CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

JAKUB HANDRLICA CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ Conference Standing Committee to study several further legal issues arising from the use of nuclear energy as a means of marine propulsion: During the Conference, the Canadian delegation proposed to set up a subcommittee in order to study the question of how to assist those states that would have difficulty meeting the costs of a nuclear incident arising from the requirements of the Convention. In general, two major options were proposed: First, creation of an international guarantee fund, 42 opposed by the majority of members as consuming large amounts of money to be frozen for this purpose. As the second option, establishing a system of mutual guarantees was proposed. However, most members of the subcommittee favored a voluntary scheme for such a system. Subsequently, no further draft was prepared. Furthermore, the issue of possible accession of the international organization to the NS Convention and their role as licensing authorities were discussed. In this relation bear in mind that plans for a European nuclear vessel were being studied under the auspices of the European Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD during the time the Convention was adopted. 43 Nevertheless, as the Revision Conference was never realized, the plans outlined above were never achieved. However, they can be of interest in the event the international community re-opens the discussion on perfecting the legal framework for nuclear- powered vessels. 3. Reasons for deadlock There are several reasons the Convention never entered into force and remains stillborn 48 years after its adoption and, most currently, a forgotten international agreement. The following paragraphs briefly point out the primary causes. Principal objection to the inclusion of military vessels Although the Brussels Diplomatic Conference had reached almost unanimous consent on the most basic features of the Convention, including all innovation that the treaty implied, the support of the two major nuclear shipping countries was principally lost over the issue of including nuclear-powered warships within the scope of the Convention. 44 The question of nuclear-powered warships had not been raised until late in the discussion. Originally, the United States strongly supported the inclusion of the nuclear-powered military vessels under the scope of the NS Convention, which was also the position of the U.S. expert in the “Panel of Legal Experts on Liability for Nuclear Propelled Ships.” On the contrary, the United Kingdom expert in that “Panel” originally opposed the inclusion of nuclear-powered warships under the

scope of the Convention. 45 42 Op. cit. sub note 10, at p. 778. 43 Op. cit. sub note 11, at p. 103. 44 Op. cit. sub note 4, at p. 560. 45 Op. cit. sub note 7, at p. 309.

134