科技风险预防的综合机制研究
|
摘要
科技风险是当代风险社会的主要成因。风险社会的首要问题是对科技风险的预防与治理。但目前学术界对于怎样防范与治理科技风险还缺乏跨学科地综合研究。本文尝试运用跨学科的研究方法,提出建构科技风险预防的综合机制。
本文首先从现代性的反思性及其当代人类的风险境遇入手,论述了问题提出的社会背景。通过梳理科技风险研究的发展历史,分析国内外不同学科视野中与科技风险研究相关的观点和理论,以说明科技风险是风险社会的核心问题,围绕风险问题的争论揭示了预防当代科技风险问题的复杂性和综合性。同时本章还介绍了科技风险研究的意义及本文可能的创新点,提出科技风险预防的综合机制研究,必须采取跨学科综合的研究方法。
其次,本文界定了科技风险概念并明确了研究范围。在此基础上,通过对当代社会科技风险的后果严重性、难以计测性、复杂关联性、潜在隐蔽性、日常性和公共性的特征描述,展开对科技风险的归因分析。在方法上通过科技自身内在的不确定性、科技体制的局限以及风险产生的政治干预、经济动力和社会形塑等外部因素影响的分类阐释,进一步揭示风险的产生是科学、技术、工业、国家等多因素相互作用的结果,其中科学技术自身内在的不确定性是风险的本质特征。而政治、经济和社会多因素相互作用,是科技风险产生和增长的外在原因。由此,科技风险的预防和治理应该从降低科技自身的不确定性,突破科技体制局限、平衡政治、经济和社会因素对科技发展的影响为思考路径。
再次,本文梳理了风险预防原则的产生和发展过程,归纳了该原则的构成要件,分析了预防原则的出现与科学的不确定性是紧密相联的,它主要是针对科学上不确定的危害应当采取何种干预手段的问题,它为国家权力干预风险提供了依据。尽管风险预防原则面临较多争议,但无法否认其作为一项法律原则的意义。在此基础上进一步论证,风险预防原则应该确立为我国科技法制领域的基本原则。
另外,本文分析了科技风险预防的必要性、可能性及其困境,考察科技风险预防的不同路径,提出了科技风险评估是科技风险预防的前提和基础。在后常规科学时代,不确定性从边缘走向了科学方法论的中心。而且面对当代科技风险的高不确定性、价值多元性和利益攸关性等新的特征,分析了当代科技风险评估机制设计的目标在于通过多元、多重、广泛的理性沟通,引导理性共识的形成,为治理科技风险的决策提供合法性。在此基础上,提出了科技风险预防的综合机制需要平衡风险与理性、科学与政治、自由与安全等多重价值,综合运用国家权力与科学技术等多种力量,增强制度的反思性。协商式的科技风险评估机制构想正是对上述研究的回应。
本文最后,结合中国科技风险问题的特殊语境,提出了改进我国科技风险评估机制的思考。
Since scientific and technological risk (STR) is the major cause of the contemporary risk society, STR precaution and governance (STRPG) becomes the foremost problem confronting the risk society. Nevertheless, there is a lack of systematic interdisciplinary in-depth researches on STRPG in the current academia. This study proposes an integrated system to construct STR precaution (STRP) using interdisciplinary research methods.
To start with, this study discusses the social backgrounds of the STRPG problem from the perspectives of the reflexivity of modernity and the risk situations confronting contemporary humankind. It reviews the development of STR researches and analyzes STR viewpoints and theories from different disciplines in both China and abroad. Based on the review and analysis, it illustrates that STRPG is the core problem facing the risk society, and reveals the complex and integrative nature of STRP. In addition, this study also introduces the significance of STR research and the innovation contributed by the author. It also emphases that research on integrated systems of STRPG must take advantage of interdisciplinary research methods.
Second, this study redefines the concept of STR and the scope of this study. It conducts an attribution analysis of STR via describing the characteristics of contemporary STR, such as STR's high-consequence, difficulty in predicting and measuring STR, STR's complicated correlation with various factors, and STR's nature of being potentially obscure as well as being public and routine. This study classifies and explains the uncertainties inherent in science and technology, the limitations of scientific and technological institutions, and the external factors causing and influencing STR such as political interference, economic dynamics and social formation, and discloses that the generation of STR is a product of the interaction of factors including science, technology, industry and state power. Specifically, the uncertainty inherent in science and technology itself is the essential characteristic of STR while the interaction among political, economic, and social factors serves as the external causes for STR generation and growth. Therefore, STRPG should be approached via reducing the uncertainty inherent in science and technology, via breaking through from the limitations of scientific and technological institutions, and via balancing political, economic and social factors'impact on the development of science and technology.
Thirdly, this study reviews the emergence and development of the precautionary principle of STR, summarizes the constituent elements of this principle, and concludes that the emergence of the precautionary principle is closely connected with scientific uncertainty. The principle aims at solving the problem of determining which kinds of intervention measures should be taken to fight against hazards of scientific uncertainty, and provides a basis for state power's STR intervention. Although the principle is faced controversial, its value as a legal principle cannot be denied. On this basis, this study further argues that the precautionary principle should be established as one of the basic principles in China's lawmaking concerning science and technology.
In addition, this study analyzes the necessity, possibilities and dilemma of STRP, examines various approaches to realize STRP, and proposes that STR assessment is the precondition and foundation for STRP. In an era of post-normal science, uncertainty has moved to the center of scientific methodology from the sidelines. In the face of new features of contemporary STR, such as high uncertainty, value pluralism and high stakes, this study holds that the goal of designing a mechanism for assessing contemporary STR is to form a rational consensus via plural, multi-fold, extensive and rational communication, thus providing a legitimate foundation for decision-making in STRPG. On this basis, it further presents that an integrated system for realize STRP calls for balancing plural values, such as risk and reason, science and politics, as well as freedom and security, and for increasing institutional reflexivity. The consultative STR-assessment system is proposed as an exact response to the above-mentioned research results.
Finally, this study offers some thoughts for improving China's STR assessment mechanisms on the basis of considering the special context of China's STR problem.
本文首先从现代性的反思性及其当代人类的风险境遇入手,论述了问题提出的社会背景。通过梳理科技风险研究的发展历史,分析国内外不同学科视野中与科技风险研究相关的观点和理论,以说明科技风险是风险社会的核心问题,围绕风险问题的争论揭示了预防当代科技风险问题的复杂性和综合性。同时本章还介绍了科技风险研究的意义及本文可能的创新点,提出科技风险预防的综合机制研究,必须采取跨学科综合的研究方法。
其次,本文界定了科技风险概念并明确了研究范围。在此基础上,通过对当代社会科技风险的后果严重性、难以计测性、复杂关联性、潜在隐蔽性、日常性和公共性的特征描述,展开对科技风险的归因分析。在方法上通过科技自身内在的不确定性、科技体制的局限以及风险产生的政治干预、经济动力和社会形塑等外部因素影响的分类阐释,进一步揭示风险的产生是科学、技术、工业、国家等多因素相互作用的结果,其中科学技术自身内在的不确定性是风险的本质特征。而政治、经济和社会多因素相互作用,是科技风险产生和增长的外在原因。由此,科技风险的预防和治理应该从降低科技自身的不确定性,突破科技体制局限、平衡政治、经济和社会因素对科技发展的影响为思考路径。
再次,本文梳理了风险预防原则的产生和发展过程,归纳了该原则的构成要件,分析了预防原则的出现与科学的不确定性是紧密相联的,它主要是针对科学上不确定的危害应当采取何种干预手段的问题,它为国家权力干预风险提供了依据。尽管风险预防原则面临较多争议,但无法否认其作为一项法律原则的意义。在此基础上进一步论证,风险预防原则应该确立为我国科技法制领域的基本原则。
另外,本文分析了科技风险预防的必要性、可能性及其困境,考察科技风险预防的不同路径,提出了科技风险评估是科技风险预防的前提和基础。在后常规科学时代,不确定性从边缘走向了科学方法论的中心。而且面对当代科技风险的高不确定性、价值多元性和利益攸关性等新的特征,分析了当代科技风险评估机制设计的目标在于通过多元、多重、广泛的理性沟通,引导理性共识的形成,为治理科技风险的决策提供合法性。在此基础上,提出了科技风险预防的综合机制需要平衡风险与理性、科学与政治、自由与安全等多重价值,综合运用国家权力与科学技术等多种力量,增强制度的反思性。协商式的科技风险评估机制构想正是对上述研究的回应。
本文最后,结合中国科技风险问题的特殊语境,提出了改进我国科技风险评估机制的思考。
Since scientific and technological risk (STR) is the major cause of the contemporary risk society, STR precaution and governance (STRPG) becomes the foremost problem confronting the risk society. Nevertheless, there is a lack of systematic interdisciplinary in-depth researches on STRPG in the current academia. This study proposes an integrated system to construct STR precaution (STRP) using interdisciplinary research methods.
