text: for harm caused rather than automatic strict liability. 434. Host members agreed with the Special Rapportsur that it would be preferable to consider activities involving risk and those involviag harm toqether since they had a lot ia co6snoa in terms of legal consequences. This was particalarly 80 if one took a broader concept of prevention to include not * only measures to prevent an accident, but also measures designed to reduce or prevent harrs. A feu members, while not disagreeing with the approach, were not certain how obligations of prevention, particularly those intending to prevent the occurreaCe of an accident, could be formulated in a set of articles which made no distinction betwesa the two types of activities. The obligations of prevention were quite di6tinct. They alro prefsrred not to refer to the measures taken to mitigate end reduce harm after the occurrence of an accident a6 preventive. ft ras also felt that the draft could be divided into two parts; the first part could be devoted to prevention and the secoad part could consist of one or severe1 model ch.a6%6 on reparation. 475. A few aeslbers felt that the Special Rapporteur, in aa attempt to treat activities iavolving risk aad those involviag harm together, had tended to narrow the scope Of the topic so as t0 almost subordinate aCtiVitie6 involving harm to those involving risk. Thus, activities causing harm appeared to have a different meaning -an activity in which harm was seen as an inevitable or virtually inevitable consequence from the beginning and could be undertaken and continued on the basis that measures would be taken to reduce the harm and - 247 -compensation would be paid for such harm as did ouaur, This meaning em6rqed particularly from the daffaftion of BBaativities with harmful effects@@ in
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the drafting of international legal articles related to harm and risk, with a focus on the concept of prevention and reparation. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting a legal or regulatory context. The topic is not specific to a particular industry or sector, but rather seems to be a general discussion on legal principles.