What does international law say? Can we hold accountable?, Japan officially "discharges pollutants into the sea"

At 13:00 local time on August 24th, the discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the sea was officially launched.

From the perspective of international law, what international laws are involved in Japan's forced discharge of pollutants into the sea? Can we hold accountable for irreversible ecological impacts?

Zheng Zhihua, Associate Researcher at the Japan Research Center of Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Head of the East Asian Ocean Policy Project, told First Financial reporters that from a legal perspective, Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant's "discharge into the sea" may be suspected of violating international law in multiple fields, such as the 1972 London Convention on Dumping, the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and Other Matter, the 1996 Protocol, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea signed in 1982, the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted in 1992, and some treaties within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Zheng Zhihua said that the impact of "sewage discharge into the sea" is cross-border, not only in Japan, but also may involve the sea areas of other countries, and may also involve the high seas, that is, the sea areas beyond national jurisdiction.

"If nuclear wastewater flows into the domestic waters, territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves of other countries with ocean currents, it will have an impact on the survival and reproduction of marine biological resources. If these radioactive substances accumulate in fish populations and eventually enter the food chain, affecting human life and health, there will be cross-border damage." Zheng Zhihua said, "Japan will discharge up to 1.3 million cubic meters of nuclear wastewater this time. There has never been such a large-scale discharge of nuclear wastewater into the sea in human history, and there is great uncertainty about what impact it will have on the marine ecological environment and human health."

Xinhua News Agency image

The convention says so

Public information shows that the London Convention on Dumping, which came into effect in 1975, is open for signature by all countries and regions around the world. Japan is also one of the signatory countries. The purpose of this convention is to control and manage marine dumping, essentially prohibiting the dumping of toxic and harmful waste into the ocean.

The London Convention on Waste Disposal divides waste into three categories: one is blacklisted waste, mainly including waste containing mercury, cadmium, and organic chloride compounds, highly radioactive waste, crude oil and petroleum products, plastic waste, etc. This category is strictly prohibited from dumping into the ocean; The second category refers to the waste that is included in the "gray list", mainly including waste containing arsenic, lead, copper, zinc, cyanide, fluorine 17, beryllium, chromium, nickel, etc., waste containing weak radioactive substances, various waste metals and metal containers, as well as certain insecticides, etc. These types of waste need to take particularly effective preventive measures and obtain special permission before being dumped; Three types of substances, namely "whitelisted" substances, refer to non-toxic, harmless or lightly toxic waste other than the first and second categories mentioned above. Dumping of such waste must also be carried out in designated areas.

Among them, Article 6 of Annex I to the London Convention on Dumping specifically states that international regulatory bodies in this field determine, based on public health, biological or other reasons, highly radioactive waste and other highly radioactive substances that are not suitable for dumping at sea.

Part 12 of the International Convention on the Law of the Sea covers the protection and preservation of the marine environment. For example, Article 194 (2) stipulates that "States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control do not cause pollution damage to other countries and their environment, and to ensure that pollution caused by events or activities within their jurisdiction or control does not expand beyond the areas in which they exercise their sovereign rights under this Convention." Article 195 also clearly stipulates that "States shall not directly or indirectly transfer damage or danger from one region to another or transform one type of pollution into another when taking measures to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment.".

Article 201 states that countries should, in particular, take action through competent international organizations or diplomatic conferences to develop global and regional rules, standards, and recommended methods and procedures to prevent, reduce, and control pollution caused by dumping. The rules, standards, and recommended methods and procedures should be reviewed as needed at any time. Zheng Zhihua explained that the subsequent Articles 204 and 206 imply that Japan has an obligation to use recognized and most scientific methods, such as observation and evaluation, to conduct an environmental impact assessment on the potential environmental pollution caused by this emission. After the environmental impact assessment, Japan should also assume some legal obligations. The environmental impact assessment report should be issued, and then the countries and regions that may be affected and relevant international organizations should be notified.