To start with, this study discusses the social backgrounds of the STRPG problem from the perspectives of the reflexivity of modernity and the risk situations confronting contemporary humankind. It reviews the development of STR researches and analyzes STR viewpoints and theories from different disciplines in both China and abroad. Based on the review and analysis, it illustrates that STRPG is the core problem facing the risk society, and reveals the complex and integrative nature of STRP. In addition, this study also introduces the significance of STR research and the innovation contributed by the author. It also emphases that research on integrated systems of STRPG must take advantage of interdisciplinary research methods.
Second, this study redefines the concept of STR and the scope of this study. It conducts an attribution analysis of STR via describing the characteristics of contemporary STR, such as STR's high-consequence, difficulty in predicting and measuring STR, STR's complicated correlation with various factors, and STR's nature of being potentially obscure as well as being public and routine. This study classifies and explains the uncertainties inherent in science and technology, the limitations of scientific and technological institutions, and the external factors causing and influencing STR such as political interference, economic dynamics and social formation, and discloses that the generation of STR is a product of the interaction of factors including science, technology, industry and state power. Specifically, the uncertainty inherent in science and technology itself is the essential characteristic of STR while the interaction among political, economic, and social factors serves as the external causes for STR generation and growth. Therefore, STRPG should be approached via reducing the uncertainty inherent in science and technology, via breaking through from the limitations of scientific and technological institutions, and via balancing political, economic and social factors'impact on the development of science and technology.
Thirdly, this study reviews the emergence and development of the precautionary principle of STR, summarizes the constituent elements of this principle, and concludes that the emergence of the precautionary principle is closely connected with scientific uncertainty. The principle aims at solving the problem of determining which kinds of intervention measures should be taken to fight against hazards of scientific uncertainty, and provides a basis for state power's STR intervention. Although the principle is faced controversial, its value as a legal principle cannot be denied. On this basis, this study further argues that the precautionary principle should be established as one of the basic principles in China's lawmaking concerning science and technology.
In addition, this study analyzes the necessity, possibilities and dilemma of STRP, examines various approaches to realize STRP, and proposes that STR assessment is the precondition and foundation for STRP. In an era of post-normal science, uncertainty has moved to the center of scientific methodology from the sidelines. In the face of new features of contemporary STR, such as high uncertainty, value pluralism and high stakes, this study holds that the goal of designing a mechanism for assessing contemporary STR is to form a rational consensus via plural, multi-fold, extensive and rational communication, thus providing a legitimate foundation for decision-making in STRPG. On this basis, it further presents that an integrated system for realize STRP calls for balancing plural values, such as risk and reason, science and politics, as well as freedom and security, and for increasing institutional reflexivity. The consultative STR-assessment system is proposed as an exact response to the above-mentioned research results.
Finally, this study offers some thoughts for improving China's STR assessment mechanisms on the basis of considering the special context of China's STR problem.
引文
1现代化早期,自然被当作外在的、不属于社会的、人类可以主宰的既定事物。然而,在20世纪晚期的反思性现代化阶段,人们关于社会与自然彼此孤立的观念变化,自然被当作社会的一部分。例如,贝克提出“自然与社会对立的终结”。参见Beck,1992,80.
2这是卢曼法社会学理论的最基本主张。参阅宾凯“法律如何可能：通过‘二阶观察’的系统建构——进入卢曼法律社会学的核心”《北大法律评论》第7卷第2辑(2006年)。与风险密切相关的是信任以及有关规范的复杂性缩减机制。详见尼克拉斯·卢曼《信赖——社会复杂性缩减机制》(原著初版1968发行,大庭健、正村俊之译,东京：劲草书房,1990年)。季卫东认为卢曼这一风险法制思想为我们思考中国风险社会语境中依法治国框架的基本因素构成提供了启示。参见季卫东.依法的风险管理.山东社会科学[J].2011(1)：6-8.
1截至目前,中国对风险社会理论的研究还处社翻译评价国外理论的阶段,重要的译著有：乌尔里希·贝克等著、路国林译的《自由与资本主义》(浙江人民出版社,2001年12月)、乌尔里希·贝克、哈贝马斯等著、王学东、柴方国等译的《全球化与政治》(中央编译出版社,2000年3月)和贝克著、何博文译《风险社会》(译林出版社,2004年7月)等；主要的译文有：乌尔里希·贝克著、郗卫东编译的《风险社会再思考》(《马克思主义与现实》2002年第4期)、斯科特·拉什著、王武龙编译的《风险社会与风险文化》(《马克思主义与现实》2002年第4期)、乌尔里希·贝克等著、王武龙编译的《从工业社会到风险社会》(上篇)(《马克思主义与现实》2003年第3期)、沃特·阿赫特贝格著、周战超编译的《民主、正义与风险社会》(《马克思主义与现实》2003年第3期)等。
1科学和技术从目标、活动类型、活动主体、产出、评价标准都不同。科学目的的是产生新认识和理解,技术的目的是产生新产品、新工艺和服务。参见樊春良.全球化时代的科技政策.北京：北京理工大学出版社,2005.3.
1 Gehlen, A.1990, Technik als Organersatz, Organentlastung, Organuberbietung, in Bekes, Peter (Hrsg.), Mensch und Technik, Reclam转引自周桂田.风险,不确定性与第二现代.
1“规制”一词是由英文的regulation一词翻译而来,其基本涵义是规范制约。一般而言,行政学和管理学文献中多译为“规制”,意在强调政府的监督作用而非直接行政命令：经济学中则多翻译为“管制”,突出regulation对于自由市场经济运行的影响；法学文献中习惯上也多翻译为“规制”,强调regulation必须以法律法规作为其正当性和合法性的来源。政府规制指政府运用法律、规章、制度等手段对经济和社会加以控制和限制。参见傅蔚冈 宋华琳(主编).规制研究：转型时期的社会性规制与法治(第1辑).上海：格致出版社上海人民出版社,2008年.8.
1《世界自然宪章》第11条。
1也有少数国际条约没有对此做出规定,例如《生物多样性公约》、《巴马科公约》等。
2转引自唐双娥.环境法风险预防原则研究—法律与科学的对话.北京：高等教育出版社,2004.161-164.
3弱风险预防原则的一个经典表述就是《里约环境与发展宣言》第15条的原则性规定；1998年《温斯布莱德声明》对风险预防原则的界定就是强风险预防原则的代表。参见桑斯坦.恐惧的规则—超越预防原则.王爱民译.北京：北京大学出版社,2011.1523.
1有学者指出,多数社会问题的决策需要从若干角度来评估复杂的后果：金钱、生命、福利、环保等等,但我们通常的伦理机制不足以对这些因素的组合作出明确的比较。例如,在发展中国家,像水土流失这样的环境问题常常是与人们的直接需求相冲突的,而我们几乎没有什么现成的办法来解决这种价值冲突。[瑞典]斯万.欧维.汉森：知识社会中的不确定性.刘北成译.因际社会科学杂志(中文版)[J].2003(1).
1 EC (1998) Opinion of the Scienti. c Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment
2欧洲法院案例报告第13/99号,2002年第2卷第3305页及其以下(Case T-13/99, PfizerAnimalHealth SA v Council [2002] ECR Ⅱ-3305).
1转引自左凤荣.切尔诺贝利事故的教训.理论视野[J].2011(6).新华文摘[J].2011(19)：157.
2同上。
3 Chernobyl's Legacy:Health, Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts and Recommendations to the Government of Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. 并从不可预知的未来中获益。参见纳西姆·尼古拉斯·塔勒布.黑天鹅：如何应对不可预知的未来.万丹译.北京：中信出版社,2008.
