{"id":553,"date":"2016-01-31T09:52:36","date_gmt":"2016-01-31T08:52:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/?post_type=publication&p=553"},"modified":"2025-09-10T11:19:36","modified_gmt":"2025-09-10T09:19:36","slug":"the-reshaping-of-the-precautionary-principle-by-international-courts-judicial-dialogue-or-parallel-monologues","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/publication\/the-reshaping-of-the-precautionary-principle-by-international-courts-judicial-dialogue-or-parallel-monologues\/","title":{"rendered":"The Reshaping of the Precautionary Principle by International Courts: Judicial Dialogue or Parallel Monologues?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

The current debate on the precautionary principle (PP) has two fundamental aspects. It concerns, on one hand, its nature and purpose and, on the other hand, its interpretation and application. What is PP? Is it a general principle of international law or does its application depend upon the will of States? Are there different gradations of this principle in the various conventional systems? Which are its applying conditions?<\/p>\n

In order to answer these questions, it is interesting to analyze the evolution of the international case law on the precautionary principle, both from a European perspective, in reference to the judicial dialogue between the EFTA Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the European Economic Area (EEA), and from a global perspective, examining the parallel monologues resulting from the case law of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). I argue that the interpretation of the PP provided by the CJEU, the EFTA Court, the WTO\u2019s Judiciary, the ITLOS and, last but not least, the ICJ, is crucial in order to build an international consensus on its nature and purpose, as well as on its applicability. However, as it will be highlighted, courts tend to keep well separated theoretical evaluations of the principle with its application in practice. The preponderant role played by courts, even if not satisfactory in terms of legal certainty, presents the advantage of reshaping the principle according to the prevailing social, cultural and political values. Today, the courts’ reflections on PP have led to an increasing convergence, which could be described as a positive process of harmonization. However, some aspects, such as the uncertainty of harm, risk assessment and burden of proof, remain problematic and courts apply different criteria for balancing the benefits of precaution against its economic costs.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Extrait<\/strong><\/p>\n

Le d\u00e9bat actuel sur le principe de pr\u00e9caution (PP) a deux aspects fondamentaux. Le premier aspect concerne sa nature et ses objectifs et le deuxi\u00e8me son interpr\u00e9tation et application. Qu\u2019est-ce que c\u2019est le PP? Est-t-il un principe g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de droit international ou son application d\u00e9pend de la volont\u00e9 des Etats? Y at-il diff\u00e9rentes gradations de ce principe dans les diff\u00e9rents syst\u00e8mes conventionnels? Quelles sont ses conditions d\u2019application?<\/p>\n

Afin de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 ces questions, il est int\u00e9ressant d’analyser l’\u00e9volution de la jurisprudence internationale sur le principe de pr\u00e9caution, tant dans la perspective europ\u00e9enne, avec le dialogue judiciaire entre la Cour de l’Association Europ\u00e9enne du Livre Echange (AELE) et la Cour de Justice de l\u2019Union Europ\u00e9enne (CJUE) dans l’Espace \u00e9conomique europ\u00e9en (EEE), quant sous la perspective globale, avec les monologues parall\u00e8les r\u00e9sultant par les approches de l\u2019Organisation Mondiale du Commerce (OMC), du Tribunal International du Droit de la Mer (TIDM) et de la Cour International de Justice (CIJ). Je soutiens que l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation sur le PP men\u00e9e par la CJUE, l’OMC, La Cour de l’AELE, le TIDM et, enfin, la CIJ, est cruciale pour construire un consensus international sur sa nature et ses finalit\u00e9s, ainsi que sur son application. Toutefois, comme il sera expliqu\u00e9, les courts ont montr\u00e9 une tendance nette \u00e0 maintenir la distinction entre leurs \u00e9valuations th\u00e9oriques du principe et son application pratique. En outre, le r\u00f4le pr\u00e9pond\u00e9rant jou\u00e9 par les tribunaux, m\u00eame si pas satisfaisante en termes de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 juridique, pr\u00e9sente l’avantage de fa\u00e7onner le principe selon les valeurs sociales, culturelles et politiques qui pr\u00e9valent. Aujourd’hui, les r\u00e9flexions des courts internationales sur le PP ont conduit \u00e0 une convergence croissante qui pourrait \u00eatre d\u00e9crit comme un processus positif de d\u00e9veloppement de l’harmonisation. Cependant, certains aspects, comme l’incertitude de pr\u00e9judice, l’\u00e9valuation des risques et l’examen des mesures prises, restent probl\u00e9matiques et les tribunaux appliquent des crit\u00e8res diff\u00e9rents pour \u00e9quilibrer les avantages de pr\u00e9caution contre ses co\u00fbts \u00e9conomiques.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Acc\u00e8s au texte – Access to full text<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/form>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"template":"","publication_tax":[47],"class_list":["post-553","publication","type-publication","status-publish","hentry","publication_tax-working-paper"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/553","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publication"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/553\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":555,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/553\/revisions\/555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=553"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"publication_tax","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication_tax?post=553"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}