...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Environmental Values >The Lack of Clarity in the Precautionary Principle
【24h】

The Lack of Clarity in the Precautionary Principle

机译：预防原则缺乏明确性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The precautionary principle states, roughly, that it is better to take precautionary measures now than to deal with serious harms to the environment or human health later on. This paper builds on the work of Neil A. Manson in order to show that the precautionary principle, in all of its forms, is fraught with vagueness and ambiguity. We examine the version of the precautionary principle that was formulated at the Wingspread Conference sponsored by the Science and Environmental Health Network in 1998. That version fails to indicate who must bear the cost of precaution; what constitutes a threat of harm; how much precaution is too much; and what should be done when environmental concerns and concern for human health pull in different directions. Whether this vagueness is a strength or weakness of the principle depends on what purpose(s) the precautionary principle is supposed to serve.
机译：预防原则粗略地指出，现在采取预防措施要比以后处理对环境或人类健康的严重损害要好。本文以尼尔·曼森（Neil A. Manson）的工作为基础，以表明预防原则的所有形式都含糊不清和含糊不清。我们研究了1998年由科学与环境卫生网络主办的Wingspread会议上制定的预防原则的版本。该版本未能说明谁必须承担预防费用。什么构成危害威胁；多少预防措施太多；当对环境的关注和对人类健康的关注转向不同的方向时，应该怎么做。这种模糊性是原则的强项还是弱项，取决于预防原则应达到的目的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号