2后现代知识观通常主张“知识的终结”,认为知识的文化性、情境性和价值向度使知识带有文化霸权主义色彩,也使得我们无法对客观世界进行普遍的、中立的和客观的描述。
1 deliberation (deliberative)一词,在国内的学术界有着多种不同的翻译。这些翻译大致可分为两大类：1、协商(的)、商议(的)、商谈(的)；2、审议(的)、审慎思辨(的)、深思熟虑(的)。从中文的字面意思看前一类的翻译强调了该词外在的、公共的、行动的方面,后一类翻译强调了该词内在的、个人的、思考的方面。两类翻译都体现了该词在协商民主理论下所具有的部分内涵。本文选用“协商(的)”这一翻译是考虑到在《马克思主义与现实》(中央编译局主办)杂志近年来发表的该研究领域的学术文章统一采用了这一翻译,并且对国内学术期刊文献的检索也反映采用这一翻译的学术文章所占的比例较大。
2有关协商民主的观点可以参见谈火生等编译.审议民主.江苏人民出版社,2007.
1桑斯坦也论述了个人在公共选择中并不完全是追逐私利的。参见凯斯-R·孙斯坦.自由市场与社会正义.金朝武、胡爱平、乔聪启译.中国政法大学出版社,2002.15-21.
1《环境影响评价公众参与暂行办法》(环发[2006]28号)
2《关于征求<核电厂环境影响评价公众参与实施办法>意见的函》(国核安办(2008) 247号)
[1]Andrew Stirling, Joel A. Tickner. "Implementing precaution: assessment and application tools for health and environmental decision-making" [A]. In Edited by:Marco Martuzzi and Joel A. Tickner. The precautionary principle:protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children [C]. WHO Regional Office for Europe:World Health Organization.2004.181-209.
[2]Anthony Giddens. Modernity and Self-Identity. London Polity.1991.
[3]Arie Trouwborst. Evolution and Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law. The Hauge:Kluwer Law International 2002.40.
[4]Barbara Adam, Ulrich Beck& Joost Van Loon. The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory[M].2000.
[5]Beckerman Wilfred. Small is Stupid-Blowing the Whistle on the Greens[M]. London:Duckworth.1995.
[6]Cass R. Sunstein. Beyond The Precautionary Principle, University of Pennsylvania Law Review,2003(151):1021-1058.
[7]Cass R. Sunstein. Laws of Fear:Beyond the Precautionary Principle, Cambridge University Press.2005.
[8]Celia Campbell-Mohn, John S. Applegate. Learning From NEPA:Guidelines for Responsible Risk Legislation, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 1999 (23):101.
[9]Charles Perrow. The Next Catastrophe:Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial and Terrorist Disasters, Princeton University Press,2007.
[10]Christopher D. Stone. Is There a Precautionary Principle? Environmntal Law Reporter,2001(31):97-107.
[11]Christopher Freeman. The Economics of Industial Innovation, the 2nd edn, France, London,1982.
[12]Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, Robert. Baldwin. The Government of Risk:Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes[M]. Oxford University Press,2000.
[13]Commission from the Communication on Precautionary Principle (2000/ 02/02), available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health-consumer/library/pub/pub07-en.pdf
[14]Commission of the European Communities, Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle, Brus-sels,02.02.2000.
[15]Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment in the Federal Government:Managing the Process 1983.18_19 Community and International Environmental Law,1997(6):121-130.
[16]Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle, from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health consumer/library/press/press38 en. html.2009年2月11日浏览
[17]Dale Jamieson. Uncertainty and Risk Assessment:Scientific Uncertainty and the Political Process, The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science.1996 (35).
[18]Daniel R. Krewski, Patricia. L Birkwood. Risk Assessment and Risk Management[J]. Risk Abstracts,1987,4 (2):53-61.
[19]Deborah G. Mayo, Rachelle D. Hollander eds. Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, Oxford University Press.1991.
[20]Draft EU Constitution, Article Ⅲ-129.
[21]Eli zabeth Fisher. Risk Regulation and Administrative Constitutional ism, Hart Publishing.2007.
[22]Emmett J. Vaughan. Risk Management. New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1997.
[23]Ethyl Corporation v EPA,541 F.2d 1,1976 (28)
[24]Fed. Reg.15,618,15,625-26 (Apr.25,1986) codified at 40 C. F. R. & 1502.22 1987
[25]Frances M. Lynn. Public Participation in Risk Management Decisions:The Right to Define, the Right to Know, and the Right to Act. Risk Articles in Franklin Pierce Law Center. Two White Street, Concord, NH.2000.
[26]Frank B. Cross. Pradoxical Perils of the Precautionary Principle, Washington and Lee Law Review,1996(53):924.
[27]Frank Fischer. Ulrich Beck and the politics of the Risk Society—— the Enviromental Threat as Institutional Crisis. Organization & Enviroment, Vol.11, No.1, Sage Publication.1998.111-115
[28]H. Felix Kloman. Rethinking Risk Management. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance,1992 (17):299-313.
[29]Indur M. Goklany. From precautionary principle to risk? Risk analysis, Nature Biotechnology,2002(20):1075.
[30]Indur M. Goklany. The Precautionary Principle:A Critical Appraisal, Washington, D. C. The Cato Institute,2001.13.
[31]James Bohman, William Rehg ed. Deliberative Democracy[C]. New York: Cambridge University Press,1998.
[32]James Bohman. Public Deliberation[M]. Cambridge:MIT Press,1996.
[33]James Cameron, Julie Abouchar. The Precautionary Principled Fundamental Principle of Law and Policy for the Protection of Global Environment, B. C. In t/1& Comp. L. Rev,2000(14):19-20.
[34]James Clive. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2009[EB/OL]. http://www.isaaa. org/re-sources/publications/briefs/41/default. asp.
[35]James R. Valadez. Deliberative Democracy, Political Legitimacy, and Self-Democracy [A]. Multicultural Societies. USA Westview Press,2001.30.本文转引自：陈家刚.协商民主引论.马克思主义与现实,2004(3)：p26-34.
[36]Jenny Steele, John Gardner. Risk and Legal Theory. Oxford:Hart Publishing,2004.
[37]Joel Tickner, Carolyn Raffensperger, Nancy Myers. The Precautionary Principle in Action:A Handbook, Science and Environmental Health Network,1999.
[38]John C. Bailar, Barbara L. Berney, J. Michael McGinnis, Jack Needleman, Assessing Risks to Health:Methodological Approaches, Auburn House. 1993.309.
[39]John S. Applegate. A beginning and not an end in itself. The role of risk assessment in environmental decision-making, University of Cincinnati.1995 (63):1643.
[40]Joseph Di Gangi. Warning:Children at Risk-Toxic Chemicals Found in Vinyl Children's Products. Washington, DC:Greenpeace.1998.
[41]Julian Morris. Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle. Oxford, UK:Butterworth-Heinemann,2000.
[42]Krohn, Wolfgang, Johannes Weyer. Gesellschaft als Labor. Die Erzeugung sozialer Risiken durch experimentelle Forschung. Soziale Welt, 1988.349-373.
[43]M. Montini. The Nature and Function of the Necessity and Proportionality Principle in the Trade and Environment Context, Review of European
[44]Marc Victor. Precaution or Protectionism?The Precautionary Principle, Genetically Modified Organism and Allowing Unfounded Fear to Undermine Free Trade, The Transnational Lawyer.2001(14):295.
[45]Mark Eliot Shere. The Myth of Meaningful Environmental Risk Assessment. Harvard Environmental Law Review,1995(19):413.
[46]Martin Peterson. The Precautionary Principle Should not be Used as A Basis for Decision-making (J). Talking Point on the Precautionary Principle. EMBO Reports,2007(8):305-308.
[47]Mary Douglas, Aaron Wildavsky. Risk and Culture. Berkeley:University of California Press.1982.
[48]Maurie J. Cohen. Risk Society and Ecological Modernization Alternative Visions for Post_industrial Nations[J]. Futures,1997(29):105-119.
[49]National Research Council. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process [M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press,1983.
[50]Neil A. Doherty. Integrated Risk Management. New York:McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.2000.
