Startseite Is International Ocean Law Capable of Preventing or Mitigating the Impacts of Nuclear Disaster?
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Is International Ocean Law Capable of Preventing or Mitigating the Impacts of Nuclear Disaster?

  • Todd Emerson Hutchins EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 3. April 2015
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

In light of the Fukushima disaster, the global community must honestly and bravely consider whether existing international law is sufficient to protect the oceans from hazardous nuclear activities past, present, and future. If so, are these agreements, including conventions and treaties, adequate to clean-up existing problems, to safeguard against emerging risks, and to foster cooperation among nations? If not, what function, does ocean law serve? Assessing the efficacy of international law on state behavior with respect to real world outcomes is always challenging, but when dealing with nuclear activities the task is further complicated due to the unusual risk profile of catastrophic radiological incidents, the millennia-long risk of danger, the relative novelty of nuclear issues, and the scope of other activities that could also impact the ocean. Nevertheless, this task cannot be ignored. The oceans are a global commons filled with collective resources. Any meaningful discussion about the health of the seas and measures to protect them must take place on the international stage with due regard for the necessities and rights of all nations, as well as the natural environment. The international community must diligently collaborate to resolve issues surrounding nuclear activities that could impact the oceans. Yet, current international agreements that address nuclear pollution of the ocean are de facto judicially unenforceable and are often ignored when national self-interest is contrary to the agreement. Nevertheless, while not an effective legal mandate, ocean law does in some cases influence state actors to conform to international agreements (even when not bound to do so). Going forward, more research is necessary into the impacts of radiological pollution on the oceans to enable decision makers, like judicial tribunals, politicians, and NGOs, to effectuate and effectively enforce international ocean law with respect to nuclear issues.


Corresponding author: Todd Emerson Hutchins, US Naval Officer, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, Defense Service Office West, e-mail:
aLieutenant Todd Hutchins is a US Naval Officer in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps assigned to USS FRANK CABLE (AS 40). He holds a B.S. from the University of Southern California, a Masters of Planning from the USC School of Policy Planning and Development, and a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley Law School. This article benefited from workshops, presentations, and lectures hosted by Meiji University and the Japan Foundation. Special thanks to Professors Harry Scheiber, Charles Weisselberg, Dan Farber, and the Sho Sato Program at Berkeley Law. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Appendix

UNCLOS Articles Related to the Protection of the Marine Environment
Marine Protection
192General obligation on states to protect the marine environment.
193States have a right to exploit natural resources in accordance with duty to protect and preserve the marine environment.
194“States shall take, individually or jointly, all measures consistent with this Convention that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source, using…the best practicable means at their disposal and in accordance with their capabilities, and they shall endeavor to harmonize their policies.” This includes not causing damage to other states from incidents or activities. And, states shall “minimize to the fullest possible extent,” inter alia, (a) the release of toxic, harmful or noxious substances through atmospheric release or dumping; and (b) the pollution from vessels.
197Cooperation to protect and preserve the marine environment.
198When a state becomes aware of cases in which the marine environment is in imminent danger or has been damaged it must notify others.
199Contingency plans to “eliminate the effects of pollution and preventing or minimizing the damage.”
207States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent land-based sources from polluting the ocean, especially “to the fullest extent possible” harmful or noxious substances.
210Prevent, reduce and control dumping.
211Pollution from vessels.
213Enforcement of land-based sources.
Coordination and Cooperation
123States on enclosed or semi-enclosed seas shall endeavor to coordinate … implementation of their rights and duties with respect to the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
197General obligation to cooperation.
235Cooperate in the implementation of international law relating to responsibility and liability for the assessment and compensation for damage and the settlement of related disputes… such as compulsory insurance or compensation funds.
Environmental Assessment
206When States have reasonable grounds for believing that planned activities under their jurisdiction or control may cause substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment, they shall, as far as practicable, assess the potential effects of such activities on the marine environment and shall communicate reports.

Published Online: 2015-4-3
Published in Print: 2013-1-1

©2015 by De Gruyter

Heruntergeladen am 9.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ils-2015-0005/pdf
Button zum nach oben scrollen