AbstractIn light of the Fukushima disaster, the global community must honestly and bravely consider whether existing international law is sufficient to protect the oceans from hazardous nuclear activities past, present, and future. If so, are these agreements, including conventions and treaties, adequate to clean-up existing problems, to safeguard against emerging risks, and to foster cooperation among nations? If not, what function, does ocean law serve? Assessing the efficacy of international law on state behavior with respect to real world outcomes is always challenging, but when dealing with nuclear activities the task is further complicated due to the unusual risk profile of catastrophic radiological incidents, the millennia-long risk of danger, the relative novelty of nuclear issues, and the scope of other activities that could also impact the ocean. Nevertheless, this task cannot be ignored. The oceans are a global commons filled with collective resources. Any meaningful discussion about the health of the seas and measures to protect them must take place on the international stage with due regard for the necessities and rights of all nations, as well as the natural environment. The international community must diligently collaborate to resolve issues surrounding nuclear activities that could impact the oceans. Yet, current international agreements that address nuclear pollution of the ocean are de facto judicially unenforceable and are often ignored when national self-interest is contrary to the agreement. Nevertheless, while not an effective legal mandate, ocean law does in some cases influence state actors to conform to international agreements (even when not bound to do so). Going forward, more research is necessary into the impacts of radiological pollution on the oceans to enable decision makers, like judicial tribunals, politicians, and NGOs, to effectuate and effectively enforce international ocean law with respect to nuclear issues.
Read full abstract