Volume 11, Issue 1

In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, decision makers described the reactor failures and the tsunami that triggered them as beyond imagination. Yet, the possibility of such a tsunami was understood by experts and the implications for reactor safety were clear. This was not an isolated phenomenon in natural or human catastrophes. This paper considers why the possibility of catastrophic event is often excluded from consideration and methods for incorporating low-probability catastrophes into risk assessment. In part, this phenomenon can be explained by the goals of decision makers and avoidance of cognitive dissonance. Moreover, professional cultures may blind even experts to risks that do not fit established paradigms. The paper considers some possible mechanisms for ameliorating the problem.

This paper analyzes the role of urban and regional planning in mitigating the impact of tsunamis in Chile, particularly in response to the tsunami of February 27, 2010. It examines the draft norms and policies to reduce the impact of tsunamis at the national level, as well as tsunami mitigation measures proposed in recent reconstruction plans by local councils. This paper shows that local regulations that mitigate the impact of tsunamis are being designed and developed in a weak national regulatory framework and are “improvised” at the local level. Therefore, a clear regulatory framework and set of urban polices is required in Chile at the national and local level to reduce vulnerability to tsunamis. The paper concludes with policy recommendations to mitigate the impact of tsunamis in Chile through urban and regional planning at the national and local level.

This article examines the legal protection of ex-tenants after disasters in Japan. The “Act Providing Temporary Measures concerning Land Lease and Building Lease in the Cities Damaged by War” of 1946 conferred not only the right to lease rebuilt buildings, but also the right of ex-tenants to lease the land of destroyed buildings. Therefore, many victims of the war disaster were entitled to construct and keep self-made shelters on the site of destroyed buildings. Thus, emergencies created exceptions to general rules or principles. The implementation of the Lease Act of 1946 was initially limited to the war disaster, but the government later issued the implementation Cabinet Orders of the Lease Act of 1946 to major disasters until 2004. However, in the case of the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011, the local communities and local bar associations raised strong oppositions against the Lease Act of 1946 on the motif that the implementation of the Lease Act of 1946 would cause complicated legal and social problems. The Ministry of Justice decided not to enact an implementation Cabinet Order of the Lease Act of 1946. The Japanese Diet adopted a new Act regarding the lease in time of disaster in June 2013 to abolish the right to lease land and to lease newly rebuilt buildings as well. In a highly developed modern society, it is difficult to justify exceptions to general principles even in the case of emergencies caused by large-scale disasters.

Official investigations that followed the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster revealed that it could have been prevented by reasonable safety measures. Investigators concluded that close relationships between government officials and industry executives led to very weak regulatory oversight and the failure to address the risk of violent earthquakes and tsunami such as those that struck the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station on March 11, 2011. News reporters conducted their own investigations in the months following the disaster. Japan’s information disclosure law provided an invaluable tool that enabled them to obtain government records related to regulation of Japan’s nuclear power plants. This article describes some of the stories they produced. Appearing on the front pages of newspapers with daily circulations in the millions, this work provided an authoritative inside view of the failed regulatory process to the Japanese people. The work of the investigative bodies and the news media drove the demand for change that led to disbanding of the regulatory agencies that failed and their replacement by an entirely new regulatory body. This article highlights the importance of “right to know” laws such as Japan’s information disclosure law in creating the opportunity for news reporters and others to demand the release of otherwise confidential government records that can enlighten everyone on matters of great public interest.

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.