Compensation for damages caused by nuclear energy

Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (337.44 KB, 12 trang )

(1)<div class='page_container' data-page=1>

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY NUCLEAR ENERGY

Dr. Nguyen Thi Phuong Cham 
School of Law – Vietnam National University

I. Introduction

On November 25, 2009, with 77.48% of ayes, the National Assembly issued Resolution
No. 41/2009/QH12 approving the investment in Ninh Thuan nuclear power project. This project
consists of 2 factories and each of them includes 2 units to supply electricity to the national
electricity system, contributing to national socio-economic development in general and Ninh
Thuan province in particular. However, the project has encountered many objections and
conflict opinions due to concerns that great disasters could occur in the operation and could
affect the residence in this area. Even then there are such obviously predictable obstacles, no
provisions or principles on the compensation for damages caused by nuclear energy have been
found in the draft or the official document approving the project.

Therefore, this paper, which focuses on the compensation for damages caused by
nuclear energy (CDCNE) from the perspective of comparative law, embraces important
implications for Vietnam by pointing out the inappropriateness in the legal system of
Vietnam, which results in the lack of uniformity and consistency of current regulations in
relation to the international laws.

II. Regulation on the compensation for damages caused by nuclear energy from 
comparative perspectives

1. Motivation and role of Regulation on the compensation for damages caused by 
nuclear energy

From comparative perspectives, the regulation on CDCNE was first introduced in the US
in the late of the 50s when it witnessed a shift from the state‘s monopoly to the private sector in

nuclear power technology. Therefore, with the effort to motivate enterprises toward an active
participation, the US found that it was necessary to build legal regulations with the purpose of
balancing two basic issues: (1) reduction of the risk of too great compensation for nuclear energy
enterprises, which promote the development of the nuclear energy industry, (2) assurance of legal
mechanisms to protect rights and interests of people in case of a nuclear incident.

</div>
(2)<div class='page_container' data-page=2>

Convention15, and some developed their own national law based on this convention16. In
general, in this period, the national legislation in eastern Europe aimed to realise the Paris
Convention and the Brussel Additional Convention on CDCNE in 1964.

In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been conducting
numerous conferences of experts since 1959 and began to discuss widely the formulation of
uniform standards at minimum limits on the civil liability of CDCNE. And by May 1963,
Vienna Convention was adopted. Some important provisions of this Convention, however, are
not clearly defined or incomplete due to the limits of liability and jurisdiction of the courts
that some countries do not participate in so that it was not until 11/1977 that the Vienna
Convention came into effect.

In Japan, the discussions on CDCNE began when this country was transferred the
nuclear technology from the United States and signed the Japan-US Nuclear Energy
Agreement with an exemption of liability for the donor country. Japanese scholars have found
that regarding legal regulations relating to liability for this type of damages, the provisions of
Article 709 of the Civil Code at this time, the victim could not be fully and timely protected
their rights and interests by the general principles such as fault-based liability, maximising the
responsible subjects for compensation, and the mechanism of compensation through judicial
process at the Court,… Therefore, in June 1961, the Law on CDCNE as a specialised law in
the field of liability regulations was promulgated. Related to the common problem at the time
when many Western European countries had been revised their national legislation to
conform to international law, although Japan participated from the first stage in the drafting of
the Vienna Convention of the IAEA, Japan still maintained their legal regime on CDCNE due

to the fact that these common problems are unlikely to happen. This is the main reason for the
difference between Japan and other countries in terms of CDCNE. Meanwhile, though
initially having similar legal regulations as Japan, in 2001, Korean laws on CDCNE were
amended because this country participated in several international conventions.

There are different trends in the legislation on CDCNE. With Japan, some other countries
and territories chose to constitute a law on CDCNE as a specialised law in the field of liability,
such as Korea in 1969, Taiwan in 1971, Switzerland in 1983 and India in 2010. On the contrary,
many countries decided to issue a legal framework for CDCNE as a part of the Law on Nuclear
Energy, which concerns all issues topics in the field of nuclear energy such as legal provisions on
institutional licensing, safety regulations, ... with typical examples are the US in 1957, the UK in
1959, West Germany in 1959, Switzerland in 195917 and Russia in 1995.

