International Observation: Strong Promotion of Pollutant Discharge into the Sea Plan Reflects Japan's Moral Deficit and Intellectual Dilemma Science | Standards | Plan
It has been two years since the Japanese Cabinet adopted the plan to discharge Fukushima nuclear contaminated water into the sea in April 2021. In the past two years, neither the Japanese government has made corrections to erroneous decisions, nor have they attempted to consider other less risky solutions, nor have they sincerely and diligently communicated with the international community and sought help. In recent years, the Japanese government, which is known as the "international rule of law in the ocean" and the "rule-based international order," has adopted a sophistry strategy of deceiving others when it comes to nuclear contaminated water discharge plans that pose real risks to the security and interests of all countries. Inconsistency and double standards both kidnap science and humiliate the law.
The Japanese government's sophistry about the discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea can be summarized as "what meets scientific standards is safe, and what is legal.". However, its so-called scientific standards cannot eliminate the environmental problems caused by nuclear contaminated water discharge, nor can it become a shield to escape legal norms.
The scientific standards adopted by the Japanese government in the decision-making process are derived from the technical recommendations of the International Committee on Radiation Protection. However, the technical recommendations of the International Committee on Radiation Protection cannot prove the reliability and effectiveness of so-called "multi nuclear removal equipment", nor are they suitable for evaluating the safety of such large-scale and long-term emissions of multiple nuclides on the environment, nor can they deny the potential threat of organic tritium entering the food chain to human health and safety. The Japanese government's application of relevant scientific standards is one-sided and erroneous.
Japan is using the technical recommendations of the International Committee on Radiation Protection to defend the legality of its emission plans, which is an exchange of the concept of legality. In the 1950s, American physicist Lauriston Taylor once stated that radiation protection is not simply a scientific and technological issue, but a philosophical, moral, and greatest intellectual issue involving all accessible factors such as economy, politics, culture, and law. In terms of environmental safety issues related to radiation protection, "technical limits" do not equate to legal justice.
From the perspective of international environmental law, the international community has gradually recognized the "risk prevention principle" or adopted "risk prevention methods" to carry out activities for risks with scientific uncertainty. For the solution to nuclear contaminated water, the Japanese government should adopt the most cautious attitude, choose the solution with the least risk, and prepare the optimal emergency plan. However, in reality, what we see is that the Japanese government adopted the policy of discharging nuclear contaminated water into the sea before Tokyo Electric Power Company completed its environmental impact assessment process.
From the perspective of international law of the sea, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not specify specific forms of international cooperation among countries in addressing pollution risks. However, the intention of this provision is to grant countries broad discretion to flexibly respond to crises and effectively solve problems, rather than leaving room for malicious evasion of legal obligations. However, in the process of the Japanese government's response, we only saw that the Japanese government selectively ignored the diligent obligations set by the convention for contracting parties to protect the marine environment, showing arrogance and perfunctory behavior towards neighboring countries.
From the perspective of international nuclear law, both the recommendations of the International Committee on Radiation Protection and the soft law documents of the International Atomic Energy Agency require a country to conduct a "risk benefit" analysis of all non scientific and technological factors, including economic and cultural factors, when conducting nuclear activities, in order to prove the legitimacy of the activities. However, in the decision-making process of the Japanese government, we have not seen its consideration of the interests of the domestic population, especially the fishermen around Fukushima Prefecture, nor has it seen the Japanese government's consideration of the risks faced by future generations, let alone its consideration of the marine environment security of neighboring countries.
The unilateral decision of Japan to discharge nuclear contaminated water into the ocean is an act that harms the common interests of all humanity for the sake of its own selfish interests. Essentially, the Japanese government is coercing people from all countries to participate in a scientific experiment with Japan, and the consequences of the experiment's failure will be shared by people from all countries, including Japanese nationals. This decision is not only a kidnapping of science, but also a humiliation of the law, highlighting the moral deficit and intellectual dilemma of the Japanese government.
