154
JAKUB HANDRLICA
CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ
reactors used for experimental, scientific or educational purposes (in research centres,
universities etc.) are to be covered by the liability regime of the Convention.
The Convention relates exclusively to
land based
nuclear installations and expressly
excludes from its definition of “nuclear installation” any reactor “with which a means
of sea or air transport is equipped for use as a source of power, whether for propulsion
thereof or for any other purpose”. Consequently, nuclear reactors generating power
for
ships
,
submarines
,
airplanes
, or
space ships
23
do not fall 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
Therehavebeen several persuading arguments against inclusionof 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 harbors.
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 harbor, 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 represented 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,
23
See REYE, S. Extension of the Technical Scope of the Paris and Vienna Conventions: Fusion 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 Convention’s adoption, dealing with
the use of nuclear energy as a means of transport for terrestrial rescue vehicles. However, the outcomes
of this project have never been applied in reality. See KISSICH, S.
Internationales Atomhaftungsrecht.
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,
1960, at p. 303.