Whether designed as a specialised law or a regulation under the Law on Nuclear
Energy, the position and role of CDCNE in the legal system could be affirmed as a specific
legal status in the structure of regulations on the liability of the Civil Law.

UK (1959); West Germany (1959); Switzerland (1959); Sweden (1960))

16 Italy (1963); Spain (1964); Holland (1965); France (1965) 
17

</div>
(3)<div class='page_container' data-page=3>

It is fair to point out the Characteristic of DCNE: transformation and revision in the
core principles of fault-based liability.

Firstly, there are specific principles regulating CDCNE: (1) no-fault liability18, (2)

centralised liability, which means the liability for CDCNE only belongs to the subject
operating nuclear energy. The principle of centralised liability is established by the following
purposes: (1) simplify the responsible subject; (2) stabilise the status of supply enterprises
thereby protecting and nurturing the industrial sectors; (3) avoid the overlap and complexity
when supply companies have to sign liability insurance contracts for the similar incident19.
Regarding the right to claim CDCNE of operating nuclear energy entity from the supply
enterprise, it will be recognised in case of damage caused by the nuclear energy due to
intention of supply enterprise (Article 5.1 of the Law on CDCNE of Japan), or will be
implemented in the case of an agreement between the nuclear energy operator and the
supplier (clause 2 of the above article). In particular, for example, India recognises the right to
claim for compensation from a supplier in case of fault (Article 17). South Korea adds a
deliberate condition, in the case where the firm has a serious fault, the nuclear energy operator
also has the right to claim for compensation of the supplier (Article 4.1).

Secondly, though being based on the principle of no-fault liability, each country will

constitute a different legal regime on the liability exemption for the operators depending on
the purpose of the Law on CDCNE.

Thirdly, depending on the purpose of each country on the Law on CDCNE, whether to

protect the victim or to stimulate the development of the nuclear energy industry by the
limited liability for entities.

Fourthly, in order to ensure purpose of compensating timely and fully for victims, it is

necessary to develop regulations on CDCNE through the obligation to sign insurance
contracts of operators, as well as the mechanism of compensation in the case of exceeding the
limit of liability (if it is a limited liability), or in the case the operator does not have
appropriate economic potential to perform the obligation, or in case an insurance enterprise is

exempt from liability due to force majeure,…

Fifthly, regulations on the support for compensation from the state in case of

recognising the mechanism of liability exemption for operators.

2. Legislation on compensation for damages caused by nuclear energy in countries 
2.1. United States

In the United States, in 1953, the 34th President Dwight David Eisenhower initiated
the peaceful use of nuclear power and in the following year (1954), the Atomic Energy Act

The practice in Japan has demonstrated that: If the liability of operators is not recognised as no-fault liability, people in
neighbour residence of nuclear power plants will oppose. Japan Energy Law Institute, ―Annual research report of researchers in
2017: Legal regime and current status of compensation of damages caused by nuclear energy in countries‖ 11/2018, p.139)

accessed in 14/07/2019)

19 Kanazawa, ―On the activities related to issues of compensation for damages caused by nuclear energy by the

</div>
(4)<div class='page_container' data-page=4>

was revised, under which the development of the atomic energy industry expanded with the
transition from state monopoly to the private sector. However, there is a need for regulations
on the risk reduction for the state in coping with the great incidents caused by the entities.
With this receptive idea, in September 1957, revising the Atomic Energy Act in 1954, the PA
Act (Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act) took two purposes to protect the
victim and developed a strong industrial power as its pillars. This act is the first legal

regulation to be promulgated in the world on the issue of CDCNE.20

* The principles concerning the liability of nuclear energy operators have a common
point between countries in the early period that the liability is not based on fault and
centralised. However, both of these principles are not explicitly defined in the PA Act.

