Os princípios de cautela e a estrutura jurídica da responsabilidade civil ambiental

• Ano de defesa: 2012
• Autor(a) principal: Fava, Gustavo Crestani
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso; Brasil; Faculdade de Direito (FD); UFMT CUC - Cuiabá; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito
• Palavras-chave em Português: Responsabilidade civil; Precaução; Presunção de causalidade; Direito ambiental; CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO; Civil liability; Precaution; Presumption causality; Environmental law
• Link de acesso: http://ri.ufmt.br/handle/1/832

This investigation began his work with the concept of 'risk society' and the types of uncertainties, stating that within the production model is jointly and inseparably to the production of wealth (accounting for the highest level of social services), the submission of humanity at risks even imagined before, which call into question the existence of present and the possibility of existence of the future generations. In this context, some of the basic principles for environmental protection - precaution (uncertain consequences) and prevention (certain evil consequences) - appear as the basis for defining a suitable solid justification, give rise to a mode suitable protective of the environment. Supplanting the inefficiency function restorative, preventive, precautionary approach in the context of liability applies to the system of warrants tangent to the modern environmental law as a basis for the elaboration of a rule of presumption of a causal link between certain behaviors and the risks it inherent, in order to establish a causal bond just prior to the damage, which in a society of risk is uncertain. The research argues that the civil liability which considers in its structures the applications of the principles of precaution and prevention must be based on three pillars: the conduct, causation (which must operate in shape assumed) and risk. Thus, it is argued that since no evidence that a particular activity does not expose the environmental good at stake, it is assumed that this does, guiding the liability embodied in the requirement to take the necessary steps to avoid the damage or, in the remote hypothesis, determining the cessation of activity until they clarify their possible environmental consequences.