IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v30y2003i3p205-211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The precautionary principle and democratizing expertise: A European legal perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Theofanis Christoforou

Abstract

The underlying rationale of the need to democratize expertise and the precautionary principle are closely interconnected. Democratizing expertise and, more broadly, achieving effective and legitimate governance in risk regulation require honest and objective assessment of substances, processes or activities that are potentially harmful, involvement of all interested parties and confidence in the control mechanisms. The precautionary principle informs, and is affected by, these three requirements. As a principle based on common sense, it provides both substantive and procedural rationality to the politics of risk regulation. Substantive rationality because it is the most appropriate decision-making tool to deal with situations of uncertainty, ignorance and lack of causality of identified potential harm. Procedural rationality because it facilitates the communication between, and the decision-making process of, risk assessors, risk managers and the public, thus enabling democratic societal choices about the level of acceptable risk to be respected. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Theofanis Christoforou, 2003. "The precautionary principle and democratizing expertise: A European legal perspective," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 205-211, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:3:p:205-211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154303781780443
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marjolein B.. A. van Asselt & Ellen Vos, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 313-336, June.
    2. Florence Metz & Karin Ingold, 2017. "Politics of the precautionary principle: assessing actors’ preferences in water protection policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 721-743, December.
    3. Gregory Shaffer & Mark Pollack, 2004. "Regulating Between National Fears and Global Disciplines:Agricultural Biotechnology in the EU," Jean Monnet Working Papers 10, Jean Monnet Chair.

    More about this item

    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:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:3:p:205-211. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.