THE PROTOCOL OF 1997 TO AMEND THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON NUCLEAR LIABILITY…
1 July 2006 on the date on which they expect their parliamentary procedures
required for ratification or accession to be completed. The date and arrangements
for simultaneous deposit shall be determined on that basis.”
On one hand, the European Union is not able to accede to the nuclear liability
conventions of the “second generation”; on the other hand, by setting a binding
time framework for the ratification of the Protocol of 2004, it clearly intervenes in
the development of nuclear liability law in its territory. It is a matter of fact that the
Signatories have failed to reach this goal so far. Seven years after the deadline imposed
by the Council decisions, the Protocol still did not enter into force.
32
For most of
this time, the Union had remained silent towards the issue of Protocol ratification.
33
However, after the accident in the Japanese nuclear power plant
Fukushima Dai-ichi
,
the European Union renewed its interest in the issues of nuclear third party liability.
Subsequently, the Commission addressed governments of several Member States
34
in order to fulfil their obligations arising from the Decision of 8 March 2004. Such
a step may lead in forthcoming months to an
infringements proceeding
against certain
Member States in this regard.
3.2.3 Requirement of simultaneous deposit of ratification instruments
Last, but not least, the decisions requires
simultaneous
deposit of ratification
instruments. The ratio of such a requirement was to ensure that the Amended
Paris Convention will come into force in all Member States which are Signatories
to the Protocol of 2004 simultaneously. At the same time, the Paris Convention
stipulates in its Article 20 that any amendment to this Convention shall be adopted
by mutual agreement of all the Contracting Parties and that they shall come into
force when ratified or confirmed by two-thirds of the Contracting Parties. For each
Contracting Party ratifying or confirming thereafter, they shall come into force at the
date of such ratification or confirmation. Consequently, it is a matter of fact, that the
authorisation decisions do constitute a requirement of ratification, which is stricter,
that requirement as laid down in the international convention.
Therefore, the requirement of simultaneous ratification became a matter of
criticism among the international scientific community.
35
The key objection against
this requirement is that, under the provisions of the Paris Convention, the Protocol
of 2004 would eventually already be in force. Consequently, the Union’s requirement
32
For further details regarding this situation see Schwartz, J.: Great Expectations:Where DoWe Stand with
the International Nuclear Liability Conventions?, in Pelzer, N. (ed.):
Europäisches Atomhaftungsrechtim
Umbruch
, Nomos Verlag, Baden Baden, 2010, pp. 43
et seq.
33
Some authors pointed out, that one of the reasons has been the strict requirement to deposit their
instruments of ratification of the Protocol
simultaneously
. It is a matter of fact that the only states which
did ratify the Protocol since its adoption have been Switzerland and Norway, which are not Member
States of the European Union.
34
Belgium, France and Italy.
35
Will singular deposit of ratification instruments also lead to an infringement proceedings from the
side of the European Union? This question has also been a matter of discussions among the scientific
community, but has not been addressed by the European Commission yet.