{"id":14525,"date":"2011-08-28T11:36:47","date_gmt":"2011-08-28T16:36:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=14525"},"modified":"2011-08-29T05:45:32","modified_gmt":"2011-08-29T10:45:32","slug":"fukushima-and-the-law-of-the-sea-part-i","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2011\/08\/fukushima-and-the-law-of-the-sea-part-i\/","title":{"rendered":"Fukushima and the Law of the Sea (Part I)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Two days ago, Japan\u2019s nuclear regulatory agency disclosed estimates<\/a>\u00a0of the volume of radioactive material that has escaped from the Fukushima reactor complex since the March earthquake and tsunami. The agency estimates that the emitted volume of radioactive cesium is approximately 168 times higher than that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of WWII, and that the volumes of radioactive iodine and strontium are approximately 2.5 times higher. All are linked to cancer, and the cesium and strontium isotopes can persist in the environment for decades.<\/p>\n

The estimates are truly alarming. Some have argued that the impact on humans will be limited because the vast majority of the material has fallen or leaked into the ocean, where it will disperse and substantially dilute. But dilution is not a great reassurance. Given the extended half-lives of some of these materials, there is reasonable concern that radiation from Fukushima will damage marine habitats for years and, in turn, harm the citizens of Japan and other proximate countries.<\/p>\n

Although not discussed in the media, the radiation leak may also violate international law.\u00a0The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which entered into force in 1994, requires states-parties such as Japan to take steps to prevent and control pollution into the oceans. One of its provisions mandates that states take measures necessary \u201cto prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment,\u201d including pollution involving the \u201crelease of toxic, harmful or noxious substances, especially those which are persistent, from land-based sources.\u201d Another provision mandates that states-parties \u201ctake all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment resulting from the use of technologies under their jurisdiction or control.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Convention seems to cover the type of pollution coming from Fukushima. Radiation leaking from Japanese nuclear reactors into the ocean is a \u201ctoxic, harmful or noxious substance[]\u201d from a \u201cland-based source[].\u201d It is also pollution that \u201cresult[s] from the use of technologies\u201d under the jurisdiction and control of a state-party.<\/p>\n

Whether the Japanese government took \u201call measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control\u201d the Fukushima pollution is less clear. With the benefit of hindsight, it is obvious that the government did not do enough<\/em> to prevent radiation from leaking from the nuclear plants into the ocean\u2014if it had, the leaks would not have occurred. But the Convention does not itemize the specific measures that are deemed \u201cnecessary,\u201d and there is often a difference between the necessary and the sufficient. The government could theoretically complete \u201call measures necessary to prevent\u201d radiation leaks and yet still fail to do enough to completely preclude any possibility of a leak. The mere occurrence of pollution, in other words, may not demonstrate a violation, at least as a matter of textual interpretation.<\/p>\n

One way to think about the problem is normatively, by asking simply whether there should be a difference between the necessary and the sufficient in this area. In the United States, tort law imposes strict liability for certain ultra-hazardous activities, and in doing so effectively closes the gap between necessity and sufficiency for purposes of liability determinations. But other areas of tort law leave a gap, and thus permit actors to avoid liability by meeting certain minimum standards of conduct even if harm still follows. What is your view? Is strict liability for environmental harms from accidents at nuclear plants the appropriate standard? \u00a0Or should international law utilize some other standard?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two days ago, Japan\u2019s nuclear regulatory agency disclosed estimates\u00a0of the volume of radioactive material that has escaped from the Fukushima reactor complex since the March earthquake and tsunami. The agency estimates that the emitted volume of radioactive cesium is approximately 168 times higher than that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":116,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[40,20,122],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14525","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-environmental-law","category-international-law","category-public","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14525","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/116"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14525"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14525\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14525"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14525"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14525"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}