Abstract
Since the early 1990s, German environmental policies have been characterized by a broad range of alternative dispute resolution procedures, such as, for instance, ‘mediation’ and ‘risk dialogue’. Based on the ethics of discourse, developed by German social theorist Habermas, they are designed to solve problems in risk management caused by citizen protest. However, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) failed rather often in environmental issues. Based on a ‘risk society’ perspective, this paper presents a systematic argument for the empirical problems of discursive dispute regulation. End-of-pipe practical discourse is not suitable for dealing with questioned expert knowledge claims, problems of unawareness and manufactured uncertainties, central to regulation conflicts in risk society. This calls for an earlier public engagement via discourse, focusing on scientific and technological research and development agendas, as well as replacing traditional risk management with management of uncertainties and unawareness. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
