A research on the applications of the precautionary principle to the new EU chemicals policy (REACH)

本研究从预防原则应用的角度考察了欧盟新化学品政策（REACH）的“注册”和“授权”机制，两者都转移了“举证责任”。虽然事先通知程序一般被认为适用预防原则，但委员会并不经常将注册与预防原则联系起来。这项研究表明，该授权可能需要预防性原则作为其理由，因为它是新的和对现行条例的补充，允许仅仅存在某些危害就可以触发对这些化学品的初步禁令。另一方面，注册保持了现行法规的基本结构，并没有改变不确定性的判断方式。REACH重新分配了“举证责任”，以解决系统的实际功能障碍，因此可能不需要援引预防原则。这项研究还解决了另一个问题：为什么欧盟选择将注册现有化学品的法律责任强加给该行业，而日本和美国则选择了自愿的方式。这可能是因为欧盟现有的法规已经低于预期，自愿的方法将无法填补这一空白。法律规定也可以通过平衡竞争条件使该行业受益。其他促成REACH的因素包括主导欧盟化学品改革讨论的绿色成员国。将改革作为一项环境政策也可能是一个因素。环境委员会至少在早期就采取了改革的主动行动，并指出了新政策的要素。需要进一步审查可能促进预防性条例的体制因素。

This research examines ‘Registration' and ‘Authorization' mechanisms of EU new chemicals policy (REACH), both of which shift ‘the burden of proof', from the viewpoint of applications of the precautionary principle. Although prior notification procedures have generally been considered the application of the precautionary principle, Registration has not been very often related to the precautionary principle by the Commission. This research shows that the Authorization may need the precautionary principle for its justification because it is new and additional to the current regulations, allowing mere existence of certain hazards to trigger initial bans of such chemicals. On the other hand, Registration maintains the basic structure of the current regulations and does not change the way of judging uncertainty. REACH reallocates the ‘burden of proof' to address the actual dysfunction of the system thus it may not need to invoke the precautionary principle.The research also addresses another issue : why EU opted for imposing legal responsibility to register existing chemicals on the industry while Japan and the US have been settled for voluntary approaches. It may be because the existing regulations have fallen below the expectation in EU that voluntary approaches would not fill the gap. Legal rules could also benefit the industry by leveling their competitive conditions. Other factors which contributed to REACH include green member states who lead the discussion in the EU chemicals reform. Framing the reform as an environmental policy may also be a factor. Environment Council took the initiatives of the reform at least in early days and indicated the elements of a new policy. Institutional factors that may facilitate precautionary regulations need to be further examined.