[51]New Scientist Plastic toy ban,1997. New Scientist 13 December,23. New Scientist.1998. The perils of PVC—plastics are implicated in one of the commonest male cancers, New Scientist 24 January,13.
[52]Niklas Luhmann. Die Paradoxie des Entscheidens. Verwaltungs-Archiv. Zeitschrift fur Verwaltungslehre, Verwaltungsrecht und Verwaltungspolitik,1993. in Niels Akerstr(?)m Andersen, Asmund W Born. Heterophony and the Postponed Organization Organizing autopoietic systems.Tamara Journal of Critical Organisation Inquiry. Las Cruces: 2007(6):176
[53]OECD. Special Issue On Government Foresight Exercises.STI review[C] 1996(17):18.
[54]Ortwin Renn. White paper On risk governance—towards an integrative approach[EB/OL]. [2005_09]. http://www. irgc. org/IMG/pdf/IRGC WP No 1 Risk_Governance_reprinted version. Pdf
[55]Paul Stein. Are Decision-makers Too Cautious With The Precautionary Principle?. Available at http:www.ids.ors.au/——cnevill/Lawlink NSWStein.htm (visited 29/08/2004)
[56]Per Sandin. Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle,5 Hum. & Ecol. Risk Assess.1999:889.
[57]Question 20(b) of CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions on the National Environmental Policy Act Regulations,46 Fed. Reg.18,026,18,032 (1981)) See Cass R. Sunstein, Worst-Case Scenarios, Harvard University Press.2007
[58]Robert B. Reich. Public Administration and Public Deliberation:An Interpretive Essay, Yale Law Journal.1985(94):1617.
[59]Robert Holzman, Steen Jorgensen. Social Risk Management:A New Conceptual Framework for Social Protection, and Beyond. Social Protection Disscussion Paper. No.0006. Social Protection Unit, Human Development Network. The World Bank.2000.
[60]Robert V. Percival. Who's Afraid of the Precautionary Principle? Pace Environmental Law Review.2005(23):21.
[61]Roger E. Kasperson. Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance to Risk Communication. Risk Analysis,1986 (6):275-282.
[62]Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,1998
[63]Royal Society. Risk Assessment:A Study Group Report [M]. London:Royal Society,1992.
[64]Silvio 0. Funtowicz, Jerome R. Ravetz. Global Environmental Issues and the Emergence of Second Order Science. EUR.12803 EN [M]. Ispra, Italy: Joint Research Center of the Commission of the European Communities, 1990.
[65]The Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 130r(2).
[66]Thomas 0. McGarity. Public Participation in Risk Regulation[J]. Risk: Health, Safety, and Environment,1990(2):128-130.
[67]Thomas Willoughby Stone. Margin of Appreciation Gone Awry:The European Court of Human Rights'Implicit Use of the Precautionary Principle in Frette. France to Backtrack on Protection from Discrimination Basis of Sexual Orientation, Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 2003(3):271.
[68]Ulrich Beck. Risk Society:Towards a New Modernity[M]. London:Sage. 1992.
[69]W. Conard Holton:方兴未艾的核能,译自EHP 113：A742-A749(2005),环境与健康展望,2006(6)：20-26.
[70]Walker, V. R. A legal perspective on the precautionary principle. Presentation to a European Commission Workshop,1999 (5):19.
[71]William C. Clark. Research Systems for a Transition Toward Sustainability, In W. Steffen, J. Japer, D. J. Carson, C. Bradshaw eds, Challenges of a Changing Earth Proceedings of the Global Change Open Science Conference, Springer-Verlag.2001.
[72]Williams, C. A. Jr. Michael L. Smith, and Peter C. Young(7th and 8th ed.)(1995 and 1998). Risk Management and Insurance. Boston, MA:Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
[73]Yacov Y. Haimes. Towards a Holistic Approach to Total Risk Management. The Geneva Paper on Risk and Insurance,1992 (17):314-321.
[74][比]伊利亚·普里戈金.确定性的终结.湛敏译.上海：上海科技教育出版社,2009.
[75][德]奥尔特温·雷恩,[澳]伯内德·罗尔曼.跨文化的风险感知.赵延东,张虎彪译.北京：北京出版社,2007.
[76][德]哈贝马斯.论现代性.转引自王岳川,尚水编.后现代主义文化与美学.北京：北京大学出版社,1992.
[77][德]卡尔·曼海姆.意识形态与乌托邦.北京：中国社会科学出版社,2009.
[78][德]考夫曼.法律哲学.刘幸义等译.北京：法律出版社,2004.
[79][德]乌尔里希·贝克,[德]约翰内斯·威尔姆斯.自由与资本主义.路国林译.杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001.
[80][德]乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会.何博文译.南京：译林出版社,2004.
[81][德]乌尔里希·贝克.从工业社会到风险社会[A].王武龙译.薛晓源,周战超主编.全球化与风险社会[C].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2005.98.
[82][德]乌尔里希·贝克.世界风险社会.吴英姿,孙淑敏译.南京：南京大学出版社,2004a.
[83][德]乌尔里希·贝克贝克.从工业社会到风险社会关于人类生存、社会结构和生态启蒙等问题思考[J].马克思主义与现实,2003(3)：28-44
[84][法]让-雅克·萨洛蒙.新环境下的科学政策.张大川译.国际社会科学杂志[J]2002(2)：147.
[85][法]埃德加·莫兰.迷失的范式：人性研究.北京大学出版社,1999.
[86][法]拉丰.规制与发展.聂辉华译,中国人民大学出版社,2009.
[87][法]让·拉特利尔.科学和技术对文化的挑战.吕乃基等译.北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[88][荷]莫尔,斯帕加伦.社会学、环境和现代社会.1992.转引自薛晓源 周战超主编.全球化与风险社会.北京：社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[89][荷]沃特·阿赫特贝格.民主、正义与风险社会：生态民主政治的形态与意义.周战超编译.马克思主义与现实[J].2003(3)：52.
[90][加]盖德福德等.生物技术经济学.黄祖辉,马叙忠等译.上海三联书店、上海人民出版社,2003.
[91][美]H.T.恩格尔哈特(Engelhardt).著生命伦理学基础(第二版).范瑞平译.北京：北京大学出版社,2006.译者前言：俗世的伦理学,当代的乌托邦.1-8.
[92][美]阿尔·戈尔.难以忽视的真相.环保志愿者译.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,2007.
[93][美]阿尔文·托夫勒.未来的冲击.蔡伸章译.北京：中信出版社,2006.
[94][美]波拉克(H.N. Pollack).不确定的科学与不确定的世界.上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年.
[95][美]查尔斯·佩罗.高风险技术与“正常”事故.寒窗译.北京：科学技术文献出版社,1988.
[96][美]戴伊.理解公共政策.彭勃等译.北京：华夏出版社,2004.
[97][美]丹尼尔·贝尔.后工业社会的来临.北京：商务印书馆,1986.
[98][美]费斯科霍夫等.人类可接受风险.王红漫译.北京：北京大学出版社,2009.2.
[99][美]弗兰克·奈特.风险、不确定性和利润.安佳译.北京：商务印书馆,2006.
[100][美]卡尔·米切姆.技术哲学概论.殷登祥等译.天津：天津科学技术出版社,1999.
[101][美]凯斯.R.孙斯坦.风险与理性.师帅译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[102][美]理查德.B.斯图尔特.美国行政法的重构.北京：商务印书馆,2002.
[103][美]乔治·萨顿.科学史和新人文主义.北京：：华夏出版社,1998.
[104][美]桑斯坦.恐惧的规制——超越预防原则.王爱民译.北京：北京大学出版社,2011.史培军等.中国综合风险管理.中国减灾[J].2005(2)：34-36.
[105][美]维纳.人有人的用处.陈步译.北京：商务印书馆,1978.
[106][美]詹姆斯·博曼.公共协商：多元主义、复杂性与民主[M].黄相怀译.北京：中央编译出版社,2006.
[107][南非]皮特·斯特赖敦.风险社会中的冲突和民意.周战超编译.转自薛晓源,周战超主编.全球化与风险社会.北京：社会科学文献出版社,2005年.
[108][瑞典]斯万·欧维·汉森.知识社会中的不确定性.国际社会科学杂志(中文版)[J].2003(1)：37-43.