Firstly, in principle, the liability is no-fault liability because, in the field of tort law,

each state has the competence in legislation, therefore, it is not easy to implement the PA Act,
an act from Federal legislation. Nevertheless, the practice in judicial proceedings shows that,
for nuclear energy operators, when managing their business in such a risky domain, it is
necessary to swift from fault-based to no-fault liability. In this regard, it is assumed that there
is no difference between these two types.21

Moreover, in 1966, with the amendment of the law, extraordinary incidents (according
to Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence in the PA Act), was clarified for the uniformity across
the Federation. Specifically, in the case of ―Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence‖, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission - NRC or the Department of Energy (DOE) has the authority to
require insured operators to waive defences (Article 170.n) and in fact, liability for CDCNE to
be liable on a no-fault liability..22

Secondly, in fact, the principle of centralised liability in the PA Act is not clarified,

and then this liability of the operators in the US seems to be economically centralised,
examined by scholars.

Although the PA Act does not have regulations on transparency, if there is liability of
the undertaking or supply subject, the compensation mechanism for the nuclear energy
operator must cover the entire damages. Therefore, while other countries focus on the liability
of CDCNE as legal channelling, the US considers it as economic channelling.23

* Regarding the mechanism of liability exemption: While natural disasters which 
cause nuclear energy occurrences are not considered as a reason for liability exemption,
occurrences caused by wars are applied the liability exemption by the PA Act (Article 11.w).
However, there is no regulation concerning the case that a nuclear energy operator is exempt
from liability and supported by the state for its compensation.

20 Noburu Utatsu, Legal issues in Compensation for damages caused by Nuclear Energy, Kinzai Publisher, 2012, p. 43. 
21

Noburu Utatsu, Development of modern Nuclear Energy Law and General Theory of Law, Nihonhyouron Publisher, 2002, p.34.

Noburu Utatsu, Legal issues in Compensation for damages caused by Nuclear Energy, Kinzai Publisher, 2012, p. 46; W.
Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, David G. Owen: Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Edition (St
Paul, MN, West Publishing, 1984, p.558

</div>
(5)<div class='page_container' data-page=5>

* Regarding the mechanism of performing the obligation of CDCNE: The United 
States applies a limited liability for nuclear energy operators. Initially, the limit was
determined on the summary of insurance (Article 170.b) and support from the state (Article
170.c, d), but then since 1960 when the energy industry business has become more
competitive, energy enterprises such as coal and crude oil have opposition to policy support
with large amounts of money for the nuclear energy industry.24 Therefore, compensation
support from the state is gradually reducing and eliminating. In 1975, when revising the Act,
the reciprocal mechanism was applied among enterprises in place of the state support

mechanism for CDCNE. And the limit of liability was determined on the total amount of
liability insurance (First Compensation Mechanism) and the amount of money extracted from
businesses through reciprocal regimes between businesses (Second Compensation
Mechanism) (Article 170.b).

* Supporting mechanism of the state: For cases that it is possible to exceed the above 
compensation limit, according to Article 170.i, the President within 90 days must report and
propose to the Congress the compensation plan, which includes the estimated compensation
amount, the impact on the Federal budget, the establishment of funds for CDCNE, ... and the
Congress must take necessary and timely actions to assure rights and interests of victims.

2.2. Germany

In 1959 in Germany, with the purpose of protecting victims and fully developing a
nuclear energy industry, the Law on the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the defence
against danger (hereinafter called is Nuclear Energy Law (NEL) was promulgated, which
regulated the legal mechanism of CDCNE with the following characteristics:

* Absolute no-fault liability (do not recognise the liability exemption)

According to Clause 3, Article 25 of the NEL, no-fault liability for CDCNE are absolute
and consistent and do not recognise the liability exemption for nuclear energy operators, from the
standpoint of protecting the victims. Therefore, Germany ended the application of the Paris
Convention on CDCNE in case of force majeure such as natural disasters and war. According to
German law, for damages caused by nuclear energy due to natural disasters, violence, and war,
the operators still have to bear the liability of CDCNE25. However, also under German law, for
nuclear energy occurrences caused by the above phenomena (force majeure), the nuclear energy
operator still bears the liability, but it is limited, based on the regime of the duty of liability
exemption of the state for these subject (Article 31.1).

* Liability for CDCNE of the operators is unlimited rather instead of being limited:

The first law on CDCNE was regulated with the principle of limited liability for
operators due to the harmonisation with international laws. However, Germany has gradually
pursued the global industrial development of nuclear energy along with the higher demand for

24 Souji Yamamoto (ed), Comprehensive Modern Law 54: Future Society and Law, Chikumashobo Publisher, 1976, p.459. 
25

</div>
(6)<div class='page_container' data-page=6>

safety. Therefore, opinions which approved that the limitation of the liability of a nuclear
energy operator was necessary to ensure the development of the energy industry has been
abolished in Germany26. With the amendment of the Law in 1985, the liability of CDCNE of
operators is unlimited instead of limited as before27. In addition, through the amendment in
2002, it replaced the purpose of ―promoting research, development and use of nuclear energy
in peace‖ by ―ensuring safety in current operation until abolishing, stopping the use of nuclear
energy to produce electricity for industrial use‖. Thus, through this revision, it is shown that
the regime of CDCNE in the German law aims mainly to protect and compensate the victims
in promoting safety in the nuclear energy industry.28

* Centralised liability (form economically to legally):

In 1960, Germany signed the Paris Convention but on the liability of CDCNE of
operators, Germany found that in the beginning of the regime on CDCNE, principles of
economically centralised liability were applied, which was similar to the PA Act of the US,
and then this country did not ratify the Convention.29

But in order to unify the regulations on CDCNE in Europe, Germany ratified this
Convention in 1975 and has applied directly to domestic affairs (Article 75.1 of the NEL).

Accordingly, the principle of centralised liability of operators shifted from economically to
legally, based on the provisions of the Paris Convention.

* On the mechanism of performing CDCNE:

In Germany, this mechanism is established based on the liability insurance and the
capital guarantee of 4 large power plants.

Liability insurance will be exempted in case of force majeure, or in the case of insolvent
insurance business, it is clear that insurance cannot be used to compensate for damage, in this
case, according to Article 34.1 of the NEL, the state will provide compensation up to a maximum
of EUR 2.500.000.000 (two billion and five hundred million euro).

For damages exceeding the compensation mechanism, the NEL does not have any
provisions on the compensation of the state. Therefore, if the damages exceed the level of the
compensation and nuclear energy operators cause the occurrence, they have to obey the
principle of unlimited liability which means they must to perform the obligation by their
capital. In addition, in the event that it is anticipated to show that the amount of compensation
exceeds the available capital, necessary procedures and distribution of capital have to comply
with the regulations issued by the Government, even if victims shall not be fully
compensated, the allocation of capital has to be fairly carried out (Article 35).

Noburu Utatsu, Development of modern Nuclear Energy Law and General Theory of Law, Nihonhyouron Publisher, 2002, p.34.

Earlier, the German Law on Nuclear Law limited the liability for operators with the maximum compensation of 500 million mark.
28 Japan Energy Law Institute, ―Annual research report of researchers in 2017: Legal regime and current status of

compensation of damages caused by nuclear energy in countries‖ 11/2018, p.133)

accessed in 14/07/2019)

</div>
(7)<div class='page_container' data-page=7>

2.3. Japan

According to Article 1 of the Law on CDCNE, the purpose of the law is stated clearly:
―This law constitutes basic provisions concerning liability of CDCNE when operating nuclear
energy, aims to protect the victims and to promote the development of the nuclear energy
industry.‖ Thus, it is clear that when compared with other laws on compensation or tort,
instead of protecting the victims, this Law is designed to promote the industry in general and
the nuclear energy industry in particular. Therefore, if there are extraordinary nuclear energy
occurrences, it is necessary for transparency in the support of the state for great damages. This
support would be an effective method for operators.

In Japanese law, the regime of CDCNE is governed by two laws:
- Law concerning CDCNE (Genbaihou)

- Law concerning contracts of supporting for CDCNE (Law on supporting contract -
Hoshokeiyakuhou)

The general purpose of both laws is to protect the rights and interests of the victims
and to develop the nuclear energy industry. This is considered as a specialised law in the
branch of civil law on tort30.

