SINIR ÖTESİ NÜKLEER ZARARLARLA MÜCADELEDE DEVLETİN KUSURSUZ SORUMLULUĞU

Abstract

Nükleer enerjinin önemli derecede sınır aşan zararlara yol açabileceği kabul edilmektedir. Bu sorunla mücadelede devletin kusursuz sorumluluğu, devletin kusurlu sorumluluğu ve işletmecinin kusursuz sorumlu olduğu mevcut sorumluluk rejimi olmak üzere üç farklı sorumluluk sistemi ortaya konulmuştur. Bunların içinden ise işletmecinin kusursuz sorumluluğu ile devletin kusurlu sorumluluğunun bazı unsurları nükleer zararlarda sorumluluk konusunda kabul görmüş olsa da devletler devletin kusursuz sorumluluğu tartışmalarına çekin-ce ile yaklaşmışlardır. Ancak Fukuşima sonrası, mevcut sorumluluk sisteminin eksikliği dikkate alınarak, devletin kusursuz sorumluluğu konusunun netleştirilmesi hususu aciliyet kazanmıştır. Zira mevcut sorumluluk sistemindeki eksiklikler dolayısıyla zaman zaman bazı sınır aşan nükleer zarar hallerinde tazmin edilememe durumları oluşabilmektedir. Bu hallerde kusursuz devlet sorumluluğuna olan ihtiyacı dikkate alarak makalede uluslararası hukuk çerçevesinde devle-tin kusursuz sorumluluğuna yer olup olmadığı ve eğer varsa bu sorumluluğun hukuk sistemine nasıl dâhil edilebileceği analiz edilecek-tir. Kusursuz devlet sorumluluğunun hukuki durumu analiz edilirken uluslararası çevre hukuku, emsal olaylar ve Uluslararası Hukuk Komisyonu’nun çalışmalarından faydalanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak ise uluslararası hukukun devletin kusursuz sorumluluğu sistemi konusunda net olmadığı görülmektedir ancak bu belirsizlik devletleri mevcut sorumluluk rejimi ile devletin kusursuz sorumluluğu sistemlerini bir arada içeren yeni mekanizmalar oluşturmaktan uzak tutmamalıdır.

Keywords

• Devletin Kusursuz Sorumluluğu
• Sınır Aşan Zararlar
• Nükleer Enerji
• Devletin Kusurlu Sorumluluğu
• İşletmecinin Kusursuz Sorumluluğu

STRICT LIABILITY OF STATES FOR DEALING WITH TRANSBOUNDARY NUCLEAR DAMAGES

Abstract

It is undeniable that nuclear energy may cause very serious transboundary damages. In dealing with this problem, three different liability schemes have been put forward, namely state’s strict liability, state responsibility and current regime in which operator is strict liability. Amongst them, operator’s strict liability and some elements of state responsibility have been accepted in dealing with nuclear damages and states generally have absented themselves from strict liability discussions. But, after Fukushima, it is now very urgent that state’s strict liability issue must be clarified given the fact that the current nuclear liability scheme is very deficient. As a result of deficiencies in current nuclear liability system, there may be some cases of uncompensated transboundary victims. Considering the urgent need of clarification of state’s strict liability for transboundary nuclear damages, this article will try to answer if there is a firm ground for state’s strict liability in international law and if so, how this concept could be incorporated into legal system. During the research, transnati-onal environmental law, related cases and International Law Commission’s works were used as main sources when analysing the legal status of state’s strict liability. It can be briefly concluded that international law is not clear on the state’s strict liability, but this ambiguity should not prevent states to create new mechanisms in which both current nuclear liability and state’s strict liability elements are included.

Keywords

• State’s Strict Liability
• Transboundary Damages
• Nuc-lear Energy
• State Responsibility
• Strict Liability of Operator

References

1. Adisianya A, ‘Different Compensation Systems Under Nuclear Liability Conventions’ (2010-2011) 14 CEPLMP Car Review, University of Dundee.
2. Borre V T, ‘Shifts in Governance in Compensation for Nuclear Damage, 20 Years after Chernobyl’ in Michael Faure and Albert Verheij (eds), Shifts in Compensation for Environmental Damage (Springer Verlag-Wien 2007).
3. Boyle E A, ‘Nuclear Energy and International Law: An Environmental Perspective’ (1989) 60(1) British Yearbook of International Law 257.
4. Currie J E D, ‘The Problems and Gaps in the Nuclear Liability Conventions and an Analysis of How an Actual Claim Would Be Brought Under the Current Existing Treaty Regime in the Event of a Nuc-lear Accident’ (2008) 35(1) DENV. J. INT’L L. & POL’Y 85.
5. Çuhadar E A A, ‘Uluslararası Nükleer Sorumluluk Rejimi Çerçevesinde Sivil Amaçlı Nükleer Santral İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu’ (2015) Özel Sayı Cilt 1 İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi.
6. Dyke V M J, ‘Liability and Compensation for Harm Caused by Nuclear Activities’ (2008) 35(1) DENV. J. INT’L L. & POL’Y 13.
7. Faure G M and Borre V T, ‘Compensating Nuclear Damage: a Compara-tive Economic Analysis of the U.S. and International Liability Schemes’ (2008) 33 William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 219.
8. Fayette L D L, ‘Towards a New Regime of State Responsibility for Nuc-lear Activities’ (1992) 50 Nuclear Law Bulletin 7.

