La precaución como principio de acción sostenible

  1. Eizagirre Eizagirre, Andoni
Revista:
Isegoría: Revista de filosofía moral y política

ISSN: 1130-2097

Año de publicación: 2011

Número: 44

Páginas: 303-324

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3989/ISEGORIA.2011.I44.732 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Isegoría: Revista de filosofía moral y política

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Este trabajo comprende el principio de precaución como indicador de las tensiones en los estándares de gobierno. El principio de precaución no es una medida provisional y preventiva tomada por la falta de conocimientos y causado por la magnitud de los riesgos; no es una variante del análisis del riesgo. Antes bien, es un principio que genera reglas y normas orientadas a identificar espacios de incertidumbre y debatir acerca de lo que denominamos conocimiento relevante.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • APPLEGATE, J. S. (2000): «The Precautionary Preference: An American Perspective on the Precautionary Principle», Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 413-443.
  • ASHFORD, N. A. (2005): «Incorporating Science, Technology, Fairness, and Accountability in Environmental, Health, and Safety Decisions», Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 85-96.
  • CASH, B. (2006): «United States Policy on European Integration: An Understandable but Strategic Error Since 1990», The European Journal (March-April), 3-18.
  • CEC (2000): «Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle», COM (2000) 1 final.
  • COMEST [World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology] (2005): «The Precautionary Principle», Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
  • CRANOR, C. F. (2005): «Some Legal Implications of the Precautionary Principle: Improving Information-Generation and Legal Protections», Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 29-52.
  • DEBLONDE, M. y DU JARDIN, P. (2005): «Deepening a Precautionary European Policy», Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 319-343.
  • ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme (2000a): «Steps into Uncertainty: Handling Risk & Uncertainty in Environmental Policy-Making», Special Briefing, No. 6, University of Sussex, Brighton.
  • ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme (2000b): «Risky Choices, Soft Disasters», University of Sussex, Brighton.
  • FUNTOWICZ, S.; SHEPHERD, I.; WILKINSON, D. y RAVETZ, J. (2000): «Science and Government in the European Union: A Contribution to the Debate», Science and Public Policy, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 327-336.
  • GODARD, O. (dir.) (1997): Le principe de précaution dans la conduite des affaires humaines, Paris, MSH-INRA.
  • GOLDSTEIN, B. D. y CARRUTH, R. S. (2005): «Implications of the Precautionary Principle: Is it a Threat to Science?», Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 209-219.
  • HATHCOCK, J. M. (2000): «The Precautionary Principle: An Impossible Burden Of Proof For New Products», AgBioForum, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 255-258.
  • HOLM, S. y HARRIS, J. (1999): «Precautionary Principle Stifles Discovery», Nature, Vol. 400, No. 6743, p. 398.
  • JASANOFF, S. (2003): «In a Constitutional Moment: Science and Social Order at the Millennium», in JOERGES, B. y NOWOTNY, H. (eds.): Social Studies of Science and Technology: Looking Back, Ahead, Yearbook of the Sociology of the Sciences 23, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 155-180.
  • JONAS, H. (1974): Philosophical Essays: From Ancient Creed to Technological Man, Englewood Cliffs/NJ, Prentice Hall.
  • JORDAN, A. (1999): «The Implementation of EU Environmental Policy: A Policy Problem Without a Political Solution?», Environmental and Planning, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 69-90.
  • JORDAN, A. (2005): Environmental Policy in the European Union: Actors, Institutions and Processes, 2nd Edition, Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  • JOY, B. (2000): «Why the Future Doesn't Need Us», Wired 8.04, April 2000.
  • LEISS, W. (2005): «Policing Science: Genetics, Nanotechnology, Robotics», in STEHR, N. (ed.): Knowledge Politics: Governing the Consequences of Science and Technology, Boulder, Colorado, Paradigm Publishers, pp. 103-116.
  • LEMKOW, L. (2002): Sociología ambiental: pensamiento socioambiental y ecología social del riesgo, Barcelona, Icaria.
  • LEVIDOW, L. (2001a): «Unsound Science? Trans-Atlantic Regulatory Disputes over GM Crops», National Europe Centre Papers, No. 3.
  • LEVIDOW, L. (2001b): «Precautionary Uncertainty: Regulating GM Crops in Europe», Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 842-874.
  • LEVIDOW, L.; CARR, S. y WIELD, D. (2005a): «EU Regulation of Agri-Biotechnology: Precautionary Links between Science and Policy», Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources, Key Action 111-13, Socio-Economic Studies, Project no. QLRT-2001-0034.
  • LEVIDOW, L.; CARR, S. y WIELD, D. (2005b): «European Union Regulation of Agri-Biotechnology: Precautionary Links between Science, Expertise and Policy», Science and Public Policy, Vol. 32, No. 4, 261-276.
  • LUJAN, J. L. y TODT, O. (2007): «Precaution in Public: The Social Perception of the Role of Science and Values in Policy Making», Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 97-109.
  • MAYER, S. y STIRLING, A. (2002): «Finding A Precautionary Approach to Technological Developments: Lessons for the Evaluation of GM Crops», Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 52-71.
  • MILLER, H. I. y CONKO, G. (2000): «The Science of Biotechnology Meets the Politics of Global Regulation», Issues in Science and Technology, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 47-54.
  • MILLER, H. I. y CONKO, G. (2001): «The Protocol's Illusionary Principle», Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 18, pp. 360-361.
  • MILLSTONE, E. et al. (2004): Science in Trade Disputes Related to Potential Risks: Comparative Case Studies, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  • MURPHY, J. (2006): Governing Technology for Sustainability, Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  • MYERS, N. (2002): «The Precautionary Principle Puts Values First», Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 210-219.
  • MYERS, N. y RAFFENSPERGER, C. (2006): Precautionary Tools for Reshaping Environmental Policy, Massachusetts, MIT Press.
  • PARSON, E. (ed.) (2001): Governing the Environment: Persistent Challenges, Uncertain Innovations, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
  • PIETERMAN, R. (2001): «Culture in the Risk Society: An Essay on the Rise of a Precautionary Culture», Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 145-168.
  • RAFFENSPERGER, C. y BARRETT, K. (2001): «In Defense of the Precautionary Principle», Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 19, p. 811.
  • RAFFENSPERGER, C. y DEFUR, P. L. (1999): «Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Rigorous Science and Solid Ethics», Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 933-941.
  • RENN, O. (2007): Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World, Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  • RENN, O. y KLINKE, A. (2001): «Risk Evaluation and Risk Management for Institutional and Regulatory Policy», in STIRLING, A. (ed.): On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk (vol. 2: Case Studies), Seville, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, pp. 11-35.
  • SANDERSON, H. y PETERSEN, S. (2002): «Power Analysis as a Reflexive Scientific Tool for Interpretation and Implementation of the Precautionary Principle in the European Union», Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 221-226.
  • SANER, M. (2002): «An Ethical Analysis of the Precautionary Principle», International Journal of Biotechnology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 81-95.
  • SAUNIER, R. E. y MEGANCK, R. A. (2007): Dictionary and Introduction to Global Environmental Governance, Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  • SILVER, L. M. (2006): Challenging Nature: The Clash of Science and Spirituality at the New Frontiers of Life, New York, Ecco/Harper Collins.
  • STEHR, N. (ed.) (2005): Knowledge Politics: Governing the Consequences of Science and Technology, Boulder, Colorado, Paradigm Publishers.
  • STIRLING, A. (1999): «On "Precautionary" and "Science Based" Approaches to Risk Assessment and the Environmental Appraisal» (vol. 1: A Synthesis Report of Case Studies), Seville, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
  • STIRLING, A. (2003): «Risk, Uncertainty and Precaution: Some Instrumental Implications from the Social Sciences », in BERKHOUT, F.; LEACH, M. y SCOONER, I. (eds.): Negotiating Environmental Change: New Perspectives from Social Science, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 33-76.
  • STIRLING, A. (2005): «Opening Up or Closing Down? Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology», in LEACH, M.; SCOONER, I. y WYNNE, B. (eds.) (2005): Science and Citizens. Globalization & the Challenge of Engagement, London, Zed Books, pp. 218-231.
  • STIRLING, A. (2007): «Risk, Precaution and Science: Towards a more Constructive Policy Debate: Talking Point on the Precautionary Principle», EMBO reports, Vol. 8, pp. 309-315.
  • SUNSTEIN, C. R. (2003), «Beyond the Precautionary Principle», Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper, no. 38, The Law School, The University of Chicago.
  • TÁBARA, J. D.; POLO, D. y LEMKOW, L. (2003): « Precaución, riesgo y sostenibilidad en los organismos agrícolas modificados genéticamente», Política y sociedad, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 81-103.
  • TICKNER, J. (ed.) (2003): Precaution, Environmental Science, and Preventive Public Policy, Washington, DC, Island Press.
  • TODT, O. (2002): Innovación y regulación: la influencia de los actores sociales en el cambio tecnológico. El caso de la ingeniería genética agrícola, Valencia, Universitat de Valencia (Tesis Doctoral).
  • VAN DEN BELT, H. (2003): «Debating the Precautionary Principle: "Guilty until Proven Innocent" or "Innocent until Proven Guilty"?», Plant Physiology, Vol. 132, pp. 1122-1126.
  • VAN DEN BELT, H. (2005): «Biotechnology, the US-EU dispute and the Precautionary Principle», in WESSELER, J. H. H. (ed.): Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops, Berlin, Springer, pp. 185-197.
  • VOGEL, D. (1997): Barriers and Benefits: Regulation in Transatlantic Trade, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution Press.
  • VOGEL, D. (2003): «The Hare and the Tortoise Revisited: The New Politics of Consumer and Environmental Regulation in Europe», British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 557-580.
  • VOß, J-P.; BAUKNECHT, D. y KEMP, R. (eds.) (2006): Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
  • WYNNE, B. (1992): «Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventive Paradigm», Global Environmental Change, Vol. 2, pp. 111-127.
  • WYNNE, B. (2005): «Risk as Globalizing "Democratic" Discourse'? Framing Subjects and Citizens», in LEACH, M.; SCOONES, I. y WYNNE, B. (eds.) (2005): Science and Citizens: Globalization & The Challenge of Engagement, London, Zed Books, pp. 66-82.
  • WYNNE, B. y MEYER, S. (1993): «How Science Fails The Environment», New Scientists, 139 (1876): 33-35.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet