Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO

152 Chapter 8
ban in principle, arguing that it was not based on objective scientific
grounds. The Russian Federation explained that, owing to a lack of sufficient
land-based disposal facilities, it had hoped for a grace period until
December 31, 1995. Since the London Convention meeting disagreed, the
Russian Federation chose to abstain.
After the vote, abstaining countries found themselves in an embarrassing
position, and all of them except the Russian Federation informed the London
Convention secretariat soon after the meeting that they accepted the nuclear
dumping ban (Castaing 1993). 76 The impact of international public opinion
was very important when governments agreed to accept the ban. “The UK
recognizes,” the British Minister of Agriculture explained, “that the weight
of international opinion on this matter means that such dumping is not, in
any event, a practical proposition. We have, therefore, decided to accept the
ban.” 77 To save face, the Belgian government also accepted the resolution.
Similarly, to end the controversy caused by its abstention, and pressured by
environmental groups, the French government reversed its pro-dumping
policy and decided to adopt the radwaste disposal ban. 78
Summary
I have demonstrated that an ENGO acted as a catalyst for change within the
regime and forced the transformation from regulation to prohibition despite
scientists and powerful states supporting radwaste disposal. Greenpeace
focused international public opinion on the issue of radwaste disposal,
mobilized interest groups and stakeholders, pressured governments to halt
dumping, and helped in changing the regime’s principle in regard to what
governments should do in the face of scientific uncertainty. ENGO pressure
was strongly amplified by the global dumping regime which established
norms and standards for acceptable behavior within this specific issue area.
These norms and standards reflected international public opinion and the
greening of civil society and governments; they did not reflect consensus
within a scientific community, or protect the interests of powerful states.
Because of the regime norms and principles, some policies were politically
legitimate while others were not. States disregarding regime standards and
norms were subject to domestic and international criticism and scorn, and
even powerful states therefore chose to comply.