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.
Appendix
UNCLOS Articles Related to the Protection of the Marine Environment | |
---|---|
Marine Protection | |
192 | General obligation on states to protect the marine environment. |
193 | States 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. |
197 | Cooperation to protect and preserve the marine environment. |
198 | When a state becomes aware of cases in which the marine environment is in imminent danger or has been damaged it must notify others. |
199 | Contingency plans to “eliminate the effects of pollution and preventing or minimizing the damage.” |
207 | States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent land-based sources from polluting the ocean, especially “to the fullest extent possible” harmful or noxious substances. |
210 | Prevent, reduce and control dumping. |
211 | Pollution from vessels. |
213 | Enforcement of land-based sources. |
Coordination and Cooperation | |
123 | States 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. |
197 | General obligation to cooperation. |
235 | Cooperate 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 | |
206 | When 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. |
©2015 by De Gruyter
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Introduction – The Problem of Law in Response to Disasters
- Articles
- “Beyond Imagination”: Government Blind Spots Regarding Catastrophic Risks
- Regulation of Coastal Zones and Natural Disasters: Mitigating the Impact of Tsunamis in Chile Through Urban and Regional Planning
- Disaster and Protection of Tenants in Japanese Law: General Principles in Time of Emergencies
- Japan’s News Media, The Information Disclosure Law, and The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster
- Is International Ocean Law Capable of Preventing or Mitigating the Impacts of Nuclear Disaster?
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Introduction – The Problem of Law in Response to Disasters
- Articles
- “Beyond Imagination”: Government Blind Spots Regarding Catastrophic Risks
- Regulation of Coastal Zones and Natural Disasters: Mitigating the Impact of Tsunamis in Chile Through Urban and Regional Planning
- Disaster and Protection of Tenants in Japanese Law: General Principles in Time of Emergencies
- Japan’s News Media, The Information Disclosure Law, and The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster
- Is International Ocean Law Capable of Preventing or Mitigating the Impacts of Nuclear Disaster?