Practice question
A court treats precaution as relevant to interpreting environmental duties but separately examines the parties’ evidence and factual assertions. A litigant says using evidence proves the court rejected precaution. Which is best?
- Precaution and evidence can never coexist
- The positions are compatible under Pulp Mills; precaution does not automatically displace proof rules
- Any factual inquiry violates Rio Principle 15
- Only unsupported allegations count as precaution
- A party must choose either environmental law or facts
Legal references
- ICJ, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, April 20, 2010, main judgment: https://icj-web.leman.un-icc.cloud/sites/default/files/case-related/135/135-20100420-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf; paragraphs 162-164.
- Rio Declaration: https://www.cbd.int/doc/ref/rio-declaration.shtml; Principle 15.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.