[109][英]安东尼·奥格斯.规制：法律形式与经济学理论.骆梅英译.北京：中国人 民大学出版社,2008.
[110][英]贝尔纳.历史上的科学.北京：科学出版社,1959.
[111][英]吉登斯.第三条道路.北京：北京大学出版社,生活、读书、新知三联书店,2000..
[112][英]吉登斯.现代性的后果.田禾译,黄平校.南京：译林出版社,2000.
[113][英]吉登斯.现代性与自我认同.赵旭东方文译,王铭铭校.北京：生活、读书、新知三联出版社,1998.
[114][英]马丁·冯,彼得·杨.公共部门风险管理,陈通等译.天津：天津大学出版社,2003.
[115][英]谢尔顿·克里姆斯基,多米尼克·戈尔丁.风险的社会理论学说.徐元玲等译.北京：北京出版,2005.http://www.studa.net/jingjifa/101202/15482189.html 2011-10-26浏览
[116]Klaus-Heinrich Staudke.技术评估：实际上是政治过程.韩春立,杨铄译.科学对社会的影响[J].1986(1)：65-76.
[117]芭芭拉·亚当等.风险社会及其超越.赵延东等译.北京：北京出版社,2005.
[118]陈佳冉.核之痛—福岛危机中回望切尔诺贝利核难.人物[J].2011(4)：11
[119]陈家刚.协商民主：概念、要素与价值.中共天津市委党校学报[J].2005(3)：54-60
[120]陈玲,薛澜,赵静,林泽梁.后常态科学下的公共政策决策—以转基因水稻审批过程为例.科学学研究[J].2010(9)：1281
[121]陈新民.公法学札记.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[122]崔伟奇.论风险观念视野下的科技观.自然辩证法研究[J].2006(12)：60-63.
[123]丁元竹等.中国2010年：风险与规避.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2005.
[124]樊春良.技术预见与科技规划.科研管理[J].2003(6)：6-13.
[125]费多益.风险技术的社会控制.清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)[J]2005(3)：82-89.
[126]高秦伟.论欧盟行政法上的风险预防原则.比较法研究[J].2010(3)：54-64.
[127]龚向前.WTO框架下风险规制的合法性裁量
[128]胡斌.试论国际环境法中的风险预防原则.环境保护[J].2002(6).
[129]季卫东.依法的风险管理.山东社会科学[J].2011(1)：6-8.
[130]李洪雷.规制法理学的初步建构(代译序).桑斯坦.权利革命之后：重塑规制国.李洪雷译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008.
[131]李虎军.中国地震局正式公布汶川地震烈度分布图.http://ww.caijing.com.cn/2008-09-01/110009619.html.最后一次访问为2009年2月5日
[132]李瑞昌.风险、知识与公共决策.天津：天津人民出版社,2005.
[133]刘大椿等.在真与善之间科技时代的伦理问题与道德抉择.北京：中国社会科学出版社,2000.
[134]刘小枫.现代性社会理论绪论.上海：上海三联书店,1997.
[135]刘燕华.风险管理：新世纪的挑战.北京：北京气象出版社,2005.
[136]龙雪睛、任波、庄颖.厦门Px环评警示.财经[J].2007(13).
[137]鲁鹏.论不确定性.哲学研究[J].2006(3)：6.
[138]罗玉中谈国家中长期科技发展规划http://www.cf69.com.日期：2004-8-5来源：科技日报
[139]马缨.科技研究管理与风险预防原则.科技管理研究[J].2005(10)：52-54.
[140]宋明哲.现代风险管理.北京：中国纺织出版社.
[141]唐双娥.环境法风险防范原则研究,高等教育出版社,2004.
[142]万钢.当前科技发展与改革的主要进展、问题与对策.科技与法律[J].2008(2)：3-9.
[143]万劲波.技术评价、技术预见与技术风险的管理.科技导报[J].2002(12)：15-17.
[144]王灿发,于文轩.生物安全的国际法原则.现代法学[J].2003(4)
[145]王前,杨慧民.科技伦理案例解析.北京：高等教育出版社,2009.
[146]王荣江.追求确定性知识的思维方式及其现代性后果.自然辩证法研究 [J].2003(7)
[147]吴国盛主编.技术哲学经典读本.上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008.
[148]吴经熊.怀念霍姆斯法官.李冬松译.(本文译自吴经熊博士所著的《法律的艺术》(The Art of Law----And other Essays Juridical and Literary, Shanghai: Commercial Press Limited,1936. http://www.china-review.com/laf.asp?id=19348 2011-10-25浏览
[149]西尔维奥·0·冯拖维克兹,杰罗姆·R.拉弗兹.三类风险评估及后常规科学的诞生.风险的社会理论学说.北京：北京出版,2005.
[150]徐显明.在中国法学青年论坛第三期“社会风险与法制发展”上的发言,2010.
[151]薛晓源,刘国良.法治时代的危险、风险与和谐—德国著名法学家、波恩大学法学院院长乌·金德霍伊泽尔教授访谈录.马克思主义与现实[J].2005(3)：26
[152]薛晓源,周战超.全球化与风险社会.北京；社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[153]杨砾,徐立.人类理性与设计科学—人类设计技能探索.沈阳：辽宁人民出版社
[154]于达维.乳山核电僵局.财经[J].2008(7)
[155]约翰·亚伯拉罕.渐进式变迁一一美英两国药品政府规制的百年演进.宋华琳译.北大法律评论第4卷第2辑.北京：法律出版社,2002.
[156]张文显.二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究.北京：法律出版社,2006.
[157]张文贞：当科技遇上宪法：宪政主义的危机与转机,月旦法学[J].2005(196)：184-185.
[158]张月鸿,武建军,吴绍洪,刘登伟.现代综合风险治理与后常规科学.安全与环境学报[J]2008(5)：16-21.
[159]赵建军.追问技术悲观主义.沈阳：东北大学出版社,2001.
[160]赵万里.科学技术与社会风险.科学技术与辩证法[J].1998(03)
[161]钟开斌.风险管理：从被动反应到主动保障.中国行政管理[J].2007(1)
2这是卢曼法社会学理论的最基本主张。参阅宾凯“法律如何可能：通过‘二阶观察’的系统建构——进入卢曼法律社会学的核心”《北大法律评论》第7卷第2辑(2006年)。与风险密切相关的是信任以及有关规范的复杂性缩减机制。详见尼克拉斯·卢曼《信赖——社会复杂性缩减机制》(原著初版1968发行,大庭健、正村俊之译,东京：劲草书房,1990年)。季卫东认为卢曼这一风险法制思想为我们思考中国风险社会语境中依法治国框架的基本因素构成提供了启示。参见季卫东.依法的风险管理.山东社会科学[J].2011(1)：6-8.
1截至目前,中国对风险社会理论的研究还处社翻译评价国外理论的阶段,重要的译著有：乌尔里希·贝克等著、路国林译的《自由与资本主义》(浙江人民出版社,2001年12月)、乌尔里希·贝克、哈贝马斯等著、王学东、柴方国等译的《全球化与政治》(中央编译出版社,2000年3月)和贝克著、何博文译《风险社会》(译林出版社,2004年7月)等；主要的译文有：乌尔里希·贝克著、郗卫东编译的《风险社会再思考》(《马克思主义与现实》2002年第4期)、斯科特·拉什著、王武龙编译的《风险社会与风险文化》(《马克思主义与现实》2002年第4期)、乌尔里希·贝克等著、王武龙编译的《从工业社会到风险社会》(上篇)(《马克思主义与现实》2003年第3期)、沃特·阿赫特贝格著、周战超编译的《民主、正义与风险社会》(《马克思主义与现实》2003年第3期)等。
1科学和技术从目标、活动类型、活动主体、产出、评价标准都不同。科学目的的是产生新认识和理解,技术的目的是产生新产品、新工艺和服务。参见樊春良.全球化时代的科技政策.北京：北京理工大学出版社,2005.3.
1 Gehlen, A.1990, Technik als Organersatz, Organentlastung, Organuberbietung, in Bekes, Peter (Hrsg.), Mensch und Technik, Reclam转引自周桂田.风险,不确定性与第二现代.
