No abstract available

[en] The adoption of the Joint-Protocol and its signature on 21 September 1988, at the closure of the diplomatic conference jointly convened in Vienna by the IAEA and NEA, was hailed as a landmark in efforts towards the establishment of a comprehensive civil nuclear liability regime. The importance of liability and compensation for transfrontier damage caused by a nuclear incident is indeed one of the lessons learned from the Chernobyl accident. This article describes the history of the Joint Protocol during the many years it took to develop this link between the two Conventions, provides a comment on its objectives and content, and discusses some important questions related to its application. (NEA)

[en] After we have learned about the current discussions concerning the Paris Convention revision exercise and the open matters relating to the liability limits and insurance for nuclear damages, prescription period, definition of nuclear damage etc. and different approaches in some PCC in adopting their legislation as well as about the adoption of the Protocol to Amend the Vienna Convention and Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, within the Vienna Convention countries, during the obtained Session 9 of this Conference we will focus our attention on the matters which has been discovered from the moment when the reports has been written till the date of this Conference

[en] Recent development is described in the field of the international regime of liability for nuclear damage, involvement of the Czech Republic in the regime, and situation in the preparation of Czech legislation complying with international liability requirements. Full texts of the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, the Brussels Supplementary Protocol, and the Paris Convention are reproduced. As ratified by the Czech Parliament, the Czech Republic acceded to the Vienna Convention and the Brussels Protocol as of 24 June 1994. Since there are no specific laws dealing with liability for nuclear damage in the Czech legislation, general legal provisions must be applied until the Atomic Bill is passed. The need for upgrading the international liability regime is discussed, suggestions for revision of the documents are put forth, and procedures for their adoption or rejection are specified. (J.B.)

[en] This book deals with deals of the complex issues of liability and compensation for nuclear damage which have been considered in the course of the work of the IAEA concerning the revision of the Vienna Convention on nuclear liability. It presents, in an orderly way, personal reflections of its author based on his experience gathered in years 1989-1992 when participating in this work. Necessarily it contains in some of its parts references to documents of the IAEA Standing Committee on Nuclear Liability; these documents because of their length could not be reproduced. Consequently these parts may not be fully intelligible for those who have not participated in or closely followed the Committee's work. The IAEA work on liability for nuclear damage was initiated in the wake of the impact made on the world's public opinion by the Chernobyl incident and its transboundary effects; issues of international state liability and full compensation have been raised. But humanitarian ideas have quickly been confronted with cold calculations of the cost of financial protection for victims and an open unwillingness of some nuclear states has been manifested. After three years of discussions no wide consensus could be reached on some basic issues, such as: relationship between international state and civil liability regimes, structure of international legislation, concept of nuclear damage, limits of compensation, role of public funds or jurisdiction. The author presents his approach to these controversial issue, trying to provide at the same time a theoretical outline for the future international legislation on nuclear liability. (author)

No abstract available

[en] The production and use of atomic energy involves hazards unlike those with which the world has long been familiar. These opening words of the Expose des Motifs of the 1960 Paris Convention sound remarkably appropriate at a time when the reverberations of the catastrophe which occurred on 26th April 1986 are still being felt. The consequences of the Chernobyl accident should not obscure the fact that since adoption of the Convention, the safety record of nuclear energy has been very satisfactory. Yet, the European countries are now facing a challenge: upgrading the level of protection for potential victims and strengthening the harmonization of national legislation in this field. This article describes the basic principles of nuclear liability conventions before touching upon their recent evolution. The prospects of future developments are also examined

[en] This article gives the list of countries that have joined various international conventions or agreements. At the date of 19 April 2000; there are 79 countries contracting parties to the 1986 Convention on assistance in the case of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency; there are 84 states contracting parties to the 1986 Convention on early notification of a nuclear accident; there are 21 states contracting parties to the 1988 joint protocol relating to the application of the Vienna Convention and the Paris Convention; there are 53 states contracting parties to the 1994 Convention on nuclear safety; there are 16 states contracting parties to the 1997 Joint Convention on the safety of spent fuel management and on the safety of radioactive waste management. (A.C.)

