Practice question
A regulator receives plausible indications of potential significant environmental risks but dismisses them solely because every causal detail is not certain. A second official says precaution means every alleged risk is conclusively proven and compensation automatically follows. Applying the ICJ2025 main opinion and Rio15, which is best?
- The first official is always right.
- The second official is always right.
- Neither: plausible risks cannot simply be disregarded under due diligence, but precaution does not automatically prove injury, breach, or compensation.
- Both positions are identical.
- Precaution forbids all scientific investigation.
Legal references
- Rio Declaration (1992), Principles1,3–5 and15: https://www.cbd.int/doc/ref/rio-declaration.shtml
- ICJ, Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion, July23 2025, main opinion, paragraphs158 and293–294: https://icj-web.leman.un-icc.cloud/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.