CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

MATT SAVINI CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ Also, less developed nations could simply not possess the financial capacity to support that risk. Alternatively, countries interested in the promise of the nuclear ships, the potential efficiencies, or developing the technology could choose to augment the financial security of the operator with state funds. The key provisions of the Brussels Convention were consistent in principle with those of land-based conventions and are appropriate to apply to nuclear ships as a global standard. The regime should be revisited and ratified to allow for safe operation of nuclear ships on the high seas. An international framework in accordance with the Belgium Convention provides operators with a high duty of care and liability to protect the public and environment while The Brussels Convention addressed the first question by establishing two bases for jurisdiction. Claims can be heard by the courts of the nation that licensed the nuclear ship or the nation where nuclear damage was sustained. 99 This approach is distinguished from the Paris and Vienna Conventions which both provided exclusive jurisdiction to the licensing nation for land-based reactors. However, exclusive jurisdiction in the licensing nation for nuclear ships does not seem appropriate. Although nuclear damage from a land-based reactor accident can affect regions of the globe and many countries, as the world experienced with Chernobyl and Fukushima, the greatest damage is locally to the reactor. Further, land-based reactors are static whereas, nuclear ships are inherently mobile. The purpose of the nuclear plant on a ship is to produce energy for propulsion to allow the ship to travel the high seas around the globe as vessel of commerce, transporting goods internationally, without a need for refueling for years. With that mission, comes distinct risks from land-based reactors. Nuclear damage may not occur in the licensing country at all, it may occur on the high seas to which is the territory of no single nation. Damage may occur in the waters of other nation(s) or, probably worst case, in the port of another nation causing significant public health, environmental, and economic damage. In those scenarios, it seems proper for the nation where the damage occurred to have jurisdiction over claims of nuclear damage arising from a nuclear ship to provide the impacted parties a convenient and fair means of pursuing a remedy against the operator. Now, this may provide for an unfair venue for the defendant, the nuclear operator, in the courts of another nation that may not even have experience or national statutes specific to nuclear damage, but that risk should be borne by the operators of a nuclear ship because of the potential hazards of the power. As for jurisdiction in the United States, the proper jurisdiction is in the admiralty. First, let’s analyze the existing jurisdiction under federal law and Price-Anderson. Recall from the analysis of the existing legal framework of nuclear liability in the United States, that nuclear ships are included in the scope of the law (the NS SAVANNAH actively is). The United States Constitution provides the Supreme Court jurisdiction over admiralty law in allowing society to develop and benefit from an immense energy source. C. Nuclear Ship Liability Belongs In The Admiralty Jurisdiction There are two analyses to perform regarding jurisdiction over claims from a nuclear incident arising from a nuclear ship (1) country of jurisdiction and (2) if the United States has jurisdiction, the admiralty bar is the appropriate jurisdiction.

278

99 Id. at 324.