Even though the technological risk has existed throughout human history, the importance of it emerged recently with the public concerns growing. As the modern society moves forward risk society, it cannot but rising as the important matter of social policy to control and manage technology and science which forms the underpinnings of modernity. It is an important social issue to consider social policy with legislation, lawmaking, and legal interpretation. With this cognizance, this study examines the awareness of risk factor and legislation, especially the problems of criminal law, in advanced technological society. More specifically, it handles legislative policy of risk society, focusing on the cases of United States, Europe Union including United Kingdom and Germany, and Japan.

First, in the United States, there is few legislation which arrange social risk factors overall. Management of risk factor is stated fragmentary in the respective laws or only legal theory formed by precedent is made as law. A framework of environmental hazards in U.S is ex post reaction(responses). This is a major difference with Europe Union, including Germany, which have a law principle about risk factor, like precautionary principle. We could check this typical feature on TCSA, which regulates chemicals in U.S. U.S maintains its stance that it can regulate only if there is an evidence which can prove actual risk. For this burden of proof reflects policy choice concerning risk regulations which contain uncertainty, most of U.S risk regulations give relatively low level of burden of proof. However, 9/11 terror triggered U.S to establish the United States Department of Homeland Security and legislate Homeland Security Act and USA PATRIOT ACT. With these laws, various measures were arranged to make states use concentrated power to prevent risk actualization and measures was made as well to intensify the penalty and make law enforcement stricter. Furthermore, it is impressing that U.S emphasizes preventative aspect by strengthening preventative measures like control of risk factor, ex post reporting and disclosure.

It is after 1992 in which maastricht treaty was signed when precautionary principle was applied in Europe Union. After French nuclear testing in 1995, debate about the precautionary principle was increased. Particularly, as to a case admitted to have the importance to protect even though there could be a scientific uncertainty, precautionary principle is frequently regarded as a rule.
For example, The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety allows importing party to make appropriate decisions, including imports ban of living modified organisms, to avoid and minimize the potential risk. OSPAR Convention also have the specific rules on application of precautionary principle. The common point in risk and uncertainty which appear locally and topically is that they tend to accelerate normativity of precautionary principle. It is in the same context that EU established REACH rules. Recently, for upgraded environment protection, it continued communal efforts to protect environment with criminal law and finally promulgated 「Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law」, which is a binding standard of regional community and could regulate domestic environment lawmaking of member nations.

Generally, it is preferable to have as less risk as possible, but it is impossible to get rid of risk completely. ALARP(As Low As Reasonably Practicable) is a principle for risk management in Britain law that shows this point well. United Kingdom has maintained its principle that regulation should be as flexible as possible since it introduced “best practice”. “The Health and Safety at Work etc. ACT”, enacted in 1974, follows ALARP principle.
Although United Kingdom is most active in coping with climate change, there is few possibility to introduce criminal control in that field. In the discord condition between flexible regulation and risk management, United Kingdom has actively and powerfully applied criminal law to risk factor. As a right to be safe has become a legal interest to be protected, it is usual to generalize infringe of right to be safe as threat to liberty, considering a right of security in the sense of freedom from fear. Following this trend, Public Order Act 1986 was enacted in Britain, and futhermore, to protect citizens' subjective safety, ASBO(Anti-Social Behaviour order) is gaining speed to be enacted in criminal law.

Germany is a place where Ulrich Beck provoked a discourse about Risk Society after an accident of nuclear power plant in Chernobyl in 1986 spring. German discourses about the risk society bore a discussion about legal theory as to a criminal managing possibility of risk within criminology. More recently, 9/11 in U.S and regional terrorism in Europe and nuclear power plant accident in Fukushima awakened German civil society to awareness of risk. Unlike initial debate in 1990's, however, the horizon of debate now seems to be moving toward “safety” from “risk”. Recent german discussion on risk management emphasizes that legal interest and human rights are grounded on liberty and secirity is the very precondition of liberty, unlike the conventional opposition between legal interest and human right. However, some problems are already seriously pointed out in Germany as to excessive criminal measures with populist intention in politics, corresponding distort awareness made by interests of commercial mass media and expanding threat for fear in civil society. With such criminal law it is difficult not only to find infringement of legal interest but also to define responsibility. Hence it is criticized that the size of punishment is determined by the size and distance of the risk, not by the responsibility of the risk.

Although Japan has been a harsh condition with many disaster such as frequent earthquake, lack of natural resources, it fully utilized post-modern technology and achieved high growth. In this course, Japan made safety myth represent multiple safety secure through beforehandedness by the “manuel”.
Japanese “safety myth” is that Japan could cut off risk actualization in advance and absolutely secure safety with risk management using “manuel”. Safety myth, however, which is precaution of risk through specific regulation reinforced by criminal charges, only has symbolic meanings. In 2011, Japan could not cut off actualization of huge risk that existed in the nuclear power plant and failed completely to stave off global nuclear disaster. Japanese experience could be a suggestion to us, in that we are making a risk management law on a basis of similar risk awareness of civil society with Japan and national policy decision making system lack of democratic communication.