Share
MGC Legal Telegram
Scroll

PUBLICATIONS

Nuclear Energy Law Under The Paris And Vienna Conventions And Legal Responsibility In Nuclear Accidents

Nuclear Energy Law Under The Paris And Vienna Conventions And Legal Responsibility In Nuclear Accidents

 

  1. INTRODUCTION

Especially since May 2010, when the first concrete step was taken for the nuclear power plants that have been at the forefront of Turkey's energy agenda for the last fifteen years, a considerable distance has been made. First, the process started with the Russian Federation for the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant and the negotiations continued with Japan and France for the construction of a second nuclear power plant in Sinop. In 2015, it was stated that a button was pressed by the authorities for a third power plant in Iğneada and preliminary negotiations were held with Chinese and US companies for its construction.

 

At this point, the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, whose foundation was laid in 2018, continues to work. Here, completing the project by 2023 and starting the first generation of energy has been one of the government's key goals. Constructions are still ongoing for the plants planned to be built in Sinop and Iğneada.

 

As of August 2019, there are 450 operating nuclear plants in 31 different countries and 52 nuclear plants which are under construction[1]. The recent nuclear accidents and the effects of these accidents have shown that, in terms of the impact and the consequences of these accidents, on a subject that reaches far beyond the borders of the country, only certain regulations that nations will make in their own domestic laws will be insufficient. States need an international regulations in which responsibility and limits on its scope are drawn jointly, rather than national regulations in such an area.

 

Since nuclear energy give rise to many high risks and security issues, the scope of nuclear responsibility needs to be well determined. There are various international agreements concluded for this purpose. The essential ones of these treaties are as follows;

 

  • Paris Convention On Civil Liability Against Third Parties In The Field of Nuclear Energy, dated 1960 (briefly referred to as ‘‘Paris Convention’’)
  • Vienna Convention On Civil Liability For Nuclear Damages, dated 1963 (briefly referred to as the ‘Vienna Convention’.)
  • Brussels Convention On Maritime Transport For Damages Incurred During The Transport Of Nuclear Materials, dated 1971
     

The purpose of the Paris and Vienna Conventions is parallel. These conventions constitute the standards of International Liability Law in the field of nuclear energy. However, the Vienna Convention was drawn up by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Paris Convention was drawn up by the International Organization for Economic Development (OECD). There are also differences between the countries that are parties to the conventions.

 

 

  1. INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS ON CIVIL LIABILITY IN NUCLEAR ENERGY LAW


 

B.1 - PARIS CONVENTION
 

The convention was signed in Paris on July 29, 1960; came into force on April 1, 1968. Turkey signed the Convention on July 29, 1960 and it was published in the Official Gazette on May 13, 1961[2]. As of April 1, 1968, the Convention entered into force for Turkey. The secretariat of the convention is run by the OECD.

 

 

  1. State Parties To The Concention
     

15 states are party to the Paris Convetion. Which are[3];
 

1. Turkey                                            2. Belgium                              3. Denmark    

4. Finland                                           5. France                                 6. Germany

7. Greece                                            8. Italy                                     9. Netherlands

10. Norway                                         11. Portugal                            12. Spain

13. Sweden                                        14. United Kingdom               15. Slovenia


 

  1. Additional Protocols of The Paris Convention
     
  • Brussels Supplementary Protocol Of 31 January 1963
  • Protocol of 28 January 1964
  • Protocol of 16 November 1982
  • Protocol on the implementation of the Paris and Vienna Conventions of 21 September 1988


In addition to the convention, Turkey is also party to all of these additional protocols.
 

 

B.1(a) - Purpose And Scope of The Paris Convention
 

The purpose of the convention is to compensate for the damages suffered by third parties in the relevant country or in the contracting parties during the operation of nuclear facilities and transportation of nuclear materials under the jurisdiction of the contracting parties, and to establish an international system in that sense. The contract includes provisions that determine the extent of the damages and compensation, the amount of compensation, the responsibles of the compensation and the compensation system. The convention also provides for the establishment of an insurance system or equivalent financial guarantee system which the operators are obliged to manage[4].
 

