The Nuclear Civil Liability Regimes and the Path Forward for the State of Qatar
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Published
Jul 15, 2021
Abstract
While many states are moving away from nuclear power and decommissioning their reactors for cheaper and safer alternative energy sources, recent years have seen a spark in interest for nuclear power within the Middle East under the pretext of ‘energy independence’. This trend poses a potential threat for the safety of the region considering that nuclear power plants are prone to human errors, deliberate attacks, and natural environmental convulsions which could trigger potential transboundary fallout. Given the region’s small and compacted geography along with the increasingly volatile geopolitical instability, a regional incident would likely have much direr consequences compared to other previous nuclear incidents. As a non-nuclear power state, Qatar is not currently party to any of the nuclear civil liability conventions which could guarantee some level of compensation for the victims in case of transboundary nuclear harm. In due course, Qatar will be surrounded by nuclear reactors from the north (the Iranian Bushehr plant), the east (the UAE Barakah plant) and the west (the planned Saudi plants). As exemplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, theoretical transboundary calamities can unexpectedly become a sudden reality and there is a solemn need to work proactively when dealing with such consequential hypotheticals. Therefore, this article qualitatively assesses the relevant international conventions with an aim of being policy relevant and navigate Qatari decision-makers through the vexing web of the nuclear civil liability regimes.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Keywords
LawInternationalNuclearLiabilityReactorQatar
References
1. Brussels Supplementary Convention to the Paris Convention, (adopted 31 January 1963), UNTS 956.
2. Convention on Nuclear Safety (adopted 17 June 1994, entered into force 24 October 1996), UTC 1963.
3. Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (adopted 12 September 1997, entered into force 15 April 2015), UNTS 3039.
4. Joint Protocol Relating to the Application of the Vienna Convention and the Paris Convention (adopted 21 September 1988, entered into force 27 April 1992), UNTS 1672.
5. Paris Convention on Third-Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (adopted 29 July 1960), UNTS 956.
6. Protocol to amend the Vienna Convention on civil liability for nuclear damage (adopted 12 September 1997, entered into force 4 October 2003), UNTS 2241.
7. United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
8. United Nations, Statute of the International Court of Justice, 18 April 1946.
9. Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (adopted 21 May 1963, entered into force 12 November 1977), UNTS 1063.
10. Austrian legislations: Federal Act on Civil Liability for Damage Caused by Radioactivity 1998; Bundesgesetz über die zivilrechtliche Haftung für Schäden durch Radioaktivität [AtomHG 1999] Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I [BGB1 I] No. 170/1998.
11. Canadian legislations: Canada-United States Nuclear Liability Rules (C.R.C., c. 1240).
12. Indian legislations: The Atomic Energy Act 1962.
13. US legislation: Act to Amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Price-Anderson), Pub. L. No. 85-256, 71 Stat. 576 (1957).
14. Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania); Merits, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 9 April 1949.
15. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), International Court of Justice (ICJ), 20 April 2010.
16. Trail Smelter Case (United States v. Canada) (1938 and 1941) 3 R.I.A.A. 1905.
17. Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India Etc (1989), 1990 AIR 273, 1989 SCC (2) 540.
18. J. G. Kemeny, The Need For Change: The Legacy Of TMI, Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, (1979).
19. M. A. Prelas. and M. S. Peck, Nonproliferation Issues For Weapons of Mass Destruction, (2016).
20. T. V. Borre, 'Channelling of liability: a few juridical and economic views on an inadequate legal construction’ in N.L.J.T. Horbach, Contemporary Developments in Nuclear Energy Law (ed.), (London: Kluwer Law International, 1999).
21. ———, 'Shifts in Governance in Compensation for Nuclear Damage, 20 Years after Chernobyl' in F. M. Verheiji Shifts in Compensation for Environmental Damage (eds), (Springer, 2007).
22. E. Ameye, Channeling of Nuclear Third Party Liability towards the Operator: Is It Sustainable in a Developing Nuclear World or Is There a Need for Liability of Nuclear Architects and Engineers', 2010, European Energy and Environmental Law Review.
23. E. M. Ameye, 'United States and India: two nuclear states with legislation that truly holds responsible parties liable in case of a nuclear accident', 2014, Journal of Risk Research.
24. J. Bellamy, 'Civil liability for nuclear damage in countries developing nuclear new build programmes', Journal of World Energy Law and Business, 2018.
25. J. Suttenberg, 'Who Pays? The Consequences of State Versus Operator Liability Within the Context of Transboundary Environmental Nuclear Damage', 2016, N.Y.U Environmental Law Journal.