1“规制”一词是由英文的regulation一词翻译而来,其基本涵义是规范制约。一般而言,行政学和管理学文献中多译为“规制”,意在强调政府的监督作用而非直接行政命令：经济学中则多翻译为“管制”,突出regulation对于自由市场经济运行的影响；法学文献中习惯上也多翻译为“规制”,强调regulation必须以法律法规作为其正当性和合法性的来源。政府规制指政府运用法律、规章、制度等手段对经济和社会加以控制和限制。参见傅蔚冈 宋华琳(主编).规制研究：转型时期的社会性规制与法治(第1辑).上海：格致出版社上海人民出版社,2008年.8.
1《世界自然宪章》第11条。
1也有少数国际条约没有对此做出规定,例如《生物多样性公约》、《巴马科公约》等。
2转引自唐双娥.环境法风险预防原则研究—法律与科学的对话.北京：高等教育出版社,2004.161-164.
3弱风险预防原则的一个经典表述就是《里约环境与发展宣言》第15条的原则性规定；1998年《温斯布莱德声明》对风险预防原则的界定就是强风险预防原则的代表。参见桑斯坦.恐惧的规则—超越预防原则.王爱民译.北京：北京大学出版社,2011.1523.
1有学者指出,多数社会问题的决策需要从若干角度来评估复杂的后果：金钱、生命、福利、环保等等,但我们通常的伦理机制不足以对这些因素的组合作出明确的比较。例如,在发展中国家,像水土流失这样的环境问题常常是与人们的直接需求相冲突的,而我们几乎没有什么现成的办法来解决这种价值冲突。[瑞典]斯万.欧维.汉森：知识社会中的不确定性.刘北成译.因际社会科学杂志(中文版)[J].2003(1).
1 EC (1998) Opinion of the Scienti. c Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment
2欧洲法院案例报告第13/99号,2002年第2卷第3305页及其以下(Case T-13/99, PfizerAnimalHealth SA v Council [2002] ECR Ⅱ-3305).
1转引自左凤荣.切尔诺贝利事故的教训.理论视野[J].2011(6).新华文摘[J].2011(19)：157.
2同上。
3 Chernobyl's Legacy:Health, Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts and Recommendations to the Government of Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. 并从不可预知的未来中获益。参见纳西姆·尼古拉斯·塔勒布.黑天鹅：如何应对不可预知的未来.万丹译.北京：中信出版社,2008.
2后现代知识观通常主张“知识的终结”,认为知识的文化性、情境性和价值向度使知识带有文化霸权主义色彩,也使得我们无法对客观世界进行普遍的、中立的和客观的描述。
1 deliberation (deliberative)一词,在国内的学术界有着多种不同的翻译。这些翻译大致可分为两大类：1、协商(的)、商议(的)、商谈(的)；2、审议(的)、审慎思辨(的)、深思熟虑(的)。从中文的字面意思看前一类的翻译强调了该词外在的、公共的、行动的方面,后一类翻译强调了该词内在的、个人的、思考的方面。两类翻译都体现了该词在协商民主理论下所具有的部分内涵。本文选用“协商(的)”这一翻译是考虑到在《马克思主义与现实》(中央编译局主办)杂志近年来发表的该研究领域的学术文章统一采用了这一翻译,并且对国内学术期刊文献的检索也反映采用这一翻译的学术文章所占的比例较大。
2有关协商民主的观点可以参见谈火生等编译.审议民主.江苏人民出版社,2007.
1桑斯坦也论述了个人在公共选择中并不完全是追逐私利的。参见凯斯-R·孙斯坦.自由市场与社会正义.金朝武、胡爱平、乔聪启译.中国政法大学出版社,2002.15-21.
1《环境影响评价公众参与暂行办法》(环发[2006]28号)
2《关于征求<核电厂环境影响评价公众参与实施办法>意见的函》(国核安办(2008) 247号)
[1]Andrew Stirling, Joel A. Tickner. "Implementing precaution: assessment and application tools for health and environmental decision-making" [A]. In Edited by:Marco Martuzzi and Joel A. Tickner. The precautionary principle:protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children [C]. WHO Regional Office for Europe:World Health Organization.2004.181-209.
[2]Anthony Giddens. Modernity and Self-Identity. London Polity.1991.
[3]Arie Trouwborst. Evolution and Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law. The Hauge:Kluwer Law International 2002.40.
[4]Barbara Adam, Ulrich Beck& Joost Van Loon. The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory[M].2000.
[5]Beckerman Wilfred. Small is Stupid-Blowing the Whistle on the Greens[M]. London:Duckworth.1995.
[6]Cass R. Sunstein. Beyond The Precautionary Principle, University of Pennsylvania Law Review,2003(151):1021-1058.
[7]Cass R. Sunstein. Laws of Fear:Beyond the Precautionary Principle, Cambridge University Press.2005.
[8]Celia Campbell-Mohn, John S. Applegate. Learning From NEPA:Guidelines for Responsible Risk Legislation, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 1999 (23):101.
[9]Charles Perrow. The Next Catastrophe:Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial and Terrorist Disasters, Princeton University Press,2007.
[10]Christopher D. Stone. Is There a Precautionary Principle? Environmntal Law Reporter,2001(31):97-107.
[11]Christopher Freeman. The Economics of Industial Innovation, the 2nd edn, France, London,1982.
[12]Christopher Hood, Henry Rothstein, Robert. Baldwin. The Government of Risk:Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes[M]. Oxford University Press,2000.
[13]Commission from the Communication on Precautionary Principle (2000/ 02/02), available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health-consumer/library/pub/pub07-en.pdf
[14]Commission of the European Communities, Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle, Brus-sels,02.02.2000.
[15]Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment in the Federal Government:Managing the Process 1983.18_19 Community and International Environmental Law,1997(6):121-130.
[16]Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle, from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health consumer/library/press/press38 en. html.2009年2月11日浏览
[17]Dale Jamieson. Uncertainty and Risk Assessment:Scientific Uncertainty and the Political Process, The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science.1996 (35).
[18]Daniel R. Krewski, Patricia. L Birkwood. Risk Assessment and Risk Management[J]. Risk Abstracts,1987,4 (2):53-61.
[19]Deborah G. Mayo, Rachelle D. Hollander eds. Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, Oxford University Press.1991.
[20]Draft EU Constitution, Article Ⅲ-129.
[21]Eli zabeth Fisher. Risk Regulation and Administrative Constitutional ism, Hart Publishing.2007.
[22]Emmett J. Vaughan. Risk Management. New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1997.
[23]Ethyl Corporation v EPA,541 F.2d 1,1976 (28)
[24]Fed. Reg.15,618,15,625-26 (Apr.25,1986) codified at 40 C. F. R. & 1502.22 1987
[25]Frances M. Lynn. Public Participation in Risk Management Decisions:The Right to Define, the Right to Know, and the Right to Act. Risk Articles in Franklin Pierce Law Center. Two White Street, Concord, NH.2000.
[26]Frank B. Cross. Pradoxical Perils of the Precautionary Principle, Washington and Lee Law Review,1996(53):924.
[27]Frank Fischer. Ulrich Beck and the politics of the Risk Society—— the Enviromental Threat as Institutional Crisis. Organization & Enviroment, Vol.11, No.1, Sage Publication.1998.111-115
[28]H. Felix Kloman. Rethinking Risk Management. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance,1992 (17):299-313.
[29]Indur M. Goklany. From precautionary principle to risk? Risk analysis, Nature Biotechnology,2002(20):1075.
[30]Indur M. Goklany. The Precautionary Principle:A Critical Appraisal, Washington, D. C. The Cato Institute,2001.13.
[31]James Bohman, William Rehg ed. Deliberative Democracy[C]. New York: Cambridge University Press,1998.
[32]James Bohman. Public Deliberation[M]. Cambridge:MIT Press,1996.
[33]James Cameron, Julie Abouchar. The Precautionary Principled Fundamental Principle of Law and Policy for the Protection of Global Environment, B. C. In t/1& Comp. L. Rev,2000(14):19-20.
[34]James Clive. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2009[EB/OL]. http://www.isaaa. org/re-sources/publications/briefs/41/default. asp.
[35]James R. Valadez. Deliberative Democracy, Political Legitimacy, and Self-Democracy [A]. Multicultural Societies. USA Westview Press,2001.30.本文转引自：陈家刚.协商民主引论.马克思主义与现实,2004(3)：p26-34.
