CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

JAKUB HANDRLICA

CYIL 14 (2023)

3.4 A universal solution or a regional solidarity? Sixty years after its adoption, the Vienna Convention covers forty-four states worldwide. In addition, there are fifteen other states that participate in the regime of the Revised Vienna Convention. Both these instruments peacefully co-exist in several regions of the world. At the same time, some of those states belonging to the “Viennese” liability regime also participate in the regime of the Joint Protocol and of the Convention on Supplementary Compensation. Taking the original ambition to establish a worldwide regime of nuclear liability, the Vienna Convention may seem only partially successful. In fact, several other international conventions adopted in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy attracted more states to participate. For example, there are 132 states recently participating at the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident 94 and 127 states participating at the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency. 95 Also, several major nuclear states continue to remain outside the scope of the Vienna Convention, including Canada, South Africa, India, China and Japan. Neither the Vienna Convention, nor the Revised Vienna Convention has thus far attracted these states, all of whom operate nuclear installations within their territories. 96 Analysing the participation in the “Viennese” liability regime, one might easily conclude that instead of establishing of a compact worldwide regime of nuclear liability, several regional – albeit interconnected – regimes of nuclear liability have emerged. 97 In all these regions, both nuclear and non-nuclear states have been covered, which also guarantees compensation of potential damages for victims of states not developing their own nuclear programme. In this respect, it is interesting to recall the argument made by Florence Touitou-Durand a decade ago in her article 98 , which was published in the proceedings of the German regional branch of the International Nuclear Law Association. Here, the author argued, that while instruments of international law may have universal ambitions, the reality of international relations favours regional solutions and regional solidarity. 99 The developments of the Vienna Convention may be considered a demonstration of this argument. Indeed, rather than acceding to the Vienna Convention in order to achieve a universal solution, these states joined the Convention to protect of their own citizens against the risks arising from nuclear installations in a certain region. Having said this, one may argue that, in this way, the Convention has actually achieved its goal by covering compact territories that surround states with nuclear installations. 100 94 The Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (adopted 26 September 1986, entered into force 27 October 1986), INFCIRC/335. 95 The Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency (adopted 26 September 1986, entered into force 26 February 1987), INFCIRC/336. 96 See Discussion Panel: Do We Need a Global Nuclear Liability Regime? in CH. RAETZKE (ed.), Nuclear Law in the EU and Beyond, Baden Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2014, at pp. 319–320. 97 Ibid. 98 See TOUITOU-DURAND, F. The Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage: A Solution for Europe? in PELZER, N. (ed), European Nuclear Liability Law in a Process of Change, Baden Baden: Nomos, 2010, at pp. 257–274. 99 Ibid, at p. 272. 100 See PELZER, N. On Global Treaty Relations – Hurdles on the Way towards a Universal Civil Nuclear Liability Regime (2008) 6 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, at p. 14.

312