CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

JAKUB HANDRLICA CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ that the revised Paris Convention now expressly includes such facilities within the definition of “nuclear installation.” The Group concluded that, “the definition of “nuclear installation” in all instruments included operating reactors and facilities containing nuclear material” and felt that “it was premature at this time to take any action with respect to expanding the definition.” 63 The Group further concluded that, “while expansion of the definition of “nuclear installation” in the revised Vienna Convention was not necessary for an effective and protective global regime, further study could be useful to evaluate the advisability of expanding the definition”, and recognised that “as a practical matter, the Board of Governors would need broad support by all affected parties to prove such an expansion.” 64 In this context, it is certainly interesting to recall conclusions, made in the régime of Paris Convention concerning its applicability on disposal facilities. “From a strictly legal viewpoint there is no obstacle to that regime continuing to govern any possible liability for the waste disposed of without determining in advance how long the regime will continue to apply. It would be desirable, however, to make a series of minor amendments to the present text of both Conventions. Although the very notion of adapting the regime of the Paris and Vienna Conventions to cover damage likely to occur only thousands of years hence might seem theoretical the purpose of this exercise is the same as that motivated adoption of the Conventions, namely the protection of victims of a nuclear incident. It is clear, that when damage occurs the victim does not care whether or not the damage is due to a long-term risk. What matters is that his/her right to compensation is satisfied.” 65 Further, scientific literature noted 66 a certain analogy between the problems raised regarding the question of liability and the application of a nuclear safety régime of the Joint Convention. As far as this safety regime has been established on the global level, it is not possible to ignore the question of the arrangements to enable the liability régime to be applied effectively throughout the considerable period of time which will elapse until the waste disposed of no longer presents a significant risk for the public and the environment irrespective of whether the obligations in this field will be with the original nuclear operator or whether they are in all likelihood transferred to the state. Consequently, the adoption of the Amended Vienna Convention seems to constitute an inseparable part of the process of strengthening of the liability regime in Contracting Parties of the Vienna Convention. Conclusions Since the adoption of the Vienna Convention, the issue of its applicability on various types of nuclear installations has been a matter of scientific discussions. When the Convention was drafted, the question of hazards arising from certain uses of nuclear materials was not yet fully understood. The lack of explicit provisions concerning these uses in the Convention is due to the fact, that when the Convention was drafted, the development of nuclear energy was in its infancy, and there was little concern about activities at the back end of the fuel 63 IAEA (ed.): Explanatory Texts (n 15), at p. 27, note 80. 64 Ibid. 65 OECD/NEA (ed.): Problems raised (n 35), at p. 20. 66 CHABANNE-POUZYNIN, L., Les déchets radioactifs: Enjeux et débats, in: MANOVIL, R. (ed.) Nuclear law in progress. Derecho nuclear en evolución. Buenos Aires: Legis Argentina, 2014, at pp. 316-317.

402