CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

JAKUB HANDRLICA CYIL 14 (2023) regime of nuclear liability, which would primarily link the liability to the states that had permitted operation of nuclear installations in their territories. 59 Having said this, one must bear in mind, that replacing the regime of civil liability for nuclear damage with a regime of the liability of the states has also recently been proposed by some of the scholars as the optimal solution for nuclear liability worldwide. 60 Further, ideological reservation against the principles, as provided by the Vienna Convention, are also presented by diplomatic representations of some states today. 61 Consequently, none of the states belonging to the former Soviet bloc had acceded to the Vienna Convention until the early 1990s. The only exemption to this stance in Eastern Europe was represented by Yugoslavia, 62 which participated at the international regime of the Vienna Convention as the only state from the region. This ideological reservation of the Soviet bloc against the regime established by the Vienna Convention also resulted into absence of any international framework for nuclear liability in this region. Only after the collapse of the USSR, have the states of Central and Eastern Europe acceded to the liability regime, as established under the Vienna Convention. Hungary did so in 1989, Poland in 1990, Lithuania and Romania in 1992, Armenia in 1993, Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Estonia in 1994, Latvia and Slovak Republic in 1995, Ukraine in 1996 and the Republic of Moldova in 1998. Finally, Belarus and the Russian Federation, the successors of the two original participants at the International Conference on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, ratified the Vienna Convention in 1997 and 2005. While until the early 1990s, the regime of the Vienna Convention had mainly covered the states of Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Africa 63 , the massive accession of the states of the former Soviet bloc dramatically changed the reality of nuclear liability worldwide. The consequences of this change were twofold. On the one hand, the 59 A proposal for introducing a liability of the state was made during the negotiations, which led to the adoption of the Revised Vienna Convention. However, the proposal did not gain any considerable support among the diplomatic delegations, present at the diplomatic conference. 60 See e.g. AL FARUQUE, A. Nuclear Energy Regulation, Risk and the Environment, Milton Park: Routledge, 2019, at pp. 180-182. Also see VAN DYKE, J. Liability and Compensation for Harm Caused by Nuclear Activities (2006) 35 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, at pp. 13–46 and KISS, A. State Responsibility and Liability for Nuclear Damage (2006) 35 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, at pp. 67–84. 61 See HINTEREGGER, M. Die Vereinheitlichung des Atomhaftungsrechts innerhalb der EU aus der Sicht Österreichs in PELZER, N. (ed), European Nuclear Liability Law in a Process of Change, Baden Baden: Nomos, 2010, at pp. 221-234 (here, the author outlines the current stance of Austria vis-á-vis the international régime of nuclear liability) and NIDHUBHGHAILL, U. Reaction of a Non-Convention State to the Study on the Harmonisation of the Nuclear Liability Regime considered in the EU context in BEYENS, M., PHILIPPE, D., REYNERS, P. (eds), Prospects of a civil nuclear liability regime in the framework of the European Union, Brussels: Bruylant, 2012, at pp. 83–90 (article analyses the Irish approach to nuclear liability). 62 The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the Vienna Convention on 15 July 1980 and 14 May 1986, respectively. On 28 April 1992 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) notified the Depositary that it intended to “continue to fulfil all the rights conferred and obligations assumed by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in international relations”, including “participation in international treaties ratified or acceded to by Yugoslavia.” Subsequently, on 5 February 2002 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia deposited a notification of succession to the Convention, with effect from 27 April 1992. On 2 July 2006 the Republic of Serbia notified the Depositary that it intended “to continue to exercise its rights and honour its commitments deriving from international treaties concluded by Serbia and Montenegro.” 63 Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Cuba, Egypt, Lebanon, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Peru, Saint Vincent and Grenada, Senegal and Uruguay.

306