New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

the needs of peasants are incorporated in agricultural research and development and that peasants participate in the determination of priorities and undertaking of research and development, with respect given to their cultures and their experience. 766 According to the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the precautionary principle is also of importance when talking about “risks involved in particular scientific processes and its applications”. If there is not full scientific certainty, “when an action or policy may lead to unacceptable harm to the public or the environment, actions will be taken to avoid or diminish that harm”. 767 According to the classification of the CESCR, unacceptable harm encompasses the harm to humans or the environment that is: “(a) threatening to human life or health; (b) serious and effectively irreversible; (c) inequitable to present or future generations; or (d) imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected”. 768 Thus, according to the CESCR, tools that are useful in identifying potential risks are technological and human rights impact assessments. 769 It is pertinent to note a criticism that has been put forth regarding the abovementioned reiteration of the precautionary principle within GC 25. According to scholar Samantha Besson, the GC 25 defines the acceptability of the harm while referring to the human rights of those affected. Thus, it errs by considering these rights as external to the right. It is her opinion that anticipation duties should be framed under the human right to science itself-because they are inherent in the protection of the right to science-and not under duties arising under other human rights. 770 Regarding the risks, states would be complying with an implicit obligation contained within the right to science. It has been argued that states are also under an obligation to protect from the negative effects that science (and technology) might have on human rights enjoyment. 771 An interpretation a contrario to the wording of Article 15 could be supporting this argument, or in the alternative, a systematic and teleological interpretation that considers the entirety of both Covenants. 772 To demonstrate, the CESCR both in its Guidelines on Reporting by states, 773 as well as its GC 25 has argued that the right to science could be interpreted as encompassing 766 CESCR, ‘General comment No. 25 on science and economic, social and cultural rights (article 15 (1) (b), (2), (3) and (4) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)’ (30 April 2020) UN Doc E/C.12/GC/25, para 65. 767 Ibid., para 56. 768 Ibid. 769 Ibid. 770 Besson S, ‘Anticipation under the human right to science: concepts, stakes and specificities’ (2024) 28(3) The International Journal of Human Rights 293, p. 299. 771 Mazibrada A, ‘Is there a Right to be Protected from the Adverse Effects of Scientific Progress and its Applications?’ ( EJIL: Talk! , 29 November 2022) accessed 29 October 2023. 772 Ibid. 773 CESCR, ‘Guidelines on Treaty-Specific Documents to be Submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 And 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (24 March 2009)’ UN Doc E/C.12/2008/2, para 70 (b).

188