Characteristics of the law on CDCNE in Japan:

* Liability of CDCNE is no-fault liability:

According to Article 3 of the Law on CDCNE, the liability for compensation of
operators is not based on fault, which is specific legal regulations in relation to the General
Part Tort Law of the Civil Code.

* Legally centralised liability:

According to Article 4 of the Law on CDCNE, the liability is centralised only on the
operator. In 1994, with the promulgation of the Law on Product Liability with the aim to
protect the body, life, health and property of consumers, it exists parallelly with two
regulations of no-fault liability in the Law on CDCNE and the Law on Product Liability.
Lawmakers assume that in the case of damage caused by nuclear energy if the Law on
Product Liability is applied, not only the operators but also the manufacturer of nuclear
furnaces are responsible for compensation. Therefore, in order to affirm the principle of
centralisation of liability for CDCNE, Article 4.3 of the Law on CDCNE is amended in the
process of drafting the Law of Product Liability: ―Even with liability for compensation of the
manufacturer related to the damage caused by nuclear energy, the operator still has to
compensate for the damages‖.

30 Hirotaka Fujiwara (ed) - Nuclear Damage Compensation Research Group, Nuclear Damage Compensation Practice, Civil

</div>
(8)<div class='page_container' data-page=8>

- The relationship between the Law on CDCN and the regulations on compensation in 
the Civil Code of Japan (Article 709)

The judgment of the local court of Mito city on February 27th, 2015.31

The victims sued to claim Company A, the parent company of the nuclear energy
operator who has to compensate based on Article 709 of the Civil Code of Japan, and the
subordinate is Article 3.1 of the Law on CDCNE. The Court judged that there was damage
caused by nuclear energy, as stipulated in Article 3.1 of the Law on CDCNE, but Article 4.1
of this law clearly stipulates that the operator is the only responsible subject for the
compensation and therefore, Company A is not responsible for the compensation, and these
provisions concerning centralised liability result in the fact that provisions on liability for
compensation in the Civil Code are not applied in this situation.

- The relationship between the Law on CDCNE and the State Compensation Liability

The judgment of Maebashi Local Court on March 18th, 201732, 137 people had to flee
from Fukushima to neighbouring provinces such as Gunmakend along with the claim for
compensation against Tokyo Electric Power Company, they also claimed the State
Compensation with the reason that it did not perform the responsibility prescribed by law.
And this is the first precedent to recognise the liability for compensation of the state. In this
judgment, concerning the relationship between the Law on CDCNE and the Law on State
Compensation Liability, the judge stated that: ―In this case, the Defendant (the State) can be
considered to not perform the responsibility prescribed by law. […] And the Law on CDCNE
is not interpreted as the exception of with the regulations on compensation liability of the
state stipulated in Article 17 of the Constitution, so even when the liability of operators is
centralised, the compensation liability of the State is not exempted under Article 4.1 of the
Law on CDCNE‖.

* Obligations of nuclear energy operator and Unlimited liability

The regulations on CDCNE in Japan with the aim of ensuring the performance of
compensation liability according to Articles 6, 7 of the Law on CDCNE, requires operators to
participate in the mechanism of compensation. Along with the obligation of contracting
liability insurance, at the same time they must also sign a contract with the Government for

the support of compensation. This contract with the government will subsidise the
compensation when the damages are not covered by the insurance. And in case if any damage
occurs, the maximum compensation for each of these cases is 120 billion Japanese yen33

31 Case Law Journal vol 2003, p.67.

32 Japan Energy Law Institute, ―Annual research report of researchers in 2017: Legal regime and current status of
compensation of damages caused by nuclear energy in countries‖ 11/2018, p.133)

accessed in 14/07/2019)

33 Japan Energy Law Institute, ―Annual research report of researchers in 2017: Legal regime and current status of

compensation of damages caused by nuclear energy in countries‖ 11/2018, p.11)

</div>
(9)<div class='page_container' data-page=9>

(which is called the compensation level according to compensation mechanism). And
according to Article 16 of the Law on CDCNE: in case the damages exceed the compensation
level according to this mechanism, the State will subsidise for the damages.

