urban Sustainability: Learning from Best Practice?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(6), pages 1029-1044, June.
    7. Walker, Benedikt & Klagge, Britta & Haid, Ravn, 2025. "Spatial planning policies for export-oriented green-hydrogen projects in Chile, Namibia, and South Africa," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    8. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1323-1337, October.
    9. Yasminah Beebeejaun, 2024. "Fracking and epistemic injustice: A feminist critique of knowledge formation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 42(2), pages 250-267, March.
    10. Tim Marshall & Richard Cowell, 2016. "Infrastructure, planning and the command of time," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1843-1866, December.
    11. Sandra Hoffmann, 2010. "Ensuring Food Safety around the Globe: The Many Roles of Risk Analysis From Risk Ranking to Microbial Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 711-714, May.
    12. Owens, Susan & Driffill, Louise, 2008. "How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 4412-4418, December.
    13. Eva Eichenauer & Ludger Gailing, 2022. "What Triggers Protest?—Understanding Local Conflict Dynamics in Renewable Energy Development," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, September.
    14. van der Horst, Dan, 2007. "NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2705-2714, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:13:y:2024:i:2:p:22-:d:1365308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.