9. Güven K, Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta Nükleer Zararlardan Doğan Hukuki Sorumluluk (Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü 2017)
10. Handl G,’Towards a Global System of Compensation for Transboun-dary Nuclear Damage: Reflexions on the Interrelationship of Civil and International State Liability’ in OECD and IAEA, Nuclear Accidents: Liabilities and Guarantees Proceedings of the Helsinki Symposium 31 August - 3 September 1992 (OECD 1993).
11. International Atomic Energy Agency, The 1997 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and the 1997 Convention onSupplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage — Explana-tory Texts, International Law Series No. 3 (IAEA 2017).
12. International Law Commission, ‘Draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities, with commentaries’ (2006) Vol II Yearbook of the International Law Commission
13. Jamal F, ‘Responsibility and Liability for Transboundary Environmen-tal Harm: A Legal Analysis’ (2014) 2(7) Journal of International Academic Research for Multidisciplinary.
14. Karauz K A, ‘Nükleer Santral İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu’ (2011) 1(1) Nevşehir Barosu Dergisi
15. Kecskes G, 'The Concepts of State Responsibility and Liability in Nuc-lear Law' (2008) 49 Acta Jur Hng 221.
16. Kocaoğlu K N, ‘Nükleer Tesis İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu: Karşılaş-tırmalı ve Uluslararası Özel Hukuk Analizi’ (2010) 68(2) Ankara Barosu Dergisi
17. Nanda P V, ‘International Environmental Laws Applicable to Nuclear Activities with Particular Focus on Decisions of International Tribunals and International Settlements’ (2008) 35(1) DENV. J. INT’L L. & POL’Y 47.
18. Nigar M, 'Revisiting the International Civil Liability Regimes for Transboundary Pollution by Nuclear, Oil and Hazardous Waste' (2018) 26 Sri Lanka J Int'l L 53.
19. Novotna M and Varga P, 'International and Supranational Aspects of Nuclear Liability' (2017) 15 Teises Apzvalga L Rev 38.
20. Nuclear Energy Agency, Liability and Compensation for Nuclear Da-mage: An International Overview (OECD, 1994).
21. Nuclear Energy Agency Secretariat, ‘Progress towards a global nuc-lear liability regime’ (2014) 93(1) Nuclear Law Bulletin 9.
22. Pelzer N, ‘Learning the Hard Way: Did the Lessons Taught by the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Contribute to Improving Nuclear Law?’ in NEA and IAEA, International Nuclear Law in the Post-Chernobyl Period (OECD 2006).
23. ‘Main Features of the Revised International Regime Governing Nuclear Liability – Progress and Standstill’ in Nuclear Energy Agency, International Nuclear Law: History, Evolution and Out-look (OECD 2010).
24. — ‘Nuclear Accidents: Models for Reparation’ in Jonathan L. Black-Branch and Dieter Fleck (eds), Nuclear Non-Proliferation in In-ternational Law - Volume III (T.M.C. Asser Press The Hague 2016).
25. Shelton L D and Kiss A, ‘Strict Liability in International Environmental Law’ in Tafsir Malick Ndiaye and Rüdiger Wolfrum (eds), LAW OF THE SEA, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES: LIBER AMICORUM JUDGE THOMAS A. MENSAH (Brill Academic Publishers, 2007)
26. Suttenberg J, 'Who Pays: The Consequences of State versus Operator Liability within the Context of Transboundary Environmental Nuclear Damage' (2016) 24 NYU Envtl LJ 201.
27. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992.
28. Zeidan M. M. S, State Responsibility and Liability for Environmental Damage Caused by Nuclear Accidents (Tilburg University, 2012).
29. Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Judgment, 1949 I.C.J. 4, 22 (April 9), https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/1/001-19480325-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf, accessed 22.03.2021.
30. Trail Smelter (U.S. v. Can.), 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (1938 & 1941), https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_III/1905-1982.pdf, acces-sed 22.03.2021.
31. Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy, July 29, 1960, 956 U.N.T.S. 263, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201041/volume-1041-I-13706-English.pdf, accessed 22.03.2021.
32. Convention of 31 January 1963 Supplementary to the Paris Conven-tion of 29 July 1960 (Brussels Supplementary Convention), OECD/LEGAL/0053, https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_20318/brussels-supplementary-convention-to-the-paris-convention-brussels-supplementary-convention-or-bsc#:~:text=The%201963%20Convention%20Supplementary%20to,funds%20proved%20to%20be%20insufficient., acces-sed 22.03.2021.
33. Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy of 29 July 1960, as amended by the Additional Protocol of 28 Ja-nuary 1964, by the Protocol of 16 November 1982 and by the Protocol of 12 February 2004, NEA/NLC/DOC (2017)5/FINA, https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_31788/paris-convention-full-text, accessed 22.03.2021.
34. Protocol to Amend the 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, 12 September 1997, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1063, I-16197, https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/infcirc566.pdf, acces-sed 22.03.2021.
35. The 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, 22 July 1998 INFCIRC/567, https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/infcirc567.pdf, 4.06.2021 accessed Protocol to Amend the Paris Convention on Nuclear Third-Party Lia-bility (2004 Protocol to the PC) (Not yet in force) https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_20361/2004-protocol-to-amend-the-paris-convention, accessed 4.06.2021