Convention on Nuclear Safety

INTERNATIONAL CONTROL OF ATOMIC:[footnoteRef:2] [2: Marion J. Harronnternational Control of Atomic Energy,132,1946.]

This is a force that has a great danger of catastrophe in the wrong hands. At the same time, it has a great promise of a better life in the right hands. Everyone must clearly understand what it implies. Atomic power is so overwhelming that most people have difficulty seeing how it affects their daily lives.

But the fact is that the future of each one of us depends to a large extent on whether atomic energy is used for good or for bad.

Reflections on the USA-India Atomic Energy Cooperation:[footnoteRef:3] [3: Z. Ntoubandi Reflections on the USA-IndiaAtomic Energy Cooperation,274,2008.]

This is a force that has a great danger of catastrophe in the wrong hands. At the same time, it has a great promise of a better life in the right hands. Everyone must clearly understand what it implies. Atomic power is so overwhelming that most people have difficulty seeing how it affects their daily lives. But the fact is that the future of each one of us depends to a large extent on whether atomic energy is used for good or for bad.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

CONVENTION ON NUCLEAR SAFETY:

The Government of Bharat sanctioned the Convention on Nuclear Safety on March thirty one, 2005.

The purpose of the Convention to maintain a high level of nuclear safety worldwide, to establish effective defense on nuclear installation against the potential radiological hazards, in order to protect the individuals, society and environment from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation from such installation; and to prevent accidents with radiological consequences and to mitigate such consequences, should they occur.

Top Writers

Tutor Janice

Verified writer

4.9 (549)

Bella Hamilton

Verified writer

5 (234)

Ramielle

Verified writer

4.8 (756)

hire verified writer

The Convention places sure obligations on the States in operation atomic energy plants.

The obligations area unit supported the principles contained within the United Nations agency Safety Fundamentals document “Fundamental Safety Principles (SF-1)” and canopy as an example, siting, design, construction, operation, the provision of adequate money and human resources, the assessment and verification of safety, quality assurance and emergency preparation.[footnoteRef:4] [4: https://www.aerb.gov.in/index.php/english/convention-on-nuclear-safety]

CONVENTION ON SUPPLEMENTARY COMPENSATION:

A statement from the Indian foreign ministry late on Thursday said India has submitted the Instrument of Ratification of the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This makes India part of a global legal regime that has established a standard for compensation of victims in the event of a nuclear.

CONVENTION ON NUCLEAR ENERGY ACCIDENT LAIBILITY:

The government of India ratified the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage on February 4, 2016, making India a part of the global agreement establishing standards for compensation of victims of nuclear accidents. Prior to the ratification of the CSC, nuclear power equipment manufacturers would be held liable for nuclear accidents, not the plant operators. Consequently, U.S. nuclear power equipment manufacturers expressed significant reluctance to participate in the construction of any nuclear power plants in India, despite the massive market potential—nearly US$150 billion, by some estimate.

CONVENTION ON PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL:

The Convention provides a legal basis to physical protection measures for nuclear material that are evolved over time by the International energy Agency (IAEA).

It provides the framework for worldwide cooperation in protection of theft or unauthorized use of nuclear materials and obliges the States Parties to ensure physical protection of nuclear material during international transport. India has already put in place the measures necessary to implement the provisions of the Convention. The Convention was signed in Vienna and in New York on 3 March 1980 and entered into force on 8 February 1987. Till date there are seventy states in the convention

NUCLEAR DISASTERS WORLD WIDE

Chernobyl disaster:(1986)

The 1986 metropolis plant accident in Ukraine was the results of a imperfect style of the reactor, that was operated by inadequately trained personnel. The IAEA itself says that, it doubled efforts in the field of atomic energy on the explosion of nuclear reactor disaster near Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986.

The 1986 metropolis plant accident in Ukraine was the results of a imperfect style of the reactor, that was operated by inadequately trained personnel. The IAEA itself says that, it doubled efforts in the field of atomic energy on the explosion of nuclear reactor disaster near Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986.

RADIOLOGICAL ACCIDENT IN CHILCA: (2012)

This accident occurred when a radiography camera that was being used to check the integrity of pipeline joints malfunctioned, exposing the workers to radiation. Peru, a party to the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency (Assistance Convention), requested IAEA support. the IAEA-facilitated international assistance. It includes lessons learned for competent authorities.

U.K V ALB

The Corfue was the channel between the Albenia and UK , while British war ships are passing through that channel and during that time a sea mine was exploded which caused the damage of both the ships and many of the people in side are found dead and UK brought before the ICJ and later both UK and Albenia came to a The United Kingdom and Albania reached an agreement on 8 May 1992 whereby the United Kingdom would grant to Albania some 1,574 kilograms (3,470 lb) of Tripartite Commission gold, and Albania have to pay two million dollars to the United Kingdom.