26. L. Malone, 'The Chernobyl Accident: A Case Study in International Law Regulating State Responsibility for Transboundary Nuclear Pollution', 1987, Faculty Publications.
27. M. Faure and T. V. Borre, ‘Compensating Nuclear Damage: A Comparative Economic Analysis of the U.S. and International Liability Schemes’, 2008, William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review.
28. M. G. Faure, and L. Jing, 'The Tsunami of March 2011 and the Subsequent Nuclear Incident at Fukushima: Who Compensates the Victims?', 2012, William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review.
29. M. Najmedin, ‘Human Factors in Large- Scale Technological Systems’ Accidents: Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Chernobyl’, 1991, Industrial Crisis Quarterly.
30. P. Blanchard, ‘The Risk of Civil Nuclear Liability of Foreign Contractors in Central and Eastern Europe and the NIS’, 1999, Kluwer Law International.
31. P. Goedde, ‘In Search of a Civil Nuclear Liability Regime for North Korea’, [2003], Asian Perspective.
32. R. E. Levy, International Law and the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident: Reflections on an Important But Imperfect System', 2011, Kansas Law Review.
33. R. Heffron, S. F. Ashley, and W. J. Nuttall, 'The global nuclear liability regime post Fukushima Daiichi', 2016, Progress in Nuclear Energy.
34. Law Commission, Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, (UN Doc. A/56/10 2001), 153.
35. Atomic Industrial Forum, 'International Problems of Financial Protection Against Nuclear Risk: A Study Under the Auspices of Harvard Law School and Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc', (1959) (otherwise known as ‘The Harvard Report 1959’).
36. Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage: Advantages and Disadvantages of Joining the International Nuclear Liability Regime A paper by the International Expert Group on Nuclear Liability (INLEX),.
37. IAEA, 'The 1997 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage—Explanatory Texts', (2007),.
38. IAEA, ‘The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1’, (1992),.
39. OECD and IAEA, ‘International Nuclear Law’ In The Post-Chernobyl Period (2006),.
40. U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’ (1992), U.N. Doc. A/Conf.1.
41. U.N. Conference on Environment, ‘Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment’, (1972), U.N. Doc. A/Conf.48/14/Rev.1
42. United States Senate Consideration of Treaty Document 107-21, 2002,.
43. France and Russia, 'Franco-Russian Nuclear Power Declaration' (2013),.
44. G20, 'Leaders' Declaration’ (2013),.
45. United States and France, “Joint Statement on Liability for Nuclear Damage” (2013),.
46. IAEA, 'Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) - Calculating with the on-line calculator' accessed 30/11/2020.
47. Manichi News, '2.4 trillion yen in Fukushima crisis compensation costs to be tacked onto power bills', (10 December 2016) accessed 30/11/2020.
48. R. Chhabara, 'Bhopal gas disaster: Corporate negligence with deadly consequences', Reuters, accessed 15/12/2020.
49. World Nuclear Association, 'Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia', (August, 2020) accessed 30/11/2020.
2. Convention on Nuclear Safety (adopted 17 June 1994, entered into force 24 October 1996), UTC 1963.
3. Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (adopted 12 September 1997, entered into force 15 April 2015), UNTS 3039.
4. Joint Protocol Relating to the Application of the Vienna Convention and the Paris Convention (adopted 21 September 1988, entered into force 27 April 1992), UNTS 1672.
5. Paris Convention on Third-Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (adopted 29 July 1960), UNTS 956.
6. Protocol to amend the Vienna Convention on civil liability for nuclear damage (adopted 12 September 1997, entered into force 4 October 2003), UNTS 2241.
7. United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
8. United Nations, Statute of the International Court of Justice, 18 April 1946.
9. Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (adopted 21 May 1963, entered into force 12 November 1977), UNTS 1063.
10. Austrian legislations: Federal Act on Civil Liability for Damage Caused by Radioactivity 1998; Bundesgesetz über die zivilrechtliche Haftung für Schäden durch Radioaktivität [AtomHG 1999] Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I [BGB1 I] No. 170/1998.
11. Canadian legislations: Canada-United States Nuclear Liability Rules (C.R.C., c. 1240).
12. Indian legislations: The Atomic Energy Act 1962.
13. US legislation: Act to Amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Price-Anderson), Pub. L. No. 85-256, 71 Stat. 576 (1957).
14. Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania); Merits, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 9 April 1949.
15. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), International Court of Justice (ICJ), 20 April 2010.
16. Trail Smelter Case (United States v. Canada) (1938 and 1941) 3 R.I.A.A. 1905.
17. Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India Etc (1989), 1990 AIR 273, 1989 SCC (2) 540.