The convention imposes limited financial obligations and the amount of this liability varies depending on the type of facility or the risk of the material being carried. State Parties are obliged to take the necessary legal and administrative measures in accordance with the provisions of this convention. The government of the relevant country shall be directly liable for damages if third parties in that country or other countries suffer harm during the operation of nuclear facilities under the legal jurisdiction of that country or during the transportation of nuclear materials.

 

B.1(b) - Paris Convention 2004 Revision

 

A revision of the convention was initiated in 1999, which was concluded in early 2003. New amendments signed by all parties in 2004 have still not come into force. In order to amendments to come into force, 2/3 of the states that have signed the convention must ratify these amendments in their domestic laws. In our country, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs carries out the necessary work in order to pass the approval of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. The convention is currently in force in its revised form in 1982. Minimum financial obligation for nuclear facilities according to the current convention is 15 million SDR (Special Drawing Rights). Today's equivalent of this amount is 18 million EUR[5]. With the 2004 revision, this amount was increased to 700 million EUR. In addition, with the 2004 revision, the definition of loss was expanded and the compensation system was changed in such a way as to impose liability mainly on the operator. But yet, it has to come into force.

 

 

B.2 - VIENNA CONVENTION

 

The Convention entered into force on November 12, 1977 and was revised on September 29, 1977. It is generally signed by member states of the former Eastern Bloc. The new version is similar to the Paris Convention, but contains relatively more flexible provisions. According to the Vienna Convention, the minimum amount of financial liability for nuclear facilities is 300 million SDR. Turkey is not yet a party to this convention.

 

 

B.3 - JOINT PROTOCOL OF 1988 ON THE EXECUTION OF THE PARIS AND VIENNA CONVENTIONS

 

The protocol came into force on 1992. The purpose of the protocol is to establish links between countries that are parties to the Paris or Vienna Conventions[6].

 

Art. 2 of Joint Protocol:

 

For the purposes of this protocol;

 

  1. the operator of a nuclear facility in a country which is a party to the Vienna Convention shall be liable for nuclear damage occurring in the country which is a party to both the Paris Convention and the present protocol, in accordance with the Vienna Convention.
  2. the operator of a nuclear facility in a country that is a party to the Paris Convention shall be liable in accordance with the Paris Convention for nuclear damage occurring in the territory of the Vienna Convention and both parties to the present protocol.
     

It is decided by this protocol that the country, which caused the accident after a nuclear accident, to whichever convention it is party, in accordance with the provisions of that convention, the damages of the other country that suffered the damage shall be met. The damaged country must be a party to one of these two conventions[7]. However, in terms of the provisions to be applied, the convention is taken as the basis of which the damaging country is a party. If both countries are parties to either of these two agreements, the common convention shall apply. Turkey is also a party to this joint protocol.
 

 

B.4 - PARIS CONVENTION 2004 PROTOCOL
 

This protocol has not yet enter into force. If an accident occurred in a country that is a party to the Paris Convention caused damage in a country that is not a party to the convention, then it is possible for that country to apply the provisions of the Paris Convention. However, in order to the damaged country to take advantage of this opportunity, the requirement was made that it would not own a nuclear power plant at the time of the nuclear accident.

 

B.5 - NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AND OPERATOR CONCEPT UNDER THE PARIS CONVENTION

 

In the Paris Convention, the phrase ‘‘Nuclear Accident’’ is clarified and it is stated which situations fall under the scope of nuclear accident. According to the Paris Convention, in order to a country to be held responsible for a nuclear accident, there must be an accident at a nuclear facility or an accident at the time the nuclear material was being transported. This is called Nuclear Risk-Nuclear Indcident. Nuclear risk includes the risk of criticality and in the strict sense, the risk of ionization. The risk of criticality describes the dangers that may arise during the chain reaction of a nuclear core. The risk of ionization is the risk that covers the radiation released from radioactive sources. These radioactive sources may be natural (from the Earth, from the sun) or may be caused by objects made by human hands or businesses. When ionizing radiation reaches a certain rate, it has a cancer-causing effect. Here we need to open the concept of nuclear facilitiesnuclear material and operator.

 

  • Operator: People who were elected and prominent as the operator of the nuclear facility by the official authorities.

