Strengthening of Nuclear Liability Demo

under the scope of the Vienna Convention. However, in contrast to the definition 24 provided in the Paris Convention, the Vienna Convention did not exclude those nuclear reactors, generating power for terrestrial vehicles . 25 There have been several persuading arguments against inclusion of these technologies into the liability framework of the Vienna Convention. In particular, it was obvious that, while land based reactors might easily mitigate possible dangers by locating them far from populated areas, nuclear powered vessels were designed to sail into harbours. Consequently, while the Installation State was expected to appropriately compensate a nuclear incident created by its land based reactor (situated in its territory), the State licensing the vessel would be not under such intermediate pressure where the incident occurs in a distant harbour, where the nuclear-powered ship bearing its flag is anchored. 26 Additionally, there were several issues considered specific to matters related to nuclear powered vessels: A very important issue was whether the rules would be common for nuclear powered merchant ships and warships with nuclear propulsion, while the latter presented the majority of nuclear powered vessels at the time. Furthermore, there was a question whether the legal framework would contain only rules applicable for operation of nuclear powered vessels on the High Seas, or also govern issues of their entry to the ports of other than Licensing States. Therefore, matters of nuclear liability for damages incurred by the operation of nuclear powered vessels were reserved for a specialized international treaty. 27 However, this special liability convention has Reactors and Reactors in Means of Transport, In OECD, ed. Nuclear Accidents: Liabilities and Guarantees , Paris : OECD, 1993, pp. 248-252. 24 “Nuclear installation” means “reactors other than those comprised in any means of transport; factories for the manufacture or processing of nuclear substances; factories for the separation of isotopes of nuclear fuel; factories for the reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel; facilities for the storage of nuclear substances other than storage incidental to the carriage of such substances; and such other installations in which there are nuclear fuel or radioactive products or waste as the Steering Committee for Nuclear Energy of the Organisation (hereinafter referred to as the “Steering Committee”) shall from time to time determine; any Contracting Party may determine that two or more nuclear installations of one operator which are located on the same site shall, together with any other premises on that site where radioactive material is held, be treated as a single nuclear installation.” 25 The reason was the research project, ongoing to the date of the Conventions adoption, dealing with the use of nuclear energy as means of transport for terrestrial rescue vehicles. However, the outcomes of this project have never been applied in the reality. See KISSICH, S. Internationales Atomhaftungsrecht: Anwendungsbereich und Haftungsprinzipien , Baden-Baden : Nomos Verlag, 2004, pp. 141-142. 26 See SEAVER, R. The Impact of Nuclear Propulsion of Ships on Admiralty and Shipping Law. Atomic Energy Law Journal , New York, 2, 1960, p. 303. 27 The Brussels Convention on the Liability of Operators of Nuclear Ships of 1962.

15