[36]Jenny Steele, John Gardner. Risk and Legal Theory. Oxford:Hart Publishing,2004.
[37]Joel Tickner, Carolyn Raffensperger, Nancy Myers. The Precautionary Principle in Action:A Handbook, Science and Environmental Health Network,1999.
[38]John C. Bailar, Barbara L. Berney, J. Michael McGinnis, Jack Needleman, Assessing Risks to Health:Methodological Approaches, Auburn House. 1993.309.
[39]John S. Applegate. A beginning and not an end in itself. The role of risk assessment in environmental decision-making, University of Cincinnati.1995 (63):1643.
[40]Joseph Di Gangi. Warning:Children at Risk-Toxic Chemicals Found in Vinyl Children's Products. Washington, DC:Greenpeace.1998.
[41]Julian Morris. Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle. Oxford, UK:Butterworth-Heinemann,2000.
[42]Krohn, Wolfgang, Johannes Weyer. Gesellschaft als Labor. Die Erzeugung sozialer Risiken durch experimentelle Forschung. Soziale Welt, 1988.349-373.
[43]M. Montini. The Nature and Function of the Necessity and Proportionality Principle in the Trade and Environment Context, Review of European
[44]Marc Victor. Precaution or Protectionism?The Precautionary Principle, Genetically Modified Organism and Allowing Unfounded Fear to Undermine Free Trade, The Transnational Lawyer.2001(14):295.
[45]Mark Eliot Shere. The Myth of Meaningful Environmental Risk Assessment. Harvard Environmental Law Review,1995(19):413.
[46]Martin Peterson. The Precautionary Principle Should not be Used as A Basis for Decision-making (J). Talking Point on the Precautionary Principle. EMBO Reports,2007(8):305-308.
[47]Mary Douglas, Aaron Wildavsky. Risk and Culture. Berkeley:University of California Press.1982.
[48]Maurie J. Cohen. Risk Society and Ecological Modernization Alternative Visions for Post_industrial Nations[J]. Futures,1997(29):105-119.
[49]National Research Council. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process [M]. Washington, DC:National Academy Press,1983.
[50]Neil A. Doherty. Integrated Risk Management. New York:McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.2000.
[51]New Scientist Plastic toy ban,1997. New Scientist 13 December,23. New Scientist.1998. The perils of PVC—plastics are implicated in one of the commonest male cancers, New Scientist 24 January,13.
[52]Niklas Luhmann. Die Paradoxie des Entscheidens. Verwaltungs-Archiv. Zeitschrift fur Verwaltungslehre, Verwaltungsrecht und Verwaltungspolitik,1993. in Niels Akerstr(?)m Andersen, Asmund W Born. Heterophony and the Postponed Organization Organizing autopoietic systems.Tamara Journal of Critical Organisation Inquiry. Las Cruces: 2007(6):176
[53]OECD. Special Issue On Government Foresight Exercises.STI review[C] 1996(17):18.
[54]Ortwin Renn. White paper On risk governance—towards an integrative approach[EB/OL]. [2005_09]. http://www. irgc. org/IMG/pdf/IRGC WP No 1 Risk_Governance_reprinted version. Pdf
[55]Paul Stein. Are Decision-makers Too Cautious With The Precautionary Principle?. Available at http:www.ids.ors.au/——cnevill/Lawlink NSWStein.htm (visited 29/08/2004)
[56]Per Sandin. Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle,5 Hum. & Ecol. Risk Assess.1999:889.
[57]Question 20(b) of CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions on the National Environmental Policy Act Regulations,46 Fed. Reg.18,026,18,032 (1981)) See Cass R. Sunstein, Worst-Case Scenarios, Harvard University Press.2007
[58]Robert B. Reich. Public Administration and Public Deliberation:An Interpretive Essay, Yale Law Journal.1985(94):1617.
[59]Robert Holzman, Steen Jorgensen. Social Risk Management:A New Conceptual Framework for Social Protection, and Beyond. Social Protection Disscussion Paper. No.0006. Social Protection Unit, Human Development Network. The World Bank.2000.
[60]Robert V. Percival. Who's Afraid of the Precautionary Principle? Pace Environmental Law Review.2005(23):21.
[61]Roger E. Kasperson. Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance to Risk Communication. Risk Analysis,1986 (6):275-282.
[62]Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,1998
[63]Royal Society. Risk Assessment:A Study Group Report [M]. London:Royal Society,1992.
[64]Silvio 0. Funtowicz, Jerome R. Ravetz. Global Environmental Issues and the Emergence of Second Order Science. EUR.12803 EN [M]. Ispra, Italy: Joint Research Center of the Commission of the European Communities, 1990.
[65]The Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 130r(2).
[66]Thomas 0. McGarity. Public Participation in Risk Regulation[J]. Risk: Health, Safety, and Environment,1990(2):128-130.
[67]Thomas Willoughby Stone. Margin of Appreciation Gone Awry:The European Court of Human Rights'Implicit Use of the Precautionary Principle in Frette. France to Backtrack on Protection from Discrimination Basis of Sexual Orientation, Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 2003(3):271.
[68]Ulrich Beck. Risk Society:Towards a New Modernity[M]. London:Sage. 1992.
[69]W. Conard Holton:方兴未艾的核能,译自EHP 113：A742-A749(2005),环境与健康展望,2006(6)：20-26.
[70]Walker, V. R. A legal perspective on the precautionary principle. Presentation to a European Commission Workshop,1999 (5):19.
[71]William C. Clark. Research Systems for a Transition Toward Sustainability, In W. Steffen, J. Japer, D. J. Carson, C. Bradshaw eds, Challenges of a Changing Earth Proceedings of the Global Change Open Science Conference, Springer-Verlag.2001.
[72]Williams, C. A. Jr. Michael L. Smith, and Peter C. Young(7th and 8th ed.)(1995 and 1998). Risk Management and Insurance. Boston, MA:Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
[73]Yacov Y. Haimes. Towards a Holistic Approach to Total Risk Management. The Geneva Paper on Risk and Insurance,1992 (17):314-321.
[74][比]伊利亚·普里戈金.确定性的终结.湛敏译.上海：上海科技教育出版社,2009.
[75][德]奥尔特温·雷恩,[澳]伯内德·罗尔曼.跨文化的风险感知.赵延东,张虎彪译.北京：北京出版社,2007.
[76][德]哈贝马斯.论现代性.转引自王岳川,尚水编.后现代主义文化与美学.北京：北京大学出版社,1992.
[77][德]卡尔·曼海姆.意识形态与乌托邦.北京：中国社会科学出版社,2009.
[78][德]考夫曼.法律哲学.刘幸义等译.北京：法律出版社,2004.
[79][德]乌尔里希·贝克,[德]约翰内斯·威尔姆斯.自由与资本主义.路国林译.杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001.
[80][德]乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会.何博文译.南京：译林出版社,2004.
[81][德]乌尔里希·贝克.从工业社会到风险社会[A].王武龙译.薛晓源,周战超主编.全球化与风险社会[C].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2005.98.
[82][德]乌尔里希·贝克.世界风险社会.吴英姿,孙淑敏译.南京：南京大学出版社,2004a.
[83][德]乌尔里希·贝克贝克.从工业社会到风险社会关于人类生存、社会结构和生态启蒙等问题思考[J].马克思主义与现实,2003(3)：28-44
[84][法]让-雅克·萨洛蒙.新环境下的科学政策.张大川译.国际社会科学杂志[J]2002(2)：147.
[85][法]埃德加·莫兰.迷失的范式：人性研究.北京大学出版社,1999.
[86][法]拉丰.规制与发展.聂辉华译,中国人民大学出版社,2009.
[87][法]让·拉特利尔.科学和技术对文化的挑战.吕乃基等译.北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[88][荷]莫尔,斯帕加伦.社会学、环境和现代社会.1992.转引自薛晓源 周战超主编.全球化与风险社会.北京：社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[89][荷]沃特·阿赫特贝格.民主、正义与风险社会：生态民主政治的形态与意义.周战超编译.马克思主义与现实[J].2003(3)：52.
[90][加]盖德福德等.生物技术经济学.黄祖辉,马叙忠等译.上海三联书店、上海人民出版社,2003.