 

  • Nuclear Facility: According to the Paris Convention, the term ‘‘Nuclear Installation’’ means any means of reactors except in transport vehicles (ships, aircraft, etc.), factories produce  or process nuclear materials; factories seperating nuclear fuel into isotopes; factories reprocess nuclear fuel; excluding the storage of nuclear materials which are being transported, facilities for the storage of such materials and other materials, such as nuclear fuel or radioactive crops or residues, which are being determined occasionaly by the Administrative Council of the European Nuclear Energy Agency.

 

  • Nuclear Material: Nuclear fuels, radioactive materials and radioactive waste are called nuclear materials.

 

  • Nuclear Fuels: ‘‘Nuclear Fuels’’ means; metal, alloy or uranium in chemical composition (including uranium); metal, alloy or plutonium in chemical composition and other substances which are being determined occasionaly by the Administrative Council.

 

  • Radioactive Material and Radioactive Waste: Substances that are radiated to produce, process and use the nuclear fuel and substances that actually contain radioactivity. However, radioisotopes outside a nuclear facility used for industrial, commercial, agricultural, medical or scientific purposes are excluded from this term[8].

 

 

 

  1. REGULATIONS ON NUCLEAR ENERGY LAW IN TURKISH LAW


 

The Law No. 5654 on the Establishment and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants and The Sale of Energy was adopted by the Turkish Grand National Assembly on May 08, 2007 and submitted to the 10th president for signature, but the president returned the Law No: 5654 to Parliament for review due to some shortcomings. The Law No: 5654 was revised by the Turkish Grand National Assembly and was enacted on November 09, 2007 under the name of the Law No. 5710 on the Establishment and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants and The Sale of Energy[9]. The Law No. 5710 based Regulation[10] was also issued on the same date[11]. The provisions relating to the legal responsibility of the operator of the Nuclear Power Plant in the Paris Convention, to which Turkey is already a party, have thus been indirectly made into the text of the domestic law. Even if the law No. 5710 would not be in force, it was possible to reach the same conclusion by applying the provisions of the Paris Convention in case of a possible nuclear accident since Turkey is a party to the Paris Convention and the Paris Convention is an international convention that can be applied directly in accordance with Art. 90 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey.
 

Art. 5 para. 5 of Law No. 5710 is as follows: ‘‘In the event of an accident or in the plant  or while transporting nuclear fuel, radioactive material or radioactive waste, the provisions of the Paris Convention on Civil Liability Against Third Parties In The Field of Nuclear Energy, dated 1960 and additional amendments and other national and international legislation shall apply.’’
 

The provisions of the Paris Convention and the additional protocols which Turkey is a party shall apply in the event of a possible nuclear accident[12]. However, if there is no provision for the event in the relevant Convention and additional protocols, other provisions under Turkish Law and provisions of other international treaties shall apply. At this point, the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations relating to tort and non-liability shall apply. Many countries, like Turkey, have referred directly to the Paris Convention through their laws in domestic law. However, Germany and Switzerland in particular have not only cited, but also included a number of specific provisions in their own laws that are separate and clear.
 

 

  1. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY UNDERTURKISH LAW AND THE CHARACTERISTIC OF NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS IN LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY

 

Under Turkish law, the reasons of legal responsibility are regarded as 3 categories, which are;

  • Liability for Defect
  • Liability for Causation
  • Responsibility Based On The Principle Of Equalization Of Altruism

 

   

  

 

 

D.1 - LIABILITY FOR DEFECT
 

According to the liability for defect concept, the person who caused the damage must be faulty in order to sufferer to be able to compensate for the damage. Otherwise, the sufferer itself bear the losses[13].

 

 

D.2 - LIABILITY FOR CAUSATION
 

Even though the principle of liability for defect considered sufficient to establish the responsibility for a long time, the increasing mechanization of the 19th century and technical tools, the widespread use of equipment that may pose a hazard to both users and the environment, the use of transportation vehicles and energy sources has intensified and increased the possibility for the damage to appear. In this process, the role of the defect has decreased and sometimes even disappeared. On the other hand, it is not possible to give up the use of these machines and energy resources just because they pose a danger, because of the convenience and benefits they have provided to society. At this point, the principle of liability for defect was not completely abandoned, but the principle of strict liability began to be accepted[14].

