1. For a review of various national approaches, see Cameron and Abouchar, supra note 6; D. VanderZwaag, CEPA and the Precautionary Principle/Approach, Reviewing CEPA: The Issues #18 (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1994); and O'Riordan et al. supra note 3, Chapter 7 (Netherlands), Chapter 8 (United States), Chapter 9 (Australia), and Chapter 10 (Canada).
2. Over 40 cases relating to the precautionary principle have been decided in Commonwealth jurisdictions alone. For a review of some of the cases see VanderZwaag, supra note 4, at 373-74; W. Th. Douma, "The Precautionary Principle," http://www.asser.nl/EEL/virtue/precprin.htm (date accessed: 27 June 2001); R. Unger, "Brandishing the Precautionary Principle Through the Alien Tort Claims Act" (2001), 9 N.Y.U. Env. L. J. 638 at 664-65; and E. Fisher, "Is the Precautionary Principle Justiciable?' (2001), 13 J. Env. L. 315.
3. See WTO Appellate Body Report on EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WTO Doc. WT/DS26/AB/R (16 January 1998). For a review of the case, see L. Hughes, "Limiting the Jurisdiction of Dispute Settlement Panels: The WTO Appellate Body Beef Hormone Decision" (1998), 10 Geo. Int'l Env. L. Rev. 915.
4. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1995).
5. See D. Freestone, "Implementing Precaution Cautiously: The Precautionary Approach in the Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement" in E. Hey (ed.). Developments in International Fisheries Law (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), at Chapter 11.