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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

History 31 policy advocated by the majority of nations and refused to incorporate global policy on this issue into their national policies. 34 A political deadlock appeared inevitable. Since the mid 1980s, discharges of radioactivity from Sellafield into the Irish Sea had also caused concern within the global ocean dumping regime. 35 In the spirit of this regime, and also in the spirit of a regional dumping regime composed of countries bordering the North Sea (a regime established by the so-called Oslo Convention), the Sellafield discharges were no longer a matter involving only Britain and Ireland. Characteristically, political parties and Greenpeace Denmark put pressure on the Danish government, which also was concerned about its fishing interests, to protest against the Sellafield discharges. 36 Beginning in the 1980s, American, British, and Japanese attempts to find permanent land-based disposal facilities for radioactive waste were increasingly met with public and political opposition, and acceptable solutions seemed out of reach. To a large degree, they all lacked sufficient landbased waste disposal facilities for low-level radioactive waste (see table 2.3). No new waste disposal facilities had been opened in the United States since 1971, and, accordingly, disposal at sea was constantly being reexamined. In the late 1980s, U.S. EPA officials were reconsidering radioactive waste disposal in the oceans, but dumping was not resumed. 37 Similarly, the British Ministry of Defense considered dumping obsolete nuclear submarines in the ocean, in possible breach of both the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (which was signed in 1982 and took effect in 1994) and the moratorium decided upon by the global ocean dumping regime. 38 In 1993 the international review of radwaste disposal was completed. That same year, the United States and Japan reversed their positions on this issue, and agreement was reached within the regime on a global ban on radwaste disposal. Although strongly opposed to the ban, Britain and France decided to accept it. The radwaste disposal ban marks a significant regime change from a permissive allowance of ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste to a new emphasis on precaution and prevention. 39 Summing up a complex regime development, the London Convention has established a robust global environmental regime for regulation of ocean disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Significant institutional changes have “transpired according to an ex ante plan (and hence part of
32 Chapter 2 Table 2.3 Status of low-level and intermediate-level waste disposal facilities in Britain, France, Japan, and the United States, 1993. Source: IAEA 1994, pp. 93–94. Site name Repository concept Site selected U.S. Wake County, North Carolina Engineered near-surface facility Under licensing U.S. Ward Valley, California Engineered near-surface facility U.S. Boyd County, Nebraska Engineered near-surface facility In operation France Centre de l’Aube (1992)* Engineered near-surface facility Japan Rokkasho (1992) Engineered near-surface facility U.K. Drigg (1959) Simple and engineered near-surface facilities U.S. † Hanford, Washington (1965) Engineered near-surface facility Nearing closure France Centre de la Manche (1969) Engineered near-surface facility U.S. Barnwell, South Carolina (1971) Simple near-surface facility * date operation started † A disposal facility at Beatty, Nevada, which had been in operation since 1962, was closed on January 1, 1993. See U.S. General Accounting Office 1995, p. 12. the original institution) for institutional change” (Kenneth A. Shepsle, quoted in Ostrom 1990, p. 58). 40 This book will document that a transnational coalition of policy entrepreneurs provided crucial leadership in the regime-building process. In the early 1970s, a transnational coalition of prominent scientists and ecologists, politicians, and high-level United Nations officials mobilized international public opinion, raised international expectations, and succeeded in building a global environmental regime based on a U.S. initiative. When radwaste disposal was banned in 1993 as the culmination of a process initiated in the late 1970s, a global environmental pressure group played an important catalytic role by mobilizing and focusing international public opinion on radwaste disposal, by building an influential transnational environmental coalition, by monitoring activities regulated under the regime, and by advocating a precautionary approach to environmental protection. Transnational actors have created global norms and regulatory machinery constraining pro-dumping governments.
Page 1 and 2: Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea P
Page 3 and 4: Global Environmental Accord: Strate
Page 5 and 6: © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of
Page 8: Series Foreword A new recognition o
Page 11 and 12: x Preface International Climate and
Page 14 and 15: 1 Introduction In this book I seek
Page 16 and 17: Introduction 3 aimed to identify ca
Page 18 and 19: Introduction 5 that I document cont
Page 20 and 21: Introduction 7 may not fit easily i
Page 22 and 23: Introduction 9 many regime analysts
Page 24 and 25: Introduction 11 broad range of nons
Page 26 and 27: Introduction 13 international organ
Page 28 and 29: Introduction 15 caught my attention
Page 30 and 31: Introduction 17 my understanding of
Page 32: Introduction 19 prohibition even th
