[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
Date: March 28, 2012
Time: 09:35 PM
Fran @24In this case I’d say the principle maps retpty well from its origin in environmental policy.I agree. Katz suggested though that its application in this case would favour non-intervention.Katz @25 ‘Fraid not, old sport. Though the environmental movement has embraced the principle, they did not invent it. Wiki informs me that the principle began with German Home Economics during the 1930s. Hmmm. On my reading, the wiki entry supports my view that it's predominantly an environmental concept, regardless of the ultimate origin. Note that the burden of proof test favours inactionI'll grant you that there are different formulations of it, but the most well known (and widely copied) is the Rio Declaration version, which promotes action (i.e. action to redress environmental threats) over inaction where there is uncertainty about the nature or impact of a threat. However, I'll concede that if the action in question is the action seen to be causing the potential harm or damage rather than the action taken to redress it, then the principle could be seen to favour inaction.This is getting O/T so I'll say no more on it.