 

What is meant by the liability for causation is the strict liability. It is sufficient to establish a causal link between the damage and the event that causes the damage for the realization of the liability for causation, and it is not important whether the person who is responsible for the damage have any faults in terms of the occurrence of the result. Thus, the defect is removed from being a constituent element in the liability for causation. The failure of the person who is responsible or the mental incapacity who the person is held liable for their actions does not negate this liability[15].

 

Liability for causation is regarded as ‘‘Average Liability for Causation’’ and ‘‘Danger Liability’’ within itself. Average Liability for Causation, as a type of responsibility based on failure to perform an objective duty of care, lies between liability for defect and danger liability, and forms a slight type of danger liability. In some cases of average liability for causation, there is the possibility to discharge of liability. Accordingly, the responsible person may discharge of liability by proving that he/she has done all necessary due diligence or that even if he/she had done the necessary due diligence, the damage would still occur. The most important factor that distinguishes the average liability for causation with the danger liability is that the person responsible for the danger liability does not have the chance to discharge of liability on grounds of abovementioned due diligence[16].

 

 

  1. LEGAL NATURE OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE NUCLEAR PLANT OPERATOR ON THE BASIS OF HAZARD LIABILITY

 

When we consider nuclear accidents, we see that the extent of the damage, rather than the frequent occurrence of these accidents, stands out. The damage caused by radiation of nuclear activities carried out by human hands, especially the damage to human cells, does not occur immediately. The fact that the damage does not occur immediately makes it difficult to prove the causal link between the damage and the radioactive rays, and raises the possibility that the damage may have been caused by the radioactive rays emitted by nature and the general risk of life, i.e. bad lifestyle. However, the high safety standards prescribed in the field of nuclear activity, even if they are complied with, cannot second-guess the fact that the damage could be caused by a nuclear or radiological accident.

 

It is understood that the Paris Convention regulated operating a nuclear plant as one of the strict liability case. Accordingly, the operator shall be liable for resulting the damage, even if there is no fault in the occurrence of the accident. In order to operator to be held responsible, it is sufficient to establish a causal link between nuclear accident and damage. The operator of a nuclear facility is not given the opportunity to show reasons for discharge of liability in all cases; the operator can be discharged of liability only if one of the conditions indicated in the contract exists. For these reasons, the responsibility of the operator of the nuclear plant manifests itself as one of the cases of danger liability in Turkish law.

 

Under the Paris Convention, those operating a nuclear facility can only be discharged of liability if certain special circumstances exist. Art. 9 of the convention states when the operator of a nuclear plant cannot be held responsible; armed conflict, civil war, rebellion are limited to nuclear accidents caused by a very grave natural disaster.

 

 

  1. CAUSAL LINK

 

Whether the responsibility arises from the strict liability or from the liability for defect, the existence of causality is always sought. The causal link stands out more in strict liability, rather than in liability of defect, because in this type of responsibility, responsibility is based not on fault, but on the causality link between a particular event or danger and the resulting harm. According to the ordinary course of life, if a harm can be seen as a normal and appropriate consequence of a certain verb, then causation has occurred between the verb in question and the harm.

 

It is not always easy to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between a damage caused and a nuclear accident. In the event of damage to the person due to a nuclear accident, the main problems are to determine whether the person in question was exposed to radiation or if he/she was exposed to radiation at what dose. At this point, it is necessary to determine which dose of radiation is harmful to human health and which dose of radiation in food and environment may have harmful consequences on human health under other external factors.

 

Cases when damage to the body's integrity occurs relating to a nuclear accident, long after a nuclear accident occurs is essential. As a matter of fact, the damage caused by a nuclear accident may manifest itself many years later and perhaps on the next generation. In addition, this damage can occur in the form of different diseases that cannot be associated with radiation.