18. J. G. Kemeny, The Need For Change: The Legacy Of TMI, Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, (1979).
19. M. A. Prelas. and M. S. Peck, Nonproliferation Issues For Weapons of Mass Destruction, (2016).
20. T. V. Borre, 'Channelling of liability: a few juridical and economic views on an inadequate legal construction’ in N.L.J.T. Horbach, Contemporary Developments in Nuclear Energy Law (ed.), (London: Kluwer Law International, 1999).
21. ———, 'Shifts in Governance in Compensation for Nuclear Damage, 20 Years after Chernobyl' in F. M. Verheiji Shifts in Compensation for Environmental Damage (eds), (Springer, 2007).
22. E. Ameye, Channeling of Nuclear Third Party Liability towards the Operator: Is It Sustainable in a Developing Nuclear World or Is There a Need for Liability of Nuclear Architects and Engineers', 2010, European Energy and Environmental Law Review.
23. E. M. Ameye, 'United States and India: two nuclear states with legislation that truly holds responsible parties liable in case of a nuclear accident', 2014, Journal of Risk Research.
24. J. Bellamy, 'Civil liability for nuclear damage in countries developing nuclear new build programmes', Journal of World Energy Law and Business, 2018.
25. J. Suttenberg, 'Who Pays? The Consequences of State Versus Operator Liability Within the Context of Transboundary Environmental Nuclear Damage', 2016, N.Y.U Environmental Law Journal.
26. L. Malone, 'The Chernobyl Accident: A Case Study in International Law Regulating State Responsibility for Transboundary Nuclear Pollution', 1987, Faculty Publications.
27. M. Faure and T. V. Borre, ‘Compensating Nuclear Damage: A Comparative Economic Analysis of the U.S. and International Liability Schemes’, 2008, William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review.
28. M. G. Faure, and L. Jing, 'The Tsunami of March 2011 and the Subsequent Nuclear Incident at Fukushima: Who Compensates the Victims?', 2012, William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review.
29. M. Najmedin, ‘Human Factors in Large- Scale Technological Systems’ Accidents: Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Chernobyl’, 1991, Industrial Crisis Quarterly.
30. P. Blanchard, ‘The Risk of Civil Nuclear Liability of Foreign Contractors in Central and Eastern Europe and the NIS’, 1999, Kluwer Law International.
31. P. Goedde, ‘In Search of a Civil Nuclear Liability Regime for North Korea’, [2003], Asian Perspective.
32. R. E. Levy, International Law and the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident: Reflections on an Important But Imperfect System', 2011, Kansas Law Review.
33. R. Heffron, S. F. Ashley, and W. J. Nuttall, 'The global nuclear liability regime post Fukushima Daiichi', 2016, Progress in Nuclear Energy.
34. Law Commission, Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, (UN Doc. A/56/10 2001), 153.
35. Atomic Industrial Forum, 'International Problems of Financial Protection Against Nuclear Risk: A Study Under the Auspices of Harvard Law School and Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc', (1959) (otherwise known as ‘The Harvard Report 1959’).
36. Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage: Advantages and Disadvantages of Joining the International Nuclear Liability Regime A paper by the International Expert Group on Nuclear Liability (INLEX),
37. IAEA, 'The 1997 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage—Explanatory Texts', (2007),
38. IAEA, ‘The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1’, (1992),
39. OECD and IAEA, ‘International Nuclear Law’ In The Post-Chernobyl Period (2006),
40. U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’ (1992), U.N. Doc. A/Conf.1.
41. U.N. Conference on Environment, ‘Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment’, (1972), U.N. Doc. A/Conf.48/14/Rev.1
42. United States Senate Consideration of Treaty Document 107-21, 2002,
43. France and Russia, 'Franco-Russian Nuclear Power Declaration' (2013),
44. G20, 'Leaders' Declaration’ (2013),
45. United States and France, “Joint Statement on Liability for Nuclear Damage” (2013),
46. IAEA, 'Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) - Calculating with the on-line calculator'
47. Manichi News, '2.4 trillion yen in Fukushima crisis compensation costs to be tacked onto power bills', (10 December 2016)
48. R. Chhabara, 'Bhopal gas disaster: Corporate negligence with deadly consequences', Reuters,
49. World Nuclear Association, 'Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia', (August, 2020)
How to Cite
Al Maadeed, A. . (2021). The Nuclear Civil Liability Regimes and the Path Forward for the State of Qatar. International Review of Law, 10(1), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.29117/irl.2021.0162
Section
Articles in English