This settlement was finalized and approved in 1996, after the Albania and other Tripartite powers were settled their own claims. At this point, Albania asserted that it was unable to pay the $2 million. Later in 1996, Albania paid the $2 million, and the judgment was considered settled. This is equivalent to $2.91 million in 2016.

SPAIN V FRANCE

Finally, Associate in Nursing arbitrational award between France and Spain alluded to the violation of the rights of different states that will result from pollution of boundary waters.

HUNG V SLOVK

The judgment regarding the Gabcikovo Nagymaros Project, during which the International Court of Justice conjointly recalled that it’s “recently had occasion to stress… the good significance that it attaches to respect for the environment, not only for States but for the whole of mankind

STATE LAIBILY:

The international wrongful act of a State involve the international responsibility of that particular State.

There is associate internationally wrongful act of a State once conduct consisting of associate action or omission:

• (a) Is as a result of the State below international law; and
• (b) Constitutes a breach of a global obligation of the State.

Nuclear activities are included in the general obligation resulting from customary international law, which entails State responsibility “to ensure that activities within their [a State’s] jurisdiction or control do not cause injury to the setting of different States or of areas on the far side the boundaries of national jurisdiction.

CASE ANALYSIS

TITLE OF THE CASE AND CITATION: Jagdish Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 2016 (4) RLW3464 (Raj.)

TOPIC: Atomic energy act 1962

SCOPE: the scope of the project is atomic energy in India and International.

PROVISION OF LAW:

Article 14/24 of the Law of Atomic Energy, 1962, Article 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Article 3 of the Law of Prevention of Damage to Public Property, 1984.

FACTS:

The defendant accused was arrested in connection with the investigation of F.I.R. No. 10/2015 registered against him and some other defendants on 30.12.2015 with the CID police station, Jaipur, for offense under Section 14/24 of the Atomic Energy Law, 1962, Section 379 of the Criminal Code of India and Section 3 of the Law on Prevention of Damage to Public Property, 1984 (for short, ‘the PDPP Act’).

The F.I.R. was recorded on the basis of a complaint submitted by Mr. Rama Kant Purohit, Regional Director of the Atomic Minerals Exploration and Research Division, Department of Atomic Energy, Jaipur. The claim against the appellant is that he was found in possession of large quantity of beryl mineral, which, according to the Notification dated 18.01.2006 issued by the Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai, under Clauses (f) and (g) sub-sec. (1) of sec. 2 and sec. 3 of the Atomic Energy Law, 1962, replacing the previous Notice of 03/15/1995 published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of 20.01.2006, is a ‘Prescribed Substance’. His act, therefore, constituted an offense u / sec. 14 of the Atomic Energy Law, 1962 (for short, ‘the Law of 1962’).

QUESTION OF LAW:

The question of the jurisdiction and competence of the Sessions Court to deal with the present matter in light of what has been provided in Section 20 of the NIA Act.

JUDGMENT:

The appellant was arrested on 06.01.2016 and is in jail for more than four and a half months. Considering that there are a total of 59 prosecution witnesses, it is likely that the trial of the case will take a long time. There is no chance that the appellant will flee from justice.

Reasons for the appeal:

The appellant was arrested on 06.01.2016 and is in jail for more than four and a half months. Considering that there are a total of 59 prosecution witnesses, it is likely that the trial of the case will take a long time. There is no chance that the appellant will flee from justice.

CASES REFERRED:

• 1. Bahadur Kora and Ors. The State of Bihar
• 2. Arnesh Kumar against the state of Bihar

ORDER:

The trial is likely to be protracted, we are inclined to extend the appellant on bail on his bail bonds of Rs. 2,00,000 / – with two bonds, each of Rs. 1,00,000 / – to the satisfaction of the corresponding court.

RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER DICTA:

Not to address the issue of jurisdiction and competence of the Sessions Court to deal with the present matter in light of what has been provided in Section 20 of the NIA Act, which stipulates that even after becoming aware of any offense, whether a special tribunal is of the opinion that the crime is not guilty by him, must, despite not having jurisdiction to judge such crime, transfer the case for the trial of said crime to the court having jurisdiction according to the Code of Criminal Procedure and the court , for When the case is transferred, you can proceed with the offense trial as if you had learned of the offense. Considering the fact that the number of witnesses in the indictment is 59, the trial is likely to last a long time.