[en] This paper provides an analysis of the possible complications and consequences with respect to nuclear liability and insurance protection applicable in respect of transport activities resulting in damage suffered and/or accidents occurring in EU States that are not party to the Paris Convention. It looks at the different legal aspects (jurisdiction, applicable law, liability amounts, reciprocity) should the revised Vienna and Paris Convention become applicable in comparison with the unrevised Conventions. Within Europe, a large number of States are party to the 1960 Paris Convention and the 1963 Brussels Supplementary Convention, providing liability and insurance protection, in general, up to a limit of 300 million SDRs (or even higher). In principle, such protection is confined to nuclear incidents occurring and nuclear damage suffered in the territory of Contracting Parties, including, as recommended, the high seas, unless the legislation of the Installation State determines otherwise (Article 2). The geographical scope of application of the Paris Convention would thus vary according to the law of the Installation State. However, some EU States never became party to the Paris Convention, and are not bound by its the liability principles (notably, channelling of liability), such as Austria, Luxembourg and Ireland. Transport accidents involving these countries might therefore result in liability claims outside the treaty liability regime against operators, suppliers, carriers or persons involved and for types of damages different from those currently covered by the Paris Convention (e.g., environmental damage). It is uncertain to what extent liability insurance of the installation operators would provide adequate protection and whether related damage claims can be enforceable. In addition, a number of newly entered EU States are party to the Vienna Convention, which, although bound by liability principles basically similar to those of the Paris Convention, will nonetheless have certain consequences in respect of applicable EU law. The revised Paris and Vienna Conventions contain several significant changes that will further affect the liability and insurance protection against damage claims of victims submitted before courts of States not party to the Paris Convention. Due to the fact that the nuclear liability treaties might enter into force for certain States, but not for others, the nuclear liability situation might become even more complicated, especially in case of large-scale transport accidents likely to cause damage in a number of States.(author)

[en] Over the last decade, a number of very significant developments have taken place in modernising the existing international nuclear liability regimes. The first major advancement was the adoption, in September 1997, of the Protocol to amend the 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (VC Protocol) and of a new Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC). This was followed, in February 2004, by the adoption of Protocols to amend both the 1960 Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (PC Protocol) and the 1963 Brussels Convention Supplementary to the Paris Convention (BSC Protocol). The principle goal of all these new instruments is to provide a greater amount of compensation to a larger number of victims in respect of a broader scope of nuclear damage suffered as a result of a nuclear accident. The second, but still very important objective is the maintenance of compatibility between the revised Paris and Vienna Conventions to ensure the smooth functioning of the 1988 Joint Protocol Relating to the Application of the Vienna Convention (VC) and the Paris Convention (PC). In addition, the PC States wish to ensure that their newly revised Convention will not prevent a Contracting Party from joining the more global regime established by the CSC. However, it remains to be seen to what extent these new instruments will attract a sufficient number of adherents to make them truly effective. While the VC Protocol is already in force, it has not drawn wide support from the 1963 VC States or from countries with important nuclear generating capacity which have not yet joined that latter any Convention. In addition, notwithstanding its adoption almost 10 years ago, the CSC has not yet entered into force and it remains questionable whether it will ever attract the necessary number of adherents for that purpose, especially in light of its strict requirements in this regard. As for the PC and BSC Protocols to amend the Paris and Brussels Supplementary Compensation Conventions, it is too early to make predictions regarding their entry into force, but one can say, based upon the latest available information that their Contracting Parties are progressing rapidly towards ratification, acceptance or approval of those instruments and their implementation into national law. Nevertheless, there is little encouraging information with respect to the adherence to those Protocols of the many important nuclear power generating countries which have not yet joined the Paris/Brussels any international nuclear liability regime. The need for international co-operation to attract a larger number of adherents to these various instruments, to facilitate their ratification, acceptance or approval and to assist in the adoption of appropriate implementing legislation therefore remains a high priority amongst the international nuclear community. (author)