IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oec/neakaa/5k9h3nj6cs8n.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perspective on the Pros and Cons of a Pooling-type Approach to Nuclear Third Party Liability

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Carroll

Abstract

The system of third party liability for nuclear damage established in the 1960s has been the model for many national legal systems in countries with nuclear power programmes. However, this approach has been criticised. It is argued that, with compensation limited to certain types of damage and with limits set well below the possible consequences of an accident, not all damage arising from an accident might be compensated. Moreover, relatively low levels of operator liability mean that risks associated with nuclear power are borne by the general public and that the generation of nuclear electricity is effectively subsidised. Debate about nuclear liability and compensation arrangements increased markedly after the 1986 Chernobyl accident, which brought into stark relief numerous deficiencies in the existing regimes. The subsequent revision of the international nuclear liability and compensation conventions has sought to address this criticism by establishing higher liability amounts and broadening the range of compensable nuclear damage, whilst leaving much of the original 1960s liability and compensation structure unchanged.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Carroll, 2008. "Perspective on the Pros and Cons of a Pooling-type Approach to Nuclear Third Party Liability," Nuclear Law Bulletin, OECD Publishing, vol. 2008(1), pages 75-97.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:neakaa:5k9h3nj6cs8n
    DOI: 10.1787/nuclear_law-2008-5k9h3nj6cs8n
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/nuclear_law-2008-5k9h3nj6cs8n
    Download Restriction: Full text available to READ online. PDF download available to OECD iLibrary subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1787/nuclear_law-2008-5k9h3nj6cs8n?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jing Liu & Michael Faure, 2018. "Risk-sharing agreements to cover environmental damage: theory and practice," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 255-273, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:neakaa:5k9h3nj6cs8n. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/oecddfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.