Sınır Ötesi Nükleer Zararlarla Mücadelede Devletin Kusursuz Sorumluluğu

Nükleer enerjinin önemli derecede sınır aşan zararlara yol açabi leceği kabul edilmektedir. Bu sorunla mücadelede devletin kusursuzsorumluluğu, devletin kusurlu sorumluluğu ve işletmecinin kusursuzsorumlu olduğu mevcut sorumluluk rejimi olmak üzere üç farklı so rumluluk sistemi ortaya konulmuştur. Bunların içinden ise işletmeci nin kusursuz sorumluluğu ile devletin kusurlu sorumluluğunun bazıunsurları nükleer zararlarda sorumluluk konusunda kabul görmüşolsa da devletler devletin kusursuz sorumluluğu tartışmalarına çekin ce ile yaklaşmışlardır. Ancak Fukuşima sonrası, mevcut sorumluluksisteminin eksikliği dikkate alınarak, devletin kusursuz sorumluluğukonusunun netleştirilmesi hususu âciliyet kazanmıştır. Zira mevcutsorumluluk sistemindeki eksiklikler dolayısıyla zaman zaman bazısınır aşan nükleer zarar hallerinde tazmin edilememe durumları olu şabilmektedir. Bu hallerde kusursuz devlet sorumluluğuna olan ihti yacı dikkate alarak makalede uluslararası hukuk çerçevesinde devle tin kusursuz sorumluluğuna yer olup olmadığı ve eğer varsa bu so rumluluğun hukuk sistemine nasıl dâhil edilebileceği analiz edilecek tir. Kusursuz devlet sorumluluğunun hukuki durumu analiz edilirkenuluslararası çevre hukuku, emsal olaylar ve Uluslararası Hukuk Ko- misyonu’nun çalışmalarından faydalanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak ise ulus lararası hukukun devletin kusursuz sorumluluğu sistemi konusundanet olmadığı görülmektedir ancak bu belirsizlik devletleri mevcutsorumluluk rejimi ile devletin kusursuz sorumluluğu sistemlerini birarada içeren yeni mekanizmalar oluşturmaktan uzak tutmamalıdır.

STRICT LIABILITY OF STATES FOR DEALING WITHTRANSBOUNDARY NUCLEAR DAMAGES

It is undeniable that nuclear energy may cause very serioustransboundary damages. In dealing with this problem, three differentliability schemes have been put forward, namely state’s strict liability,state responsibility and current regime in which operator is strictliability. Amongst them, operator’s strict liability and some elementsof state responsibility have been accepted in dealing with nucleardamages and states generally have absented themselves from strictliability discussions. But, after Fukushima, it is now very urgent thatstate’s strict liability issue must be clarified given the fact that thecurrent nuclear liability scheme is very deficient. As a result of defici encies in current nuclear liability system, there may be some cases ofuncompensated transboundary victims. Considering the urgent needof clarification of state’s strict liability for transboundary nuclear da-mages, this article will try to answer if there is a firm ground for sta te’s strict liability in international law and if so, how this concept co uld be incorporated into legal system. During the research, transnati onal environmental law, related cases and International Law Com mission’s works were used as main sources when analysing the legalstatus of state’s strict liability. It can be briefly concluded that interna tional law is not clear on the state’s strict liability, but this ambiguityshould not prevent states to create new mechanisms in which bothcurrent nuclear liability and state’s strict liability elements are inclu ded.

PDF

___

Adisianya A, ‘Different Compensation Systems Under Nuclear Liability Conventions’ (2010-2011) 14 CEPLMP Car Review, University of Dundee.
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).
Boyle E A, ‘Nuclear Energy and International Law: An Environmental Perspective’ (1989) 60(1) British Yearbook of International Law 257.
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 Nuclear Accident’ (2008) 35(1) DENV. J. INT’L L. & POL’Y 85.
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.
Dyke V M J, ‘Liability and Compensation for Harm Caused by Nuclear Activities’ (2008) 35(1) DENV. J. INT’L L. & POL’Y 13.
Faure G M and Borre V T, ‘Compensating Nuclear Damage: a Comparative Economic Analysis of the U.S. and International Liability Schemes’ (2008) 33 William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 219.
Fayette L D L, ‘Towards a New Regime of State Responsibility for Nuclear Activities’ (1992) 50 Nuclear Law Bulletin 7.
Güven K, Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta Nükleer Zararlardan Doğan Hukuki Sorumluluk (Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü 2017)
Handl G,’Towards a Global System of Compensation for Transboundary 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).
International Atomic Energy Agency, The 1997 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage — Explanatory Texts, International Law Series No. 3 (IAEA 2017).
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
Jamal F, ‘Responsibility and Liability for Transboundary Environmental Harm: A Legal Analysis’ (2014) 2(7) Journal of International Academic Research for Multidisciplinary.
Karauz K A, ‘Nükleer Santral İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu’ (2011) 1(1) Nevşehir Barosu Dergisi Kecskes G, 'The Concepts of State Responsibility and Liability in Nuclear Law' (2008) 49 Acta Jur Hng 221.
Kocaoğlu K N, ‘Nükleer Tesis İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu: Karşılaştırmalı ve Uluslararası Özel Hukuk Analizi’ (2010) 68(2) Ankara Barosu Dergisi
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.
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.
Novotna M and Varga P, 'International and Supranational Aspects of Nuclear Liability' (2017) 15 Teises Apzvalga L Rev 38.
Nuclear Energy Agency, Liability and Compensation for Nuclear Damage: An International Overview (OECD, 1994).
Nuclear Energy Agency Secretariat, ‘Progress towards a global nuclear liability regime’ (2014) 93(1) Nuclear Law Bulletin 9.
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 PostChernobyl Period (OECD 2006).
Pelzer N, ‘Main Features of the Revised International Regime Governing Nuclear Liability – Progress and Standstill’ in Nuclear Energy Agency, International Nuclear Law: History, Evolution and Outlook (OECD 2010).
Pelzer N, ‘Nuclear Accidents: Models for Reparation’ in Jonathan L. BlackBranch and Dieter Fleck (eds), Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume III (T.M.C. Asser Press The Hague 2016).
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)
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.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992.
Zeidan M. M. S, State Responsibility and Liability for Environmental Damage Caused by Nuclear Accidents (Tilburg University, 2012).
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.
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, accessed 22.03.2021.
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%2010 41/volume-1041-I-13706-English.pdf, accessed 22.03.2021.
Convention of 31 January 1963 Supplementary to the Paris Convention of 29 July 1960 (Brussels Supplementary Convention), OECD/LEGAL/0053, https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_20318/brussels-supplementary-conventionto-the-paris-convention-brussels-supplementary-conventionorbsc#:~:text=The%201963%20Convention%20Supplementary %20to,funds%20proved%20to%20be%20insufficient., accessed 22.03.2021.
Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy of 29 July 1960, as amended by the Additional Protocol of 28 January 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-conventionfull-text, accessed 22.03.2021.
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, accessed 22.03.2021.
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 Liability (2004 Protocol to the PC) (Not yet in force) https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_20361/2004-protocol-toamend-the-paris-convention, accessed 4.06.202