According to the Law on CDCNE in Japan, there are only provisions concerning the
case of liability exemption, and no regulation on maximum compensation level for nuclear
energy operator so it is interpreted that the liability, in this case, is an unlimited liability.34

* Liability exemption:

The liability of CDCNE is only exempted in the case of war or abnormal natural
disasters (Article 3.1 of the Law on CDCNE). And the practice shows that there are strict
conditions to determine whether a natural disaster is abnormal or not. For example, the

incident of the Fukushima nuclear power plant in March 2011, caused by the 9-magnitude
earthquake causing tsunami, was not determined as extraordinary disaster since there were
similar or even greater disasters in the past which were considered as the case of liability
exemption due to extraordinary disasters, with the reason that they had never experienced
such occurrences in the history35. Therefore, it can be affirmed with the regulation on liability
exemption due to force majeure shows that the Law on CDCNE aims to protect the benefits
and rights of the victim.

3. Regulations on CDCNE in Vietnam 
3.1. Structural perspective

The regulation on CDCNE is stipulated in Section 2, Chapter X of the Nuclear Energy
Law 2008 (from Articles 87 to 91).

3.2. Principles on CDCNE

The law of Vietnam affirms that the liability of CDCNE is not based on fault but there
is no provision that exists as a regulation related to the principle of centralised liability. The
provisions in Paragraph 2 of Article 8736 show that there are no comparative legal studies on
the issue of liability for CDCNE. With the current regulations, it will exist problems related to
the relationship between the owner and the person assigned by the owner and legally using
materials and nuclear equipment (as a legal processor).

According to Article 88.2: ―Total compensation per nuclear incident occurring in a

Research centre on compensation for damages caused by nuclear energy and public policy of Faculty of law, Yokohama

University, Trends and issues about revising the Law on compensation for damages caused by nuclear energy, Taisei 
Publisher, 2017, p. 13

Hirotaka Fujiwara (ed) - Nuclear Damage Compensation Research Group, Nuclear Damage Compensation Practice, Civil 
Law research Publish, 2011, p.15;

Japan Energy Law Institute, ―Annual research report of researchers in 2017: Legal regime and current status of
compensation of damages caused by nuclear energy in countries‖ 11/2018, p.42)

accessed in 14/07/2019)

36 Article 87.- Responsibility to pay compensations for radiation damage, nuclear damage:

</div>
(10)<div class='page_container' data-page=10>

nuclear power plant must not exceed SDR 150 million. For incidents occurring in other
nuclear facilities and facilities in the transportation of nuclear material, the total compensation
must not exceed SDR 10 million‖

Thus, the law of Vietnam clearly shows that the liability for CDCNE is a limited
liability but there is a problem as follows:

If there is more than one responsible subject for CDCNE (since Vietnamese law does
not determine the principle of centralised liability), this is a limitation for a subject or limited
liability to all subjects in case of an incident in nuclear power plants.

3.3. Liability exemption

Vietnamese law stipulates a very wide range of liability exemption, including the

cases of war, terrorism, natural disasters exceeding the safety limits of designs according to
national technical regulations. (Article 87.2 of the Law on Nuclear Energy in 2008).

From the comparative perspective, India is the only country recognises the liability
exemption due to terrorism. Regarding the liability exemption in case of natural disaster in
Vietnamese laws, there is a great risk of the victim‘s failure to be compensated. It is unfair to
determine an objective and unforeseen condition in a subjective provision of liability
exemption. Therefore, nuclear energy operators only need to prove that the nuclear energy
plants were designed in accordance with the national technical regulations with a certain limit
so that if damages caused by the disaster exceeds the safety limit, the operators will be exempt
from liability for compensation. This regulation is contrary to the current trend of
international and foreign laws and demonstrates that it is not the regime of no-fault liability
(recognising right of defense for the plaintiff) in Vietnam.

