Sendai five years on: reflections on the role of international law in the creation and reduction of disaster risk

This article offers a critical examination of the position of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 within international law. It is argued that any interrogation into the role of international law must begin not with existing disaster risk reduction (DRR) laws and policies, but rather with an enquiry into the nature of disaster risk and the role of international law in its creation and reduction. It is demonstrated how, while areas such as international human rights law can be utilized to enforce obligations in support of DRR, other areas – in particular international investment law – actively work to undermine DRR efforts. In order for international law to be a productive tool in the reduction of disaster risk international lawyers must engage with critical work in disaster studies in order to explore the role that the former has played – and can play – in creating and addressing hazards, vulnerabilities and capacities

When Risk Management Systems ‘Fail’: On Criminal Negligence and the Limits of Scientists’ Responsibility

This chapter consists of a brief discussion on some legal aspects concerning scientists’ responsibility in risk prevention processes. After proposing some introductory considerations on scientists’ responsibility as such, the author deals with the L’Aquila earthquake crisis of 2009, when a strong quake destroyed significant parts of L’Aquila (Italy) and surrounding villages, killing more than 300 people. The chapter focuses on the relations between scientific knowledge, normative expectations, decision-making and criminal negligence for ‘failed’ risk assessment and management, paying particular attention to the role of ‘regulatory science’ in constructing the ‘reasonable person’ normative standard of care in the theory of criminal negligence. This allows explaining why the first judgement in the L’Aquila trial (2012) is not convincing, having misunderstood how policy-relevant science should participate in prevention processes and the construction of normative standards. In his conclusions, the author suggests some reasons for the recent tendency to blame experts when natural or technological disasters occur