![Show Menu](styles/mobile-menu.png)
![Page Background](./../common/page-substrates/page0150.png)
134
JAKUB HANDRLICA
CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ
Conference Standing Committee to study several further legal issues arising from the
use of nuclear energy as a means of marine propulsion:
During the Conference, the Canadian delegation proposed to set up a subcommittee
in order to study the question of how to assist those states that would have difficulty
meeting the costs of a nuclear incident arising from the requirements of the Convention.
In general, two major options were proposed: First, creation of an international
guarantee fund,
42
opposed by the majority of members as consuming large amounts
of money to be frozen for this purpose. As the second option, establishing a system of
mutual guarantees was proposed. However, most members of the subcommittee favored
a voluntary scheme for such a system. Subsequently, no further draft was prepared.
Furthermore, the issue of possible accession of the international organization
to the NS Convention and their role as licensing authorities were discussed. In this
relation bear in mind that plans for a European nuclear vessel were being studied
under the auspices of the European Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD during the
time the Convention was adopted.
43
Nevertheless, as the Revision Conference was never realized, the plans outlined
above were never achieved. However, they can be of interest in the event the international
community re-opens the discussion on perfecting the legal framework for nuclear-
powered vessels.
3. Reasons for deadlock
There are several reasons the Convention never entered into force and remains
stillborn 48 years after its adoption and, most currently, a forgotten international
agreement. The following paragraphs briefly point out the primary causes.
Principal objection to the inclusion of military vessels
Although the Brussels Diplomatic Conference had reached almost unanimous
consent on the most basic features of the Convention, including all innovation that the
treaty implied, the support of the two major nuclear shipping countries was principally
lost over the issue of including nuclear-powered warships within the scope of the
Convention.
44
The question of nuclear-powered warships had not been raised until late in the
discussion. Originally, the United States strongly supported the inclusion of the
nuclear-powered military vessels under the scope of the NS Convention, which
was also the position of the U.S. expert in the “Panel of Legal Experts on Liability
for Nuclear Propelled Ships.” On the contrary, the United Kingdom expert in that
“Panel” originally opposed the inclusion of nuclear-powered warships under the
scope of the Convention.
45
42
Op. cit.
sub note 10, at p. 778.
43
Op. cit.
sub note 11, at p. 103.
44
Op. cit.
sub note 4, at p. 560.
45
Op. cit.
sub note 7, at p. 309.