CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

MATT SAVINI CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ A. Are Nuclear Ships Included in the Scope of Existing Nuclear Liability Frameworks In order to determine if nuclear ships are included in any existing nuclear liability law it is necessary to explore the international regime and secondly, we will assess the scope of laws of the United States. The laws of other nations individually are not included in the scope of this paper. Turning to the international regimes, is there a legal framework in force that governs nuclear liability of nuclear ships? First, as identified previously, there are three lineages of international regimes in force: the Paris Convention and amendments (NEA), the Vienna Convention and amendments (IAEA), and the CSC. Of those, the United States is only a party to one, the CSC, which means the nation with the world’s largest installed nuclear capacity is not a party to the Paris and Vienna Conventions. In fact, there is no hegemony among the nations with the greatest installed nuclear capacity. There is a hodgepodge of international conventions, some in force, some not. In fairness, the Joint Protocol between the Paris and Vienna Conventions, which linked the applicability of the two conventions, may have come the closest but there is little weight given to a convention that does not include the United States, Russia, China, and Japan. Although, the Brussels Convention was specifically adopted to create a legal system applicable to nuclear ship, it was never ratified nor entered force. Therefore, it is fair to deduce that if there is no uniform international treaty agreed and in force governing nuclear liability in general, then it couldn’t include any binding legal framework for nuclear ships. Next, let us consider if the scopes of the conventions would have included nuclear ships if there was global ratification. Under the Paris Convention regime, Article I is clear in its definition of nuclear installations to mean “reactors other than those comprised in any means of transportation.” 79 Further, the convention does not apply to incidents that occur outside of contracting states or damage suffered there. 80 Inherently, this would exclude nuclear ships because, by nature, commercial ships are typically used in maritime trade including between nations. The ships operate on the high seas, exclusive economic zones, and waters of other nations or could affect the waters of other nations so that exclusion in Article II would prohibit application to nuclear ships. Although the Paris Convention does address liability in the carriage of nuclear substances in Article IV, this applies carriage to and from nuclear installations not nuclear incidents from nuclear ships using nuclear power as propulsion. 81 In conclusion, the scope of the Paris Convention did not include nuclear ships. Following, did the Vienna Convention and its amendments include nuclear ships in the scope? As previously identified, the Vienna Convention under the IAEA introduced similar provision to the Paris Convention but not limited to OECD applicability. Consistent with that generalization, Article I of the Vienna Convention defines nuclear installations as “any nuclear reactor other than one with which a means of sea or air transport is equipped for use as a source of power, whether for propulsion thereof or for any other purpose.” 82 Like the Paris Convention, the Vienna Convention also creates liability at or involving nuclear material from or sent to the operator’s installation specified in Article II. 83 As defined, 79 Paris Convention, supra note 26.

80 Id. 81 Id. 82 Vienna Convention, supra note 31. 83 Id.

274