 

Causality cannot be proven by the link between the moment of exposure to radiation and the time of the disease's emergence. On the other hand, causality may not be directly proportional to the dose exposed to radiation; even small doses of radiation may cause harm in the future. For example, radiation or other carcinogenic sources may be exposed at different times; or some diseases that occur later, such as leukemia, may occur as a result of radiation solely pr a combination of other factors with radiation. It is difficult to distinguish between the effects of radiation and other factors, especially in cases where the exposure dose is low.

 

The problem with causal link in damage to property due to nuclear accident manifests itself in the question of whether this link is sufficient rather than proof of causality. The damage that occurs on inanimate beings due to nuclear accidents can occur shortly after the accident. The main problem at this point is to determine at what level the radiation level increases that contamination will occur in the product in question.

 

 

  1. ACCIDENTS AT THE NUCLEAR FACILITY

According to the system introduced by the Paris Convention, only the operator and insurer of that nuclear facility are responsible for accidents occurring at nuclear facilities. The only condition of liability is that the damage was caused by an accident at the relevant nuclear facility, i.e. proof of causal link.

 

 

  1. ACCIDENTS OCCURRING DURING OR AFTER DELIVERY OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS

 

 

H.1-RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE CONSIGNER NUCLEAR FACILITY
 

As a rule, responsibility for the transport of nuclear materials rests with the sending operator. This is because it is responsible for packaging and protection and ensuring that they comply with the health and safety regulations set out for Transport. Art. 4(a) of the Paris Convention ‘‘The operator of a nuclear installation shall be liable, in accordance with this Convention, for damage upon proof that it was caused by a nuclear incident outside that installation and involving nuclear substances in the course of carriage therefrom, only if the incident occurs’’ by saying that, regulates the dispatch of nuclear material from a nuclear facility. In accordance with sub-clause (i) of Art. 4(a) of the Paris Convention, the responsibility of the consigner operator shall cease when, in accordance with the explicit provision of a written contract, the responsibility shall be assumed by the operator of another nuclear facility. However, in the absence of such a clear provision in the written contract, under sub-paragraph (ii) of Art. 4(a) of the Paris Convention, the responsibility of the consigner operator shall continue until the operator of another nuclear facility receives the nuclear materials[17].

 

 

H.2-RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE CONSIGNEE NUCLEAR FACILITY

The exception to the rule that the consigner operator is responsible for the accident occurring during the transport is that the responsibility belongs to the consignee operator. According to the system introduced by the Paris Convention, the responsible operator shall, as a rule, be identified in accordance with the explicit provision of a written contract between the parties. If there is no clear provision, the responsibility is determined on the basis of the moment of delivery.

 

Art. 4(b) of the Paris Convention ‘‘The operator of a nuclear installation shall be liable, in accordance with this Convention, for damage upon proof that it was caused by a nuclear incident outside that installation and involving nuclear substances in the course of carriage thereto, only if the incident occurs[18]’’ by saying that regulates the dispatch of nuclear material to a nuclear facility.

 

In accordance with sub-clause (i) of Art. 4(b) of the Paris Convention, the operator of the consignee nuclear facility is responsible for any nuclear accident or damage that occurs after the responsibility of the operator of a consigner nuclear facility has been assumed by him/her in accordance with the explicit provision of a written contract.

 

Under sub-paragraph (ii) of Art. 4(b) of the Paris Convention, in the absence of such written agreement containing clear provisions, the operator of the consignee nuclear facility shall be liable for any nuclear accident or damage that occurs after the delivery of the nuclear materials by him. Therefore, the operator of the consignee nuclear facility shall not be liable for any nuclear accident or damage caused by such nuclear materials within the time period until the delivery of the nuclear materials by him/her.

 

H.3-DISPATCH OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL TO A NON-CONTRACTING COUNTRY

 

In the event that nuclear materials are dispatched to a state not a party to the Paris Convention, the responsibility of the consigner operator shall continue until the discharge of nuclear materials from the means of transport[19](Art. 4 para. (a) sub-paragraph (iv) of Paris Convention). Therefore, in the event that nuclear materials are dispatched to a person in a state that is not a party to the convention, the operator of the consigner nuclear facility shall be responsible for any nuclear accident and damage occurring in the period leading up to the delivery and discharge of nuclear materials from the means of transport in that state that is not a party.