[91][美]H.T.恩格尔哈特(Engelhardt).著生命伦理学基础(第二版).范瑞平译.北京：北京大学出版社,2006.译者前言：俗世的伦理学,当代的乌托邦.1-8.
[92][美]阿尔·戈尔.难以忽视的真相.环保志愿者译.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,2007.
[93][美]阿尔文·托夫勒.未来的冲击.蔡伸章译.北京：中信出版社,2006.
[94][美]波拉克(H.N. Pollack).不确定的科学与不确定的世界.上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年.
[95][美]查尔斯·佩罗.高风险技术与“正常”事故.寒窗译.北京：科学技术文献出版社,1988.
[96][美]戴伊.理解公共政策.彭勃等译.北京：华夏出版社,2004.
[97][美]丹尼尔·贝尔.后工业社会的来临.北京：商务印书馆,1986.
[98][美]费斯科霍夫等.人类可接受风险.王红漫译.北京：北京大学出版社,2009.2.
[99][美]弗兰克·奈特.风险、不确定性和利润.安佳译.北京：商务印书馆,2006.
[100][美]卡尔·米切姆.技术哲学概论.殷登祥等译.天津：天津科学技术出版社,1999.
[101][美]凯斯.R.孙斯坦.风险与理性.师帅译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[102][美]理查德.B.斯图尔特.美国行政法的重构.北京：商务印书馆,2002.
[103][美]乔治·萨顿.科学史和新人文主义.北京：：华夏出版社,1998.
[104][美]桑斯坦.恐惧的规制——超越预防原则.王爱民译.北京：北京大学出版社,2011.史培军等.中国综合风险管理.中国减灾[J].2005(2)：34-36.
[105][美]维纳.人有人的用处.陈步译.北京：商务印书馆,1978.
[106][美]詹姆斯·博曼.公共协商：多元主义、复杂性与民主[M].黄相怀译.北京：中央编译出版社,2006.
[107][南非]皮特·斯特赖敦.风险社会中的冲突和民意.周战超编译.转自薛晓源,周战超主编.全球化与风险社会.北京：社会科学文献出版社,2005年.
[108][瑞典]斯万·欧维·汉森.知识社会中的不确定性.国际社会科学杂志(中文版)[J].2003(1)：37-43.
[109][英]安东尼·奥格斯.规制：法律形式与经济学理论.骆梅英译.北京：中国人 民大学出版社,2008.
[110][英]贝尔纳.历史上的科学.北京：科学出版社,1959.
[111][英]吉登斯.第三条道路.北京：北京大学出版社,生活、读书、新知三联书店,2000..
[112][英]吉登斯.现代性的后果.田禾译,黄平校.南京：译林出版社,2000.
[113][英]吉登斯.现代性与自我认同.赵旭东方文译,王铭铭校.北京：生活、读书、新知三联出版社,1998.
[114][英]马丁·冯,彼得·杨.公共部门风险管理,陈通等译.天津：天津大学出版社,2003.
[115][英]谢尔顿·克里姆斯基,多米尼克·戈尔丁.风险的社会理论学说.徐元玲等译.北京：北京出版,2005.http://www.studa.net/jingjifa/101202/15482189.html 2011-10-26浏览
[116]Klaus-Heinrich Staudke.技术评估：实际上是政治过程.韩春立,杨铄译.科学对社会的影响[J].1986(1)：65-76.
[117]芭芭拉·亚当等.风险社会及其超越.赵延东等译.北京：北京出版社,2005.
[118]陈佳冉.核之痛—福岛危机中回望切尔诺贝利核难.人物[J].2011(4)：11
[119]陈家刚.协商民主：概念、要素与价值.中共天津市委党校学报[J].2005(3)：54-60
[120]陈玲,薛澜,赵静,林泽梁.后常态科学下的公共政策决策—以转基因水稻审批过程为例.科学学研究[J].2010(9)：1281
[121]陈新民.公法学札记.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[122]崔伟奇.论风险观念视野下的科技观.自然辩证法研究[J].2006(12)：60-63.
[123]丁元竹等.中国2010年：风险与规避.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2005.
[124]樊春良.技术预见与科技规划.科研管理[J].2003(6)：6-13.
[125]费多益.风险技术的社会控制.清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)[J]2005(3)：82-89.
[126]高秦伟.论欧盟行政法上的风险预防原则.比较法研究[J].2010(3)：54-64.
[127]龚向前.WTO框架下风险规制的合法性裁量
[128]胡斌.试论国际环境法中的风险预防原则.环境保护[J].2002(6).
[129]季卫东.依法的风险管理.山东社会科学[J].2011(1)：6-8.
[130]李洪雷.规制法理学的初步建构(代译序).桑斯坦.权利革命之后：重塑规制国.李洪雷译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008.
[131]李虎军.中国地震局正式公布汶川地震烈度分布图.http://ww.caijing.com.cn/2008-09-01/110009619.html.最后一次访问为2009年2月5日
[132]李瑞昌.风险、知识与公共决策.天津：天津人民出版社,2005.
[133]刘大椿等.在真与善之间科技时代的伦理问题与道德抉择.北京：中国社会科学出版社,2000.
[134]刘小枫.现代性社会理论绪论.上海：上海三联书店,1997.
[135]刘燕华.风险管理：新世纪的挑战.北京：北京气象出版社,2005.
[136]龙雪睛、任波、庄颖.厦门Px环评警示.财经[J].2007(13).
[137]鲁鹏.论不确定性.哲学研究[J].2006(3)：6.
[138]罗玉中谈国家中长期科技发展规划http://www.cf69.com.日期：2004-8-5来源：科技日报
[139]马缨.科技研究管理与风险预防原则.科技管理研究[J].2005(10)：52-54.
[140]宋明哲.现代风险管理.北京：中国纺织出版社.
[141]唐双娥.环境法风险防范原则研究,高等教育出版社,2004.
[142]万钢.当前科技发展与改革的主要进展、问题与对策.科技与法律[J].2008(2)：3-9.
[143]万劲波.技术评价、技术预见与技术风险的管理.科技导报[J].2002(12)：15-17.
[144]王灿发,于文轩.生物安全的国际法原则.现代法学[J].2003(4)
[145]王前,杨慧民.科技伦理案例解析.北京：高等教育出版社,2009.
[146]王荣江.追求确定性知识的思维方式及其现代性后果.自然辩证法研究 [J].2003(7)
[147]吴国盛主编.技术哲学经典读本.上海：上海交通大学出版社,2008.
[148]吴经熊.怀念霍姆斯法官.李冬松译.(本文译自吴经熊博士所著的《法律的艺术》(The Art of Law----And other Essays Juridical and Literary, Shanghai: Commercial Press Limited,1936. http://www.china-review.com/laf.asp?id=19348 2011-10-25浏览
[149]西尔维奥·0·冯拖维克兹,杰罗姆·R.拉弗兹.三类风险评估及后常规科学的诞生.风险的社会理论学说.北京：北京出版,2005.
[150]徐显明.在中国法学青年论坛第三期“社会风险与法制发展”上的发言,2010.
[151]薛晓源,刘国良.法治时代的危险、风险与和谐—德国著名法学家、波恩大学法学院院长乌·金德霍伊泽尔教授访谈录.马克思主义与现实[J].2005(3)：26
[152]薛晓源,周战超.全球化与风险社会.北京；社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[153]杨砾,徐立.人类理性与设计科学—人类设计技能探索.沈阳：辽宁人民出版社
[154]于达维.乳山核电僵局.财经[J].2008(7)
[155]约翰·亚伯拉罕.渐进式变迁一一美英两国药品政府规制的百年演进.宋华琳译.北大法律评论第4卷第2辑.北京：法律出版社,2002.
[156]张文显.二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究.北京：法律出版社,2006.
[157]张文贞：当科技遇上宪法：宪政主义的危机与转机,月旦法学[J].2005(196)：184-185.
[158]张月鸿,武建军,吴绍洪,刘登伟.现代综合风险治理与后常规科学.安全与环境学报[J]2008(5)：16-21.
[159]赵建军.追问技术悲观主义.沈阳：东北大学出版社,2001.
[160]赵万里.科学技术与社会风险.科学技术与辩证法[J].1998(03)
[161]钟开斌.风险管理：从被动反应到主动保障.中国行政管理[J].2007(1)
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |