Call For Papers
AFTER DECOLONISATION: WHOSE KNOWLEDGE, WHOSE FUTURE? Power, Technology and the Making of African Thought
Political independence did not erase the intellectual structures established under colonia...
Submit Now
Call For Papers
AFTER DECOLONISATION: WHOSE KNOWLEDGE, WHOSE FUTURE? Power, Technology and the Making of African Thought
Political independence did not erase the intellectual structures established under colonia...
Submit Now
Harm to human life and the environment has been identified as a recurrent concomitance of many developmental projects in human society. Hence, to safeguard human life and the environment from development-induced harm, the United Nations declared that precaution is one of the principles of sustainable development. But since its initial promulgation there have emerged varying and divergent interpretations and versions of the precautionary principle owing to the challenges encountered by various groups and governments in its implementation. The resultant effect is that there is endless debate on which version or definition of the principle should be a guide to environmental decision-making. Neil Manson has taken a mediatory or reconciliatory task to discover some unifying factors or what he calls ‘generic elements’ in any valid version of the precautionary principle, namely: activity, effect, and remedy. These elements spell out a tripartite structure, viz: the damage condition which specifies the characteristic of an effect for which precautionary measures should be considered; the knowledge condition which specifies the status of knowledge regarding the causal connections between the activity and the effect; and the remedy need which specifies the remedy that decision makers should take in response to the activity. Manson further prescribed conceptual clarity and strong awareness of the badness of the effect as criteria for validity of a precautionary approach. This paper makes a critical appraisal of Manson’s thesis amidst other contending opinions of environmental philosophers, and concludes that he has considerably advanced the knowledge and appreciation of the precautionary principle. We have noted particularly that the precautionary principle is a moral principle that underscores the normative character of environmental risk. The consideration of right and wrong not cost and benefit should form the basis for revaluating environmental risk.
