Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
Risk Anal. 2011 Jun;31(6):969-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01545.x. Epub 2010 Dec 22.
Legal liability for risk-generating technological activities is evaluated in view of requirements that are necessary for peaceful human coexistence and progress in order to show possibilities for improvement. The requirements imply, given that political decision making about the activities proceeds on the basis of majority rule, that legal liability should be unconditional (absolute, strict) and unlimited (full). We analyze actual liability in international law for various risk-generating technological activities, to conclude that nowhere is the standard of unconditional and unlimited liability fully met. Apart from that there are enormous differences. Although significant international liability legislation is in place for some risk-generating technological activities, legislation is virtually absent for others. We discuss fundamental possibilities and limitations of liability and private insurance to secure credible and ethically sound risk assessment and risk management practices. The limitations stem from problems of establishing a causal link between an activity and a harm; compensating irreparable harm; financial warranty; moral hazard in insurance and in organizations; and discounting future damage to present value. As our requirements call for prior agreement among all who are subjected to the risks of an activity about the settlement of these difficult problems, precautionary ex ante regulation of risk-generating activities may be a more attractive option, either combined with liability stipulations or not. However, if ex ante regulation is not based on the consent of all subjected to the risks, it remains that the basis of liability in the law should be unconditional and unlimited liability.
从和平共处和人类进步所需的必要要求出发，评估产生风险的技术活动的法律责任，以展示改进的可能性。这些要求意味着，由于活动的政治决策是基于多数原则进行的，法律责任应该是无条件的（绝对的、严格的）和无限的（完全的）。我们分析了国际法中各种产生风险的技术活动的实际责任，得出的结论是，没有任何地方完全符合无条件和无限责任的标准。除此之外，还存在着巨大的差异。尽管对于一些产生风险的技术活动已经制定了重要的国际责任立法，但对于其他活动，立法几乎不存在。我们讨论了责任和私人保险的基本可能性和局限性，以确保可信和符合伦理的风险评估和风险管理实践。这些限制源于在活动和损害之间建立因果关系、赔偿不可挽回的损害、财务保证、保险和组织中的道德风险以及将未来损害贴现为现值等问题。由于我们的要求要求所有受活动风险影响的人都事先就这些困难问题的解决达成一致，因此，对产生风险的活动进行预防性的事先监管可能是一个更有吸引力的选择，无论是与责任规定相结合还是不结合。然而，如果事先监管不是基于所有受风险影响的人的同意，那么责任的基础仍然应该是无条件和无限责任。