3.4. Obligation attached with the mechanism of CDCNE

There are absolutely no regulations on the liability of operators to participate in the
civil liability insurance contract, as well as the obligation to establish the compensation funds
of operators, …

3.5. Liability of nuclear energy operators and the support from the State

- Article 9137 on the support fund for remedying nuclear damage includes the
following issues:

Firstly, this is not a legal regulation to support the damages caused by nuclear energy.

37 Article 91. Support fund for remedying nuclear damage

1. The support fund for remedying nuclear damage is used in the following cases:

a/ Organizations and individuals responsible to pay compensations for damage no longer exist;

b/ Damage extent exceeds the maximum compensation level per nuclear incident-specified at Point c, Clause 2, Article 88 of
this Law.

2. The support fund for remedying nuclear damage is raised from the following sources:
a/ Contributions of nuclear facilities;

b/ Financial supports of domestic organizations and individuals;

c/ Financial supports of foreign organizations and individuals and international organizations;
d/ Other sources as specified by law.

</div>
(11)<div class='page_container' data-page=11>

Secondly, the fund is established entirely based on contributions (not derived from
obligations) of nuclear facilities and other entities in society. So, can this fund exist or not?
And the amount of support is not anticipated in the implementation mechanism. Therefore,
there is no regulation for victims to be compensated in the case that responsible subject does
not have the ability to perform the obligation, or the damages exceed the prescribed limit.

Moreover, there is no regulation on the liability for compensation of the State for
damages caused by nuclear energy.

III. Conclusion

With the current legal regulations of Vietnam, there are still many problems surrounding
the CDCNE. Since Vietnam aims to put nuclear energy exploitation into the development of
science and technology and energy industry for peaceful purposes, comparative research would

be a great factor by contributing the knowledge and synchronising the domestic law with
international law. Along with asserting the purpose of balancing between the industrialisation
in nuclear energy and the benefits of citizens, there is also the need to constitute an
appropriate regulation with transparency and the consensus from the Vietnamese people in the
development of nuclear energy.

Therefore, Vietnam needs to focus on researching the following legal issues:

- The responsible subjects of CDCNE follow the principle of centralised liability,
with the example of the regulation in the US, which is more economically, or the example of
Japan and Germany as countries focus on legal centralisation. Moreover, through precedents
in Japan, it is important to anticipate the legal solutions for CDCNE in relation to other laws.

- It is necessary for the transparency of regulations related to limits of liability

- Set up mechanism of compensation such as: Clarifying regulations on the
liability of operators in the mechanism of CDCNE such as the obligation of compulsory
insurance, the obligation of establishing the fund in case of liability exemption of the
insurance due to force majeure.

- Transparency in liability exemption for operators

- Adding more provision about the role of the State in supporting to remedy the
damages caused by nuclear energy.

References

1. Japan Energy Law Institute, ―Annual research report of researchers in 2017: Legal
regime and current status of compensation of damages caused by nuclear energy in
countries‖, 11/2018.

2. Kanazawa, ―On the activities related to issues of compensation for damages caused by
nuclear energy by the International Nuclear Energy Agency‖, Jurist Journal, 190 (1959).

3. Noburu Utatsu, Legal issues in Compensation for damages caused by Nuclear Energy,

Kinzai Publisher, 2012.

</div>
(12)<div class='page_container' data-page=12>

5. W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, David G. Owen: Prosser and Keeton
on the Law of Torts, 5th Edition (St Paul, MN, West Publishing, 1984

6. Souji Yamamoto (ed), Comprehensive Modern Law 54: Future Society and Law,

Chikumashobo Publisher, 1976, p.459.

7. Yoshio Kanazawa (ed), Documents of the workshop: Nuclear Energy Law - comparing

Japan and Germany - 1st Seminar on German Law on nuclear energy, 1980.

8. Hirotaka Fujiwara (ed) - Nuclear Damage Compensation Research Group, Nuclear

Damage Compensation Practice, Civil Law research Publish, 2011, p.12

9. Case Law Journal vol 2003

</div>


The effect of inactivation for C.parvum by Pulse lamp