 

H.4-DISPATCH OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL FROM A NON-CONTRACTING COUNTRY TO A CONTRACTING PARTY

 

According to the system brought by the Paris Convention, if nuclear material is dispatched from the state not a party to the Paris Convention, the responsibility of the operator of the consignee nuclear facility shall begin after the loading of nuclear material into the transport vehicle from the non-party state country[20].

 

 

  1. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONVEYOR OF NUCLEAR MATTER

 

Under the regulations of Art. 6 of the Paris Convention; ‘‘The right to compensation for damage caused by a nuclear incident may be exercised only against an operator liable for the damage in accordance with this Convention.[21]’’

 

However, If a direct right of action against the insurer or other financial guarantor furnishing the security required pursuant to Article 10 is given by national law, against the insurer or other financial guarantor, right of action may be exercised.

 

In respect of the conveyor's liability, the country which is party to the convention, by an arrangement of its domestic law, may provide that it has provided the financial guarantee specified in Article 10 of the Paris Convention, that the conveyor will be responsible instead of an operator in the nuclear facility country. In such a case the conveyor shall be liable as the operator shall be, the conveyor shall be the addressee of the compensation proceedings to be filed.

 

Moreover, according to Art 6 para. (b) of the Paris Convention, ‘‘Except as otherwise provided in this Article, no other person shall be liable for damage caused by a nuclear incident, but this provision shall not affect the application of any international agreement in the field of transport in force or open for signature, ratification or accession at the date of this Convention.’’ In other words, this provision does not affect international agreements that are in force or open to signature or are in the stage of acceptance and approval in relation to the law of transport at the time of the accident. If an accident occurs during the conveyance, the person suffered harm may sue the operator according to the Paris Convention, or may also sue the conveyor responsible under international agreements on the law of carriage.

 

The case shall be brought against a single person in the case that the operator is a conveyor, as well as in the case that the operator is carrying nuclear materials by its own means of transport. However, in such a case, the operator shall not benefit from the advantages of the international agreements in the field of transport that diminish or alter its liability under the provisions of the Paris Convention.

 

 

  1. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
     

Radiation exposure may require a long period of time for damage to occur in the body. On the other hand, the difficulty of proving that the resulting damage was caused by a nuclear accident makes the issue of limiting the right of compensation in terms of duration an important legal issue.

 

Art. 8 of the Paris Conventions sets forth the time limitations. Accordingly, The right of compensation under this Convention shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within ten years from the date of the nuclear incident[22]. Continuing to relevant article, national legislation may establish a period of not less than two years for the extinction of the right or as a period of limitation either from the date at which the person suffering damage has knowledge or from the date at which he ought reasonably to have known of both the damage and the operator liable, provided that the ten years period shall not be exceeded. Briefly, we can compare this provision with our statute of limitations on compensation.

 

It is also stated in the subsequent paragraphs of the same article that the period of ten years in question can be exceeded in two cases. First, in accordance with para. (d), if the state in which the nuclear facility is located has personally secured the responsibility of the operator for a period of more than 10 years, then this case may be filed within the period covered by the state in question.

 

Second, on the assumption that the state in question has not decided otherwise in its national legislation, if it has filed its case within ten years after the nuclear accident, then it may extend its claim that the damage has increased after the expiration of this period if its current case has not yet been finalized. If we consider this provision from the point of view of Turkish procedural law, the relevant provision has given the damaged person the opportunity to rectify his case if the conditions allow it or, if it cannot be rectified, to open a separate case and request to merge even if ten years have passed.

 

 

  1. MAXIMUM LIMITS ON LIABILITY AND THE EFFECT OF THESE LIMITS ON NUCLEAR ENERGY REINFORCEMENTS
     

 

The amount of compensation that the nuclear plant operator is responsible for is regulated under Art. 7 of the Paris Convention as the right of 15 million SDR for a nuclear accident. Under the same article, state parties may also designate lower or higher amounts for the responsibility of the operator of the plant, provided that they are guaranteed by their national legislation. But the amounts determined in this way cannot be less than 5 million SDR. The current equivalent of 15 million SDR is about 18 million EUR. In fact, this figure remains quite low when considering the damages that a nuclear accident can cause. As we mentioned in the Paris Convention, this figure was increased up to 700 million EUR by the 2004 revision of the contract. However, the revision in question has not yet come into force. In fact, the main objective of the Paris Convention in setting a low figure is to provide state parties with mobility and discretion to attract the private sector within their borders to this area and to encourage the installation of power plants.
 

