What's new

India's Nuclear liability law should follow IAEA norms: United States

Lankan Ranger

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 9, 2009
12,550
0
7,961
India's Nuclear liability law should follow IAEA norms: United States


The US on Thursday said there are "serious concerns" that India's nuclear liability law, which determines who pays how much in the event of a nuclear accident, is "not consistent with the CSC (Convention on Supplementary Compensation)". The US wants India to seek a clarification from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is likely to endorse the US position forcing India to get its nuclear liability law in line with the CSC.

"There continue to be serious concerns that India's 2010 nuclear liability law is not consistent with the CSC," the state department said in response to a question on why the US wants India to seek a clarification from the IAEA.

Deputy secretary of state William Burns had on Tuesday said US "encourages" India to seek a clarification from the IAEA. This was first said by secretary of state Hillary Clinton when she was in India for the strategic dialogue in July.

The US is clearly getting impatient but doesn't want to be seen pushing too hard.

"The IAEA is an appropriate venue for clarification on issues related to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation on Nuclear Damage (CSC), which deals with international nuclear liability," said the state department.

"The Agency can be helpful in assisting countries in evaluating their compliance with the CSC," it added.

The operator of a nuclear plant, according to a law passed by Parliament in 2010, can in the event of an accident caused by defective equipment seek damages from the supplier. But international norms absolve suppliers of any liability.

Talks between US companies and India have been stalemated on this score with Washington expecting to see the existing law superseded by another law - and not a set of rules -- correcting the objectionable cause.

The US wants India to seek a clarification from the IAEA before ratifying the CSC, which will take more time to come to the same conclusion - that its liability law is out of sync with the convention on damages.

But India doesn't appear keen to take that route. "We can't be seen seeing clarifications to overturn our own law," said an Indian official who has dealt with the issue for a while. He was not hopeful of an early resolution either.

Experts said India might, however, ratify the convention and then wait for a challenge at the IAEA to go back to the lawmakers saying our law has been found violating the international law, and we need to change it.

That might be politically more convenient, they argued.


"India's N-liability law should follow IAEA norms' - Hindustan Times
 
Its BS...Our law follows IAEA norms and that is why no one complained. I think we should give special privilege to US companies but we should also stick to our liability law because if something happens we will be the one to suffer.
 
Americans want a piece of India's civil nuclear deals. Russians and French have got most of the contracts till now. Americans feel bad and rightly so because it was their President who used so much diplomatic capital to see this through in the international community but now these Russians and French are getting benefited.

Russians and french suppliers are state owned companies and have deep pockets - so they can agree to India's somewhat tougher laws but US companies are mostly privately owned and they see a lot of risk.

It has been a bone of contention since long and India should let Americans have the pie as well by changing its laws but Yes India's concerns about who pays if things go wrong are absolutely justified - remember Bhopal Gas tragedy ?
 
india you are welcome to this friend good luck

Dont worry about us dude!!! If any of our recent decisions on US related policies are to go by(MMRCA etc..), we are gonna be okay....
Dont know about Pakistan though..Both USA and China are competing on who can $crew Pakistan more
 
Sorry, won't happen. We Indians are not expendable. Nuclear liability laws passed by the Indian Parliament will not be diluted. US has got away with murder, that is history. Give us Warren Anderson. We will lock him up and throw away the key.
 
Sorry, won't happen. We Indians are not expendable. Nuclear liability laws passed by the Indian Parliament will not be diluted. US has got away with murder, that is history. Give us Warren Anderson. We will lock him up and throw away the key.

we have corrupt political leaders that allow us to be divided and ruled by west
 
Americans want a piece of India's civil nuclear deals. Russians and French have got most of the contracts till now.
The civil nuclear deal has just start to materialize. The russian reactors were pre planned. Even if this deal would not have signed those reactors would be set. Yeah french got a deal but believe me my friend the deal hasn't yet started. US is waiting for Japan because most of the tech of US reactors are derived from Japanese companies like Mitsubishi and the moment Japanese will sign you will see how many reactors US companies will get.
 
Hindu : Today's Paper / NATIONAL : No need to get liability law vetted by IAEA: India

India said there was no need to get its domestic nuclear liability law vetted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure it complied with the Convention on Supplemental Compensation (CSC).

The issue again came to life two months after United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had introduced it during the second strategic dialogue with her counterpart S.M. Krishna here in mid-July. The issue was learnt to have been again broached when the two leaders met at New York on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

In a statement in Washington, the U.S. State Department said: “There continues to be serious concern that India's nuclear liability law [Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill] is not consistent with the CSC. The IAEA is an appropriate venue for clarification on issues related to the CSC, which deals with international nuclear liability. The Agency can be helpful in assisting countries in evaluating their compliance with the CSC.”

Senior U.S. Administration officials made similar statements in Washington a few days back and in Mumbai on Friday. The American insistence comes months before the expiry of India's self-imposed deadline of ratifying the CSC before the end of the year. American and French dissatisfaction with the Indian Nuclear Liability Law is one of the reasons for the slow pace at which their civil nuclear projects are progressing in India.

Indian officials maintained that the nuclear liability law was in complete conformity with the CSC and that any pressure to adjust this law on the basis of the IAEA's opinion was not acceptable. They reasoned that the IAEA's role was different. It can act as a depository of the CSC or a clearing house for countries filing their ratification of the treaty. But it can have no role whatsoever in panning a sovereign law.

Sources said during closed door talks, the U.S. had specifically objected to Section 17(b) of the Indian law. This expands the scope of the operator's right to compensation from nuclear suppliers in case of an accident due to faulty equipment.

Washington is also unhappy with Section 46, which implicitly allows accident victims to file tort claims. In this respect, officials point out that while the CSC can have the provision to bar tort claims, it was not practical because only the Supreme Court could decide regarding the compatibility or otherwise with the CSC.

At the U.S. State Department briefing on Friday, the spokesperson said intention behind suggesting that the Indian law be vetted by IAEA was “to make sure that we do comply with international standards on nuclear energy.”
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Back
Top Bottom