Different interests represented by the different groups that proposed the principle led to great variability in its formulation: one study identified 14 different formulations of the principle in contractual and non-contractual statements. [19] R.B. Stewart (2002)[20] reduced the precautionary principle to four basic versions: In France, the Environment Charter contains a formulation of the precautionary principle (Article 5): Body Shop International, a UK-based cosmetics company, has integrated the precautionary principle into its 2006 chemicals strategy. [42] On July 18, 2005, the City of San Francisco passed a preventive purchasing ordinance,[33] requiring the city to weigh the environmental and health costs of its $600 million annual purchases, from cleaning supplies to computers. Members of the San Francisco Bay Area Working Group on the precautionary principle contributed to the drafting of the regulations. The IACHR has various tools for monitoring and controlling precautionary measures: exchange of communications; working meetings or hearings convened during IACHR sessions; follow-up meetings at the place of stay or working visits of the Commission or the country rapporteurs; Press releases, thematic reports or country reports. “As Recuerda noted, the distinction between the precautionary principle and a precautionary approach is diffuse and controversial in some contexts. In negotiations on international declarations, the United States objected to the use of the term principle because it has particular connotations in legal language, since a legal principle is a source of law. This means that it is mandatory, so that a court can annul or confirm a decision by applying the precautionary principle. In this sense, the precautionary principle is not a simple idea or a desideratum, but a source of law. This is the legal status of the precautionary principle in the European Union. On the other hand, an “approach” generally does not have the same meaning, although in some cases an approach may be binding. A precautionary approach is a particular “lens” used to identify the risks that any prudent person possesses (Recuerda, 2008).[26] Precautionary measures serve two functions related to the protection of fundamental rights recognized in the provisions of the Inter-American System.

They have a “precautionary function” in that they respect a legal situation of which the Commission is brought to the attention of cases or petitions; They also fulfil a “protective” function in the sense of safeguarding the exercise of human rights. In practice, the protection function is exercised in order to avoid irreparable damage to the life and personal integrity of the beneficiary as a subject of international human rights law. Consequently, provisional measures have been ordered for various situations that have nothing to do with an ongoing case of the inter-American human rights system. There are many definitions of the precautionary principle: precaution can be defined as “caution in advance”, “caution in an uncertain environment” or an informed warning. Two ideas are at the heart of the principle[14]: 34 In February 2000, the Commission of the European Communities stated in a Commission Communication on the precautionary principle: “The precautionary principle is not defined in the Treaties of the European Union, which require it [the precautionary principle] only once, in order to protect the environment. In practice, however, their scope is much broader, in particular where the preliminary objective scientific assessment indicates that there are well-founded concerns that potentially harmful effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be incompatible with the high level of protection of what has been chosen for the Community. “[17]: 10 The safeguards system has been part of the Commission`s Rules of Procedure for more than 30 years. The Regulations were last amended on August 1, 2013.

Rule 25 describes the procedure for provisional measures (rules of procedure). No introduction to the precautionary principle would be complete without briefly mentioning the difference between the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach. Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration states: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach must be fully implemented by States according to their capabilities. Where there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty is not used as an excuse to postpone cost-effective measures to prevent environmental damage. As Garcia (1995) has pointed out, “the formulation, which is broadly similar to that of the principle, differs subtly in that it recognizes that there may be differences in local capacities to apply the approach and calls for cost-effectiveness in the application of the approach, for example: taking into account economic and social costs. The “approach” is generally seen as a softening of the “principle.” In the context of engineering, the precautionary principle manifests itself as a safety factor, which is discussed in detail in Elishakov`s monograph. [3] It was apparently proposed in 1729 by Belindor[4] under construction. The relationship between safety factor and reliability[5][4][6] is widely studied by engineers and philosophers. Areas generally affected by the precautionary principle are possibility: recognizing the intrinsic value of the work done by the Inter-American Commission, the OAS General Assembly encouraged member states to follow the Commission`s recommendations and precautions.