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

Notes to pp. 30–35 201
28. Principally Greenpeace,
29. South Pacific island nations took the lead.
30. “United Kingdom: Ocean Disposal Operations to Continue,” Nuclear News
(July 1983), p. 50.
31. “Ocean Disposal: Japan Calls a Halt,” Nuclear News (February 1985), p. 118.
32. LDC 1984, p. 31.
33. LDC 1985a, Annex 2, p. 71.
34. In October 1987, for example, the Japanese delegation to that year’s meeting
of the global ocean dumping regime stated that “although [Japan] is not presently
dumping radioactive wastes at sea, it regards sea dumping as an important option
for the future” (Van Dyke 1988, p. 82).
35. See, e.g., Deere-Jones 1991, pp. 18–23.
36. Personal communication, National Agency of Environmental Protection,
Denmark, October 1988. Nordic environment ministers have recently appealed to
British authorities to halt radioactive discharges from Sellafield. See “Stop Effluent
from Sellafield,” Norden This Week, April 1998.
37. See Sielen 1988.
38. See Fairhall 1989; Pienaar 1989; Jones 1989, p. 251. On the recent controversy
in Britain over the storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines, see Gray
1996.
39. The ban does not apply to waste containing de minimis levels of radioactivity.
The members will conduct scientific reviews of the ban 25 years after it goes into
force and at 25-year intervals thereafter.
40. E. Haas (1980, p. 386) defines regime stability in an almost identical way.
41. See, e.g., Sand 1992.
42. See LDC 1985b, p. 10.
43. See IMO 2000.
44. See Timagenis 1980, pp. 4–9.
Chapter 3
1. Despite many insights and stimulating propositions regarding norms, law, order,
states, and international organizations, leading ideational studies generally are more
concerned with structure than with transnational and nonstate actors and agency
more specifically. See Kratochwil 1989; Franck 1990; Onuf 1989. The literature
concerned with ideas-based policy change and constructivist literature on international
norms has rightly been criticized for neglecting agency. See, e.g., Checkel
1999. The current debate about how to conceptualize the interrelationships between
states and the international system, as well as the consequences for our understanding
of international relations that follow from adopting various conceptualizations,
was introduced in Wendt 1987.