CASE TITLE & CITATION: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania 1949 I.C.J. 4, 36

TOPIC: Atomic energy act 1962

SCOPE: the scope of the project is atomic energy in India and International.

PROVISION OF LAW: Articles 26(1) and 40(1) of the ICJ Statute

FACTS:

It arose from the mine explosions by which some British warships were damaged by passing through the Corfu Canal in 1946, in a part of the Albanian waters that had been swept previously. The ships suffered serious damage and crew members were killed. The United Kingdom took over the Tribunal of the dispute through an application filed on May 22, 1947 and accused Albania of having placed or allowed a third State to lay the mines after the Allied naval authorities had carried out the operations of mine clearance. The case had been submitted to the United Nations and, as a consequence of a recommendation of the Security Council, had been referred to the International Court of Justice.

QUESTION OF LAW:

The difference between the rules governing the institution of the procedure and the jurisdiction

JUDGMENT:

The United Kingdom and Albania reached an agreement on 8 May 1992 whereby the United Kingdom would grant Albania about 1,574 kilograms (3,470 lb) of gold from the Tripartite Commission, and Albania would pay two million dollars to the United Kingdom. The agreement was finally approved in 1996, after Albania and the other tripartite powers resolved their own claims. At this point, Albania stated that it could not pay the two million dollars. Later, in 1996, Albania paid the two million dollars and the judgment was considered settled.

CASES REFERRED:

NICARAGUA V UNITED STATES

RATIO DESIDENDI AND OBITA DICTER:

Arguing that the territorial seas within the international straits were treated like any other territorial sea, but that a special regime was needed for international straits.

The Court could not grant more than what had been claimed. As of 2012, it was the only case in which the ICJ granted a prize in the form of money paid to a state applicant.

CASE TITLE & CITATION: Citizens For A Just Society V Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

TOPIC: Atomic energy act 1962

SCOPE: the scope of the project is atomic energy in India and International.

PROVISION OF LAW: SECTION 13 AND 18 OF ATOMIC ENERGY ACT 1962

FACTS:

The petitioners mention that on the west bank of Thane Creek is the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (‘BARC’), which is an excellent multidisciplinary Nuclear Research Center in India, which has an excellent infrastructure for advanced research and development with experience that covers the entire spectrum of nuclear science and engineering and related areas. According to the petitioners, geographically, BARC is located in the eastern suburb of Mumbai, on the west bank of Thane Creek, which has a geological fault line.

According to the petitioners, there are three major faults around Mumbai. They are located beneath the Thane, Panvel and Dharamtar streams. Mumbai falls in zone of seismic risk III. You can experience earthquakes up to 6.5 on the Richter scale. There are some minor faults near the eastern suburbs, which make them more vulnerable than the western suburbs. Many faults are found under Lakes Vihar, Powai and Tulsi. Some are under Malad and Manori Creeks as well.

The area east of Thane Creek in a rectangular area that covers Panvel, Karjat, Ambernath, Kalyan and Belapur-Mumbra is much more vulnerable than Mumbai Island. However, the island city needs more attention due to a double problem: reclaimed land and high-rise buildings. If an earthquake of magnitude 6 or more struck Mumbai, the stability of high-rise buildings and even multi-story buildings may arise as a very serious concern and to spread the issue to the public.

QUESTION OF LAW:

Does the Petitioner have the right to safety aspects of all nuclear establishments?

JUDGMENT:

The high court dismissed and said that the matter is extremely delicate and that it is difficult to understand what the repercussion and ramification of the disclosure of such vital and disregarded information could be.

Reasons for the appeal:

He stated that radioactive liquid waste is stored in high integrity tanks with double containment and also to detect even small leaks. The storage tanks for radioactive liquid waste are under constant surveillance and no incident of tank integrity loss or leakage of liquid waste from the tanks has ever been observed. It is also stated that there is an elaborate and systematic environmental monitoring program to identify even minor leaks.

ORDER

Held, safety measures must be taken for the safety of the inhabitants and the Respondent directed will take all the necessary measures in relation to the safety of the people. The litigation provides the opportunity for introspection and the Petition was allowed.

RATIO RECIDENDI AND OBITER DICTA

Expecting and relying on the material that has been made available by the petitioners, the respondents will study with great care and we have no doubt that the respondents will take all the necessary measures that must be taken in relation to the safety of the people. Interests of the nation and the environment.

The litigation can provide a new opportunity for introspection so that both the Atomic Energy Commission and the Atomic Research Center of Bhabha can once again have an overview of their safety measures and impact on the environment. We advise petitioners and other enlightened persons to approach these organizations directly instead of submitting petitions.