Page 35 and 36: 22 Chapter 2 it enters the body, th
Page 37 and 38: 24 Chapter 2 most important being r
Page 39 and 40: 26 Chapter 2 (McDougal and Burke 19
Page 41 and 42: 28 Chapter 2 mainly disposed of in
Page 43: 30 Chapter 2 In 1983, in response t
Page 47 and 48: 34 Chapter 2 In a world searching f
Page 49 and 50: 36 Chapter 3 War, Machiavelli’s T
Page 51 and 52: 38 Chapter 3 of international organ
Page 53 and 54: 40 Chapter 3 constructed. For examp
Page 55 and 56: 42 Chapter 3 order to pave the way
Page 57 and 58: 44 Chapter 3 It seems quite plausib
Page 59 and 60: 46 Chapter 3 constrained to take ca
Page 61 and 62: 48 Chapter 3 change. For instance,
Page 63 and 64: 50 Chapter 3 involving large number
Page 65 and 66: 52 Chapter 3 begin.” The consumer
Page 67 and 68: 54 Chapter 3 advocate policies only
Page 69 and 70: 56 Chapter 3 for a regime that refl
Page 72 and 73: 4 Scientific Advice and Ocean Dumpi
Page 74 and 75: Knowledge-Based Regime Analysis 61
Page 86 and 87: 5 Ocean Dumping and U.S Domestic Po
Page 88 and 89: Power-Based Regime Analysis 75 seri
Page 90 and 91: Power-Based Regime Analysis 77 Grou
Page 92 and 93: Power-Based Regime Analysis 79 the
Page 94 and 95:
Power-Based Regime Analysis 81 said
Page 96 and 97:
Power-Based Regime Analysis 83 be t
Page 98 and 99:
Power-Based Regime Analysis 85 Poll
Page 100 and 101:
6 Negotiating the Global Ocean Dump
Page 102 and 103:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 89 e
Page 104 and 105:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 91 S
Page 106 and 107:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 93 c
Page 108 and 109:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 95 1
Page 110 and 111:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 97 v
Page 112 and 113:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 99 s
Page 114 and 115:
Interest-Based Regime Analysis 101
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
7 Explaining Regime Formation Build
Page 124 and 125:
Explaining Regime Formation 111 ori
Page 126 and 127:
Explaining Regime Formation 113 dem
Page 128 and 129:
Explaining Regime Formation 115 Tim
Page 130 and 131:
Explaining Regime Formation 117 Pow
Page 132 and 133:
Explaining Regime Formation 119 mot
Page 134 and 135:
Explaining Regime Formation 121 tri
Page 136 and 137:
Explaining Regime Formation 123 blo
Page 138 and 139:
Explaining Regime Formation 125 enc
Page 140 and 141:
Explaining Regime Formation 127 At
Page 142 and 143:
Explaining Regime Formation 129 inp
Page 144 and 145:
8 Changing the Global Ocean Dumping
Page 146 and 147:
Changing the Global Ocean Dumping R
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
9 Explaining Regime Change The Chan
Page 168 and 169:
Explaining Regime Change 155 engage
Page 170 and 171:
Explaining Regime Change 157 adopt
Page 172 and 173:
Explaining Regime Change 159 Yet th
Page 174 and 175:
Explaining Regime Change 161 to tha
Page 176 and 177:
Explaining Regime Change 163 Schola
Page 178 and 179:
Explaining Regime Change 165 First,
Page 180 and 181:
Explaining Regime Change 167 compan
Page 182 and 183:
Explaining Regime Change 169 al. 19
Page 184 and 185:
10 Conclusion Since the 1960s a num
Page 186 and 187:
Conclusion 173 mon, moreover, the U
Page 188 and 189:
Conclusion 175 entrepreneurs, in co
Page 190 and 191:
Conclusion 177 nomic arrangements o
Page 192 and 193:
Conclusion 179 nalized by other soc
Page 194 and 195:
Conclusion 181 It should also be ac
Page 196 and 197:
Conclusion 183 likely to be influen
Page 198 and 199:
Conclusion 185 sidered of paramount
Page 200 and 201:
Looking Back and Looking Ahead Conc
Page 202 and 203:
Conclusion 189 importance of agreei
Page 204 and 205:
Conclusion 191 social and economic
Page 206:
Conclusion 193 costly and unwise so
Page 209 and 210:
196 Key Events 1993 Results of stud
Page 211 and 212:
198 Notes to pp. 5-18 12. The Conve
Page 213 and 214:
200 Notes to pp. 25-30 13. Informat
Page 215 and 216:
202 Notes to pp. 35-42 2. On policy
Page 217 and 218:
204 Notes to pp. 46-51 31. For exam
Page 219 and 220:
206 Notes to pp. 61-64 4. Barry Com
Page 221 and 222:
208 Notes to pp. 67-74 27. See P. H
Page 223 and 224:
210 Notes to pp. 75-78 10. See also
Page 225 and 226:
212 Notes to pp. 82-83 September 9,
Page 227 and 228:
214 Notes to pp. 90-93 3. For the p
Page 229 and 230:
216 Notes to pp. 97-100 ecological
Page 231 and 232:
218 Notes to pp. 106-115 42. On the
Page 233 and 234:
220 Notes to pp. 122-127 the Pacifi
Page 235 and 236:
222 Notes to pp. 134-135 Draft Envi
Page 237 and 238:
224 Notes to pp. 140-145 36. Hollis
Page 239 and 240:
226 Notes to pp. 150-158 73. See LC
Page 241 and 242:
228 Notes to pp. 165-182 19. “The
Page 243 and 244:
230 Notes to pp. 189-192 24. The LC
Page 245 and 246:
232 References Birnie, Patricia W.,
Page 247 and 248:
234 References Cooper, Richard N. 1
Page 249 and 250:
236 References Finnemore, Martha, a
Page 251 and 252:
238 References Haas, Peter M. 1990a
Page 253 and 254:
240 References Jervis, R. 1976. Per
Page 255 and 256:
242 References LDC. 1983b. Critical
Page 257 and 258:
244 References Miles, Edward L. 198
Page 259 and 260:
246 References Pearson, Charles S.
Page 261 and 262:
248 References Rosenau, James N. 19
Page 263 and 264:
250 References Spiller, Judith, and
Page 265 and 266:
252 References U.S. Senate. 1971. O
Page 268:
Interviews Cited Aarkrog, Asker, He
Page 271 and 272:
258 Index Environmental nongovernme
Page 273 and 274:
260 Index Oceanic Society, 135 Ocea
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?