As a matter of fact, France has increased the maximum limit of liability to 74.500 million SDR while enacting the Paris Convention to its domestic law with compliance laws. In the UK, that figure is 140 million GBP. The amount exceeding the maximum liability limits of the nuclear power plant operators shall be paid to the operator by the state concerned[23].
 

Who operates a nuclear facility in Germany, which is another country that is a party to the Paris Convention, must offer financial assurances against Nuclear Damages not to exceed 2.5 billion EUR. 256 million EUR of this amount is secured by insurance. Art. 34 of The German Atomic Energy Act provides that the portion that cannot be insured under the clause will be paid to nuclear operators by the states and the federal government. The operators will receive the part of their payments which are not covered by private insurance from the German Federal Government (75% of this amount) and the state government where the facility is located (25% of this amount)[24].
 

The main objective of limiting the legal responsibilities of a nuclear power plant operator in terms of quantity is to enable the private sector to invest in nuclear energy and to increase the number of power plants, both in the Paris Convention and in the domestic laws of the countries.

 

       L.                INSURING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OPERATOR
 

According to Art. 10 of the Paris Convention, the operator must have insurance or other financial guarantees in the amount indicated in Art. 7 of the Paris Convention and in the form and provisions determined by the competent official authority in order to guarantee the liability. The form and provision of insurance or other financial guarantees shall be determined by the competent authority, as clearly stated in the text of the article, theoretically there are different options to guarantee the liability of the operator, such as bank guarantee or capital markets. However, because they are more expensive or less secure, they are commonly referred to as insurance protection[25].

 

 

 

 

Link: https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/turkey-nuclear-energy-law-under-the-paris-and-vienna-conventions-and-legal-responsibility-in-nuclear-accidents-55407

Link:https://www.mondaq.com/turkey/oil-gas-electricity/927016/nuclear-energy-law-under-the-paris-and-vienna-conventions-and-legal-responsibility-in-nuclear-accidents

 

 


[1] https://www.enerji.gov.tr/tr-TR/Sayfalar/Nukleer-Enerji

[2]https://www.taek.gov.tr/tr/uluslararasi-cok-tarafli-anlasmalar-sozlesmeler/1099-nukleer-enerji-alaninda-ucuncu-sahislara-karsi-hukuki-sorumluluga-iliskin-paris-sozlesmesi.html

[3]To view the Paris Convention:https://www.taek.gov.tr/tr/uluslararasi-cok-tarafli-anlasmalar-sozlesmeler/1099-nukleer-enerji-alaninda-ucuncu-sahislara-karsi-hukuki-sorumluluga-iliskin-paris-sozlesmesi.html

[4] Art.10 of Paris Convention

[5] Art.7 of Paris Convention

[6] In this context, the international community has taken two important steps. The first of these is the joint protocol on the implementation of the Vienna Convention of 1988 and the Paris Convention. In accordance with this protocol, it is aimed to establish a link between the Paris and Vienna Conventions and to make the nuclear regime viable in a wider framework.- Uluslararası Nükleer Sorumluluk Rejimi Çerçevesinde Sivil Amaçlı Nükleer Santral İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu-Arş. Grv. Ayşe Aslıhan ERBAŞI-ÇUHADAR- İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Özel Sayı Cilt:1 Yıl 2015

[7] Nükleer Santral İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu (1.Bası)-Mustafa Halit Korkusuz

[8] Art. 1 of Paris Convention

[9] To view the Law No. 5710: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2007/11/20071121-1.htm

[10] To view the Regulation: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2008/03/20080319-2.htm

[11] Sivil Amaçlı Nükleer Santral İşletenin ve Nükleer Madde Taşıyanın Hukuki Sorumluluğu (Ekim 2009 sf. 201) – Yrd. Doç. Dr. Murat AYDOĞDU – Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Medeni Hukuk ABD

