Nuclear Laws for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy

The development and utilization of nuclear energy is one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century. It has greatly enhanced the ability of humanity to understand and shape the world and had a significant impact on the development of technology and civilization. In the 21st century, the United Nations (UN) has developed the “Millennium Development Goals” and the “2030 Sustainable Development Goals” to promote a comprehensive solution to the world’s social, economic and environmental issues. To this end, nuclear energy offers unique advantages, but the associated risks and challenges of its further development and utilization must be addressed. Nuclear law is a powerful tool for regulating its development and responding to those risks and challenges. The Chinese Government has always developed nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in a safe and innovative way. At the Nuclear Security Summit in 2014, President Xi Jinping proposed adhering to a rational, coordinated and balanced approach to nuclear security and promoting a fair, cooperative and win–win international nuclear security regime. This not only summarizes China’s experience in establishing a nuclear legal framework and developing nuclear industry, but would also strengthen international nuclear governance and promote nuclear energy to better benefit humanity. The international community should fulfil international obligations strictly, implement national responsibilities effectively, and jointly maintain the UN focused international system and international legal order, contributing to the realization of the common goal of “Atoms for Peace and Development”.

Building the Nuclear and Radiological Safety and Security Authority in the Kingdom of Morocco: Sharing Experience and Lessons Learned

Following the example of several countries, the Kingdom of Morocco adopted, in the middle of the twentieth century, nuclear techniques in the medical and industrial fields, which have experienced a greater and sustained growth following its membership of the IAEA in 1957. This chapter presents the evolution of the nuclear and radiological infrastructure in Morocco over the last 60 years and the prospects for its future development. The chapter outlines the continuous efforts made by public authorities to upgrade the national nuclear and radiological regulatory framework in compliance with international obligations related to safety, security and safeguards. In this regard, the Moroccan Agency for Nuclear and Radiological Safety and Security (AMSSNuR) has, since its inception, been driven by the will and ambition to achieve its vision of establishing itself at the national level as an independent, effective, credible and transparent regulatory body; as well as a leader at the African level and significant contributor in the international arena. The Moroccan experience in safety and security governance and management is highlighted, and the lessons learned and experience gained in this area by AMSSNuR are shared.

Zrównoważony rozwój w tradycji prawnej Chińskiej Republiki Ludowej

An old Chinese saying says: “Nature and man joined into one whole” (Tian Ren He Yi). One could think that Chinese political thought, extensively bound to religion, philosophy, and tradition, laid perfect foundations for the implementation of public international law sustainable development principles. However, Chinese totalitarianism irreversibly changed the perception of the relation between humans and nature that used to be deeply rooted in traditional culture. The purpose of this work was to analyze the evolution of Chinese attitude towards sustainable development that serves environmental protection. The key issue concerning the Chinese willingness to fulfill their international obligations concerning sustainable development had to be addressed. Equally important was the question about the integration principle in Chinese law which would imply balancing environmental needs with economic development in all state politics as it does in the EU law under article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The research shows that Chinese environmental law has been notablyshaped by public international law in correlation to its standards and has developed significantly forthe last 35 years. A good example may be the amendment of 2014 of Chinese Environmental Law that implemented expressis verbis sustainable development as a priority before economic development. However, it seems to be a landmark change, opening new research fields considering its future execution. Considering the above, this work concludes with some moderate but ironic optimism linked to the current plan of the People’s Republic of China to build „ecological civilization.”

Правопреемство в международном праве после распада СССР

After the collapse of the USSR, a huge superpower that occupied one sixth of the land, the question of succession arose before the states that were part of it. The USSR occupied a vast territory, participated in international obligations, had debts, was a member of international organizations. It was obvious that the relationship between the newly formed states depended on how it was possible to divide the “legacy” of the USSR. The USSR took an active position at the international level, was engaged in the development of weapons. The issue of dividing all assets and liabilities worried the entire international community. His decision was difficult, and the legal basis for making decisions on succession did not seem to everyone to be indisputable. At present, it is obvious to everyone that the Russian Federation became the main heir of the USSR, it was the Russian Federation that continued the policy of the USSR, continued to participate in international relations and in the fulfillment of obligations, despite the equality of all states that were part of the USSR. The issues of the succession of the USSR and Russia are the subject of study of modern international law. Within the framework of this article, some aspects of the indicated topic will be highlighted.

Patents, access to health and COVID-19 – the role of compulsory and government-use licensing in Ireland

As the race for effective vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 continues, attention must turn to how such health-technologies will be accessed globally once developed. Patents play a significant role in this context because they give the patent-holder the right to stop others using patented inventions. Patents are available on diagnostics, medicines and vaccines and could form significant access obstacles for COVID-19. Moreover, whilst many patent-holders may be willing to license health-technologies reasonably, others may not. Therefore, it is imperative that national governments ensure effective avenues exist to intervene with patent-holder discretion via compulsory licensing. This article focuses on the legal framework applicable in Ireland for such compulsory licensing interventions, interrogating the effectiveness of the current framework in alleviating access issues posed by patents for COVID-19. It demonstrates how the current framework could be reformed to make it more effective in tempering patent-holder control, where needed, whilst remaining in compliance with Ireland’s international obligations.

