CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION ON THE LIABILITY OF OPERATORS OF NUCLEAR SHIPS However, the opposition of the United States and the Soviet Union towards including warships under the Convention had to finally face a serious bloc of votes led by the United Kingdom and supported by the delegations from the Asian, Latin American and Western European states. Consequently, Article I (11) of the Convention established, that a “Warship” means any ship belonging to the naval force of a State and bearing the external marks distinguishing warships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the Government of such State and whose name appears in the Navy List, and manned by a crew who are under regular naval discipline . The arguments in favor of the inclusion of nuclear-powered warships in the Convention were very pragmatic. Taking into account the development since the very beginning of the use of nuclear energy for the purposes of marine propulsion, the states represented at the Conference held the opinion that, for many years to come, nuclear propulsion will be used chiefly for military vessels. The fact is that nuclear-powered vessels were predominantly of a military nature at the time the Convention was adopted, the ratio being about 30 military nuclear-powered ships to 2 commercial nuclear-powered ships in 1963. 46 Because of this, nuclear-powered military vessels were expected to represent a considerable part of future nuclear fleets. Therefore, they were considered a real hazard, against which protection should be available not only to the general public, but also to conventional shipping. In the event nuclear-powered warships would be excluded from the applicability of the Convention, the possibility of initiating private suits against nuclear-powered military vessels and their operators would depend entirely on the grace of such defendants. Furthermore, several arguments against inclusion of nuclear-powered military vessels were presented at the Conference. The Soviet Union and the East European delegations argued that rules concerning nuclear-powered military vessels have no place in a civil liability treaty, since any accident involving these will engage primarily international responsibility of states. 47 Furthermore, it had been pointed out that there would be no justification for limiting state responsibility with regard to warships. According to the position of the Soviet Union, the coverage of nuclear- powered military vessels by the Convention would mean that contracting parties to the Convention legalize the use of nuclear energy for military purposes. Further, the United States mainly pointed out the problems of constitutional and administrative law regarding their submission to foreign courts and the enforcement of foreign judgments. 48 Finally, the major operators of nuclear-powered fleets obviously feared inclusion of nuclear-powered military vessels under the Convention might presage an attempt to impose other types of regulations on these vessels, e.g. international inspections or licensing requirements.

46 Op. cit. sub note 4, at p. 553. 47 Op. cit. sub note 4, at p. 563. 48 Op. cit. sub note 4, at p. 565.

135