[12] The Law No. 5710 referres to the Paris Convention. Accordingly, in the event of a nuclear accident, the Paris Convention shall be implemented directly in our country. - Nükleer Santral İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu (1.Bası sf. 69) - Mustafa Halit Korkusuz

[13] Kusura Dayanmayan Sözleşme Dışı Sorumluluk Hukuku (Ankara 1981 S.1)

[14] Nükleer Enerji Alanında Üçüncü Taraf Sorumluluğuna İlişkin Paris Sözleşmesi Kapsamında Nükleer Tesis İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu (Ankara 2005) – Aslı Arda – Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Özel Hukuk (Medeni Hukuk) Anabilim Dalı Yüksek Lisans Tezi

[15] Nükleer Enerji Alanında Üçüncü Taraf Sorumluluğuna İlişkin Paris Sözleşmesi Kapsamında Nükleer Tesis İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu (Ankara 2005) – Aslı Arda – Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Özel Hukuk (Medeni Hukuk) Anabilim Dalı Yüksek Lisans Tezi

[16] Nükleer Enerji Alanında Üçüncü Taraf Sorumluluğuna İlişkin Paris Sözleşmesi Kapsamında Nükleer Tesis İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu (Ankara 2005) – Aslı Arda – Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Özel Hukuk (Medeni Hukuk) Anabilim Dalı Yüksek Lisans Tezi

[17] To view the Paris Convention: https://www.taek.gov.tr/tr/uluslararasi-cok-tarafli-anlasmalar-sozlesmeler/1099-nukleer-enerji-alaninda-ucuncu-sahislara-karsi-hukuki-sorumluluga-iliskin-paris-sozlesmesi.html

[18] To view the Paris Convention: https://www.taek.gov.tr/tr/uluslararasi-cok-tarafli-anlasmalar-sozlesmeler/1099-nukleer-enerji-alaninda-ucuncu-sahislara-karsi-hukuki-sorumluluga-iliskin-paris-sozlesmesi.html

[19] To view Paris Convention: https://www.taek.gov.tr/tr/uluslararasi-cok-tarafli-anlasmalar-sozlesmeler/1099-nukleer-enerji-alaninda-ucuncu-sahislara-karsi-hukuki-sorumluluga-iliskin-paris-sozlesmesi.html

[20] To view Paris Convention: https://www.taek.gov.tr/tr/uluslararasi-cok-tarafli-anlasmalar-sozlesmeler/1099-nukleer-enerji-alaninda-ucuncu-sahislara-karsi-hukuki-sorumluluga-iliskin-paris-sozlesmesi.html

[21] To view Paris Convention: https://www.taek.gov.tr/tr/uluslararasi-cok-tarafli-anlasmalar-sozlesmeler/1099-nukleer-enerji-alaninda-ucuncu-sahislara-karsi-hukuki-sorumluluga-iliskin-paris-sozlesmesi.html

[22] To view Paris Convention: https://www.taek.gov.tr/tr/uluslararasi-cok-tarafli-anlasmalar-sozlesmeler/1099-nukleer-enerji-alaninda-ucuncu-sahislara-karsi-hukuki-sorumluluga-iliskin-paris-sozlesmesi.html

[23] Nükleer Tesis İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu: Karşılaştırmalı ve Uluslararası Özel Hukuk Analizi (Ankara Barosu Dergisi Yıl 68 Sayı 2010/2)-Dr. Necip Kağan Kocaoğlu

[24] Nükleer Tesis İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu: Karşılaştırmalı ve Uluslararası Özel Hukuk Analizi (Ankara Barosu Dergisi Yıl 68 Sayı 2010/2)-Dr. Necip Kağan Kocaoğlu

[25] To view Paris Convention: https://www.taek.gov.tr/tr/uluslararasi-cok-tarafli-anlasmalar-sozlesmeler/1099-nukleer-enerji-alaninda-ucuncu-sahislara-karsi-hukuki-sorumluluga-iliskin-paris-sozlesmesi.html


Tags
#nuclear energy law #legal responsibilities #nuclear accidents #mgc #mgclegal #mgclegalnews #hg.org #mondaq)
© MGCLEGAL 2020 / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Back to top