IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i11p2039-2040.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Precautionary Principle Has Not Been Shown to Be Incoherent: A Reply to Peterson

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Boyer‐Kassem

Abstract

In this journal, I have objected to Peterson's 2006 claim that the precautionary principle is an incoherent decision rule. I defend my objections to Peterson's recent replies, and I still claim that the precautionary principle has not been shown to be incoherent.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Boyer‐Kassem, 2017. "The Precautionary Principle Has Not Been Shown to Be Incoherent: A Reply to Peterson," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2039-2040, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:11:p:2039-2040
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12812
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12812?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Peterson, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 595-601, June.
    2. Martin Peterson, 2017. "Yes, The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2035-2038, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Terje Aven, 2019. "Comments to Orri Stefánsson's Paper on the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1223-1224, June.
    2. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    3. H. Orri Stefánsson, 2019. "On the Limits of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1204-1222, June.

    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. Terje Aven, 2019. "Comments to Orri Stefánsson's Paper on the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1223-1224, June.
    2. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    3. H. Orri Stefánsson, 2019. "On the Limits of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1204-1222, June.
    4. Lara Buchak, 2023. "Philosophical foundations for worst-case arguments," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 22(3), pages 215-242, August.
    5. Yan Cai & Eunmi Kim, 2019. "Sustainable Development in World Trade Law: Application of the Precautionary Principle in Korea-Radionuclides," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, April.
    6. Thomas Boyer‐Kassem, 2017. "Is the Precautionary Principle Really Incoherent?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2026-2034, November.
    7. Aven, Terje, 2019. "The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    8. Martin Peterson, 2017. "Yes, The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2035-2038, November.
    9. Tim Lewens, 2010. "The risks of progress: precaution and the case of human enhancement," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 207-216, March.
    10. Carla Susana A. Assuad, 2020. "Understanding Rationality in Sustainable Development Decision-Making: Unfolding the Motivations for Action," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(3), pages 1086-1119, September.

    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:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:11:p:2039-2040. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.