介绍:
(b) An interesting metamorphosis.The draft article on transboundary movements of radioactive waste and spent fuel underwent considerable change during the six official meetings of the Group of Experts. When comparing the first and the final draft versions there is a substantial difference in approach. In the beginning, two tendencies were followed: one favouring a simple and short provision, the other aiming at incorporating the key principles laid down both by the IAEA Code of Practice and the Basel Convention. Later, the Group opted for the second approach in its concern for precision and legal consistency. As a result, Article 27 is now highly structured and relatively complex.
After specifying the spirit in which any movement of radioactive waste and spent fuel should be undertaken (in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Convention and relevant binding international instruments), Article 27 lists the obligations and rights of the countries concerned by the movement (country of origin, country of destination and country of transit). In this respect, it is interesting to compare the regime under the Joint Convention with both the Basel Convention, which applies to different but highly dangerous substances (hazardous waste of chemical origin), and the European Directive 92/3/Euratom on the transfer of radioactive waste within and outside the Community area (regional instrument).
Article 27 specifies that the export may be authorised after notification to and consent of the country of destination. This step is therefore an essential prerequisite to any movement It should be noted that the Basel Convention and Directive 92/3/Euratom both introduce an additional element the consent of the country of
destination must be given in writing to the notifying authority of the country of origin. Furthermore, the Directive specifies that the written reply should be sent within two months of the notification.
The country of origin authorises the movement only after having verified, by means of the consent of the country of destination, that the latter has the administrative and technical capacity as well as the regulatory structure needed to manage spent fuel or the radioactive waste in a manner consistent with the principles of the Joint Convention. The country of destination can therefore authorise the movement only if it has the administrative and technical capacity required.
Finally, the country of origin must admit re-entry into its territory of radioactive waste or spent fuel if the movement thereof cannot be completed in conformity with Article 27. The scope of this principle is made more flexible by means of a derogation. The country of origin may circumvent this requirement if an alternative safe arrangement can be made with the country of destination. It should be pointed out, however, that no deadline is set for the conclusion of such an alternative arrangement. The Basel Convention lays down, for example, a specific time limit of 90 days. The European Directive gives to this principle a more strict interpretation since it provides for no possibility of an alternative arrangement.
Care was taken in the Article to specify that shipment intended for storage or disposal at a destination south of latitude 60 degrees south is not permitted. The arguments put forward for this provision referred to the Antarctic Treaty 13 and to the need to comply with this pre-existing binding international instrument On the other hand, Article 27 includes no reference to transboundary movements to developing countries. Whilst the Preamble recognises the sovereign right of each country to ban the import into its territory of foreign spent fuel and of radioactive waste, the text does not follow the same approach as Directive 92/3/Euratom, Article 11 of which states that the competent authorities of member States shall not authorise shipments to a State party to the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention which is not a member of the Community. 14
大家还在听
