151 / 532
135
THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION ON THE LIABILITY OF OPERATORS OF NUCLEAR SHIPS
However, the opposition of the United States and the Soviet Union towards
including warships under the Convention had to finally face a serious bloc of votes
led by the United Kingdom and supported by the delegations from the Asian, Latin
American and Western European states. Consequently, Article I (11) of the Convention
established, that a
“Warship” means any ship belonging to the naval force of a State and
bearing the external marks distinguishing warships of its nationality, under the command of
an officer duly commissioned by the Government of such State and whose name appears in
the Navy List, and manned by a crew who are under regular naval discipline
.
The arguments in favor of the inclusion of nuclear-powered warships in the
Convention were very pragmatic. Taking into account the development since the
very beginning of the use of nuclear energy for the purposes of marine propulsion,
the states represented at the Conference held the opinion that, for many years to
come, nuclear propulsion will be used chiefly for military vessels. The fact is that
nuclear-powered vessels were predominantly of a military nature at the time the
Convention was adopted, the ratio being about 30 military nuclear-powered ships to
2 commercial nuclear-powered ships in 1963.
46
Because of this, nuclear-powered military vessels were expected to represent
a considerable part of future nuclear fleets. Therefore, they were considered a real
hazard, against which protection should be available not only to the general public,
but also to conventional shipping. In the event nuclear-powered warships would
be excluded from the applicability of the Convention, the possibility of initiating
private suits against nuclear-powered military vessels and their operators would
depend entirely on the grace of such defendants.
Furthermore, several arguments against inclusion of nuclear-powered military
vessels were presented at the Conference. The Soviet Union and the East European
delegations argued that rules concerning nuclear-powered military vessels have
no place in a civil liability treaty, since any accident involving these will engage
primarily international responsibility of states.
47
Furthermore, it had been pointed
out that there would be no justification for limiting state responsibility with regard
to warships. According to the position of the Soviet Union, the coverage of nuclear-
powered military vessels by the Convention would mean that contracting parties to
the Convention legalize the use of nuclear energy for military purposes. Further, the
United States mainly pointed out the problems of constitutional and administrative
law regarding their submission to foreign courts and the enforcement of foreign
judgments.
48
Finally, the major operators of nuclear-powered fleets obviously feared
inclusion of nuclear-powered military vessels under the Convention might presage
an attempt to impose other types of regulations on these vessels, e.g. international
inspections or licensing requirements.
46
Op. cit.
sub note 4, at p. 553.
47
Op. cit.
sub note 4, at p. 563.
48
Op. cit.
sub note 4, at p. 565.