Is it enough to only maintain communication with the IAEA?

Zheng Zhihua told First Financial reporters that from a legal perspective, even though Japan believes that the so-called "nuclear treatment water" after using multi nuclide removal equipment treatment technology meets the technical recommendations of the International Committee on Radiation Protection, it cannot be denied that such a large-scale discharge of nuclear wastewater containing multiple radioactive elements is an unprecedented risky move. Japan cannot guarantee that the discharge into the sea will not have irreversible effects on marine ecological safety, and cannot guarantee that tritium entering the food chain will not pose a threat to human health.

Previously, the Japanese government also stated that once it begins to discharge pollutants into the sea, it will continue for more than 30 years. According to data from the official website of Dongdian, as of August 3rd, the storage capacity of ALPS treated water and strontium treated water in the storage tank has reached 1.3467 million cubic meters, accounting for approximately 98% of the storage capacity. Among them, 70% of the nuclear wastewater is still waiting for ALPS technology treatment.

"Both the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and international law such as the Convention on Biological Diversity require coastal countries to adhere to the principles of risk prevention and scientific prudence when discharging pollutants into the ocean." Zheng Zhihua said.

Meanwhile, Zheng Zhihua believes that in terms of impact assessment of cross-border marine environments, the Japanese government or TEPCO has not cooperated with neighboring countries in a timely manner. Japan has an obligation to notify and fully consult with potentially affected countries, and engage in full international cooperation. "In terms of ensuring information transparency, Japan's relevant information communication with neighboring countries and regions such as China, South Korea, Russia, and some Southeast Asian countries and regions is particularly insufficient, with significant deficiencies in timeliness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness."

According to Articles 197 and 201 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Japan has an obligation to cooperate with competent international organizations. The competent international organizations involved in the discharge of Fukushima nuclear wastewater include at least the United Nations Environment Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Maritime Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, etc.

Zheng Zhihua believes that in the specific handling, Japan only maintains communication and cooperation with the IAEA, and neglects communication and cooperation with other competent international organizations. In addition to causing general radioactive pollution, the discharge of nuclear wastewater from Fukushima may also have an impact on marine ecological environment, biodiversity, fishing, aquaculture, food security, and the livelihoods of fishermen. It is necessary to disclose information and maintain cooperation with relevant international organizations, especially regional fisheries organizations, on the aforementioned issues.

How to hold accountable?

Zheng Zhihua said that in this event, the more difficult thing is that the actual damage consequences of sewage discharge into the sea may take a long period of time to appear, so it is difficult to obtain evidence.

Zheng Zhihua explained that based on the principle of risk prevention, neighboring countries can apply to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for "temporary measures". That is, if there is evidence that pollution discharge actions may cause serious and irreversible impacts on the marine environment or the interests of other countries, coastal countries can apply to the International Tribunal for a temporary injunction to prohibit the current discharge of sewage; The ban can only be lifted if Japan has sufficient evidence to prove that the emissions are harmless.

It is worth noting that Zheng Zhihua emphasized that there is no precedent for the consequences, accountability, and subsequent treatment of this incident. "In history, there has never been such a large amount of nuclear wastewater discharged into the sea for a long time. In addition, the data on nuclear wastewater itself is not transparent and lacks reliability, and there are many uncertain risks. Once it causes harm, the consequences are irreversible."

In his view, if there is corresponding evidence to prove that TEPCO has failed to meet the requirements of Japanese domestic law in recent years, the company can be held responsible through Japanese domestic law; In addition, measures such as temporary injunctions are taken through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; In the future, once nuclear wastewater enters China's coastal areas through circulation, affected residents and enterprises can file civil lawsuits against Japanese infringers. However, for most enterprises or individuals, it is very difficult to prove the causal relationship between discharge behavior and damage results. Long term observation and scientific simulation forecasting are necessary to provide effective evidence.