International Organizations and Nanotechnologies: The Challenge of Coordination

• Date: 01 July 2013
• Published date: 01 July 2013
• Author: Makane Moïse Mbengue,Margaux Charles
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12033

International Organizations and Nanotechnologies:

The Challenge of Coordination

Makane Moïse Mbengue and Margaux Charles

International organizations have been debating and

monitoring the issue of nanotechnologies for several

years. Five international organizations have been

quite active in this respect: the Food and Agriculture

Organization, the International Labour Organization,

the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development, the United Nations Educational, Scien-

tific and Cultural Organization, and the World Health

Organization. Nevertheless, due to their different

mandates, the actions of these international organiza-

tions have been rather fragmented. In particular, they

have been unable to agree on whether a universal

regulatory framework is necessary in order to better

address the uncertain risks that may derive from

nanotechnologies. Furthermore, they have not yet

clearly identified the principles of international envi-

ronmental law (e.g., sustainable development, precau-

tionary principle) that should govern any action in the

field of nanotechnologies. Despite this fragmentation,

there are international efforts to foster coordina-

tion between international organizations, with the

establishment of two important fora: the Inter-

organization Programme for the Sound Management

of Chemicals and the Inter-governmental Forum on

Chemical Safety.

INTRODUCTION:

NANOTECHNOLOGY AS

A CONCERN OF THE

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

Nanotechnology could change the world from the bottom

up. Nanotechnology could become an instrument of terror-

ism. Nanotechnology could lead to the next industrial revo-

lution. Nanotechnology could transform the food industry.

Nanotechnology could repair the ozone layer. Nanotechnol-

ogy could change everything.1

Nanotechnology can bring great achievements, but it

can also be hazardous if not treated with caution.2

Because of the importance of the risks and the uncer-

tainty surrounding their impacts on human health and

the environment, more and more concerns have arisen

at the international level to address the phenomenon of

nanotechnologies.

International organizations have been debating the

issue for several years in order to identify and define the

most appropriate regulatory approach to address

the specific characteristics of nanotechnologies and the

risks they pose. In their quest, these organizations have

been guided mainly by a precautionary approach,3

while keeping in mind the interests and benefits that

nanotechnologies can bring about. As such, the ulti-

mate aim of international organizations appears to be

one of ‘promot[ing] further research but simultane-

ously tak[ing] regulatory action to limit or prevent

potential harm from uncertain risks’.4

International organizations have not operated in a

vacuum. Regulations have been introduced at the

national level, inter alia, by Australia, France, Japan,

the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as at

the regional level within the context of the European

Union (EU). However, there are still many disparities

between the existing regulations. These disparities

reveal a need for the development of a universal legal

framework capable of better ensuring the implementa-

tion of the precautionary principle and fostering

1United Nations Educational, Scientif‌ic and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO), The Ethics and Politics of Nanotechnology (UNESCO,

2006), found at: <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001459/

145951e.pdf>,at3.

2E. Drexler and C. Peterson, Unbounding the Future: The Nanotech-

nology Revolution (William Morrow, 1991).

3Because of the status of the precautionary approach/principle as a

customary rule of international law, international organizations are

also bound to act in accordance with this approach. On the customary

nature of the precautionary approach, see International Tribunal on

the Law of the Sea, 1 February 2011, Responsibilities and Obliga-

tions of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to

Activities in the Area (Request for Advisory Opinion Submitted to the

Seabed Disputes Chamber), found at: <http://www.itlos.org/f‌ileadmin/

itlos/documents/cases/case_no_17/adv_op_010211.pdf>, at para-

graph 135: ‘The Chamber observes that the precautionary approach

has been incorporated into a growing number of international treaties

and other instruments, many of which ref‌lect the formulation of Prin-

ciple 15 of the Rio Declaration. In the view of the Chamber, this has

initiated a trend towards making this approach part of customary

international law.’

4R. Falkner and N. Jaspers, ‘Regulating Nanotechnologies: Risk,

Uncertainty and the Global Governance Gap’, 12:2 Global Environ-

mental Politics (2012), 30, at 33. See also N. de Sadeleer, Imple-

menting the Precautionary Principle: Approaches from the Nordic

Countries, the EU and USA (Earthscan, 2007), at 158.

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

RECIEL 22 (2) 2013. ISSN 0962-8797

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

174