Criminalisation of seafarers - A New Zealand perspective

<p>Participants and observers of the maritime industry have been claiming a trend internationally towards criminalising the actions of seafarers in modern years. This trend has been apparent since the mid-20th century and has many vocal industry participants declaring that it is disturbing and negatively impacts the maritime industry as a whole, particularly when the blame of large-scale pollution events are placed on seafarers themselves. The International Transport Workers’ Federation (“ITWF”) highlights these industry concerns:¹ "In the modern maritime industry, reduced crews are expected to affect fast turnarounds and take ever greater responsibility for maritime security and pollution prevention. On the one hand they are subject to pressure from the company to remain economically competitive at all costs. On the other hand they face the threat of heavy-handed sanctions by States eager to find scapegoats for politically sensitive cases involving environmental damage." This paper looks at international discourse on this trend and examines whether it is reflected in New Zealand (“NZ”) by focusing on the statutory reality of the increasing criminalisation thesis. This maritime industry is largely regulated by the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (“MTA”). However, as with all jurisdictions, maritime specific laws do not exist in a vacuum. The MTA operates alongside maritime rules; the Crimes Act 1961; the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”); anti-terrorism measures; health and safety legislation; employee rights; human rights; and international obligations. This research paper analyses the NZ dimension in the context of this international discussion. This paper has four main aims: 1) To isolate the areas where industry participants believe there is a trend towards greater criminalisation; 2) To analyse legislative and policy developments in NZ, focusing on the MTA and earlier legislation; 3) Determine whether NZ is following the international trend towards increased criminalisation of seafarers; and 4) Highlight infamous cases giving rise to liability in this area and hypothetically applies them to the NZ context. The bulk of this paper focuses on the second aim above: Part IV identifies five areas of criminal responsibility. Every maritime offence and crime in NZ legislation has been examined.² Part V is a forecasting exercise where I apply the facts of four international cases into the NZ framework and examine a ‘worse case’ scenario. This paper focuses on offences applicable only to seafarers (including masters) of merchant ships, in the course of their professional duties. There are sundry offences in NZ law which apply to “every person” but this paper only examines these in the context of seafarers’ professional duties. For example, offences under the recent legislation to combat piracy and terrorism through policing and border control – Maritime Crimes Act 1999 and Maritime Security Act 2004 – are outside the scope of this paper though both Acts are important pieces of legislation for NZ international obligations.³ I do not examine offences relating to harbour-masters; owners or employers of seafarers; warships or defence force members; port operators or facilities; pleasure craft; fishing boats; search and rescue operators; wrecks; nor marine structures and operations.⁴ Further, the paper does not look at the civil penalties for the same activities as examined in the criminal context, liability under the Maritime Insurance Act 1908, or the delegated authority of Maritime New Zealand (“MNZ”).⁵ This scope has been chosen due to the parallel international discussion and concerns with this subject. ¹ International Transport Workers’ Federation “Out of sight, out of mind: Seafarers, Fishers and Human Rights” June 2006 at 29. Challengers assert is that the “criminalisation of accidental pollution may discourage feedback regarding incidents, failures, and even accidents and so inhibit their prevention” as well as the increasingly employment costs that such criminal sanctions trigger: see Kyriaki Mitroussi “Employment of seafarers in the EU context: Challenges and opportunities” (2008) 32 Marine Policy at 1047. ² For ease of discussion, Part IV divides these areas into (1) health and safety offences (including pollution and hazardous cargo situations); (2) emergency situations, collisions or accidents; (3) employment rights and obligations; (4) financial and regulatory responsibilities; and (5) obligations involving the administration of justice. ³ See International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1184 UNTS 1185 (opened for signature 1 November 1974, entered into force 25 May 1980). ⁴ See sections 31(4) and 71(1) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 [hereinafter referred to as the “MTA”]; Maritime New Zealand v Page [2013] DCR 102; and Sellers v Maritime Safety (5 November 1998) CA104/98. ⁵ See Part 25 of the MTA.</p>

Criminalisation of seafarers - A New Zealand perspective

<p>Participants and observers of the maritime industry have been claiming a trend internationally towards criminalising the actions of seafarers in modern years. This trend has been apparent since the mid-20th century and has many vocal industry participants declaring that it is disturbing and negatively impacts the maritime industry as a whole, particularly when the blame of large-scale pollution events are placed on seafarers themselves. The International Transport Workers’ Federation (“ITWF”) highlights these industry concerns:¹ "In the modern maritime industry, reduced crews are expected to affect fast turnarounds and take ever greater responsibility for maritime security and pollution prevention. On the one hand they are subject to pressure from the company to remain economically competitive at all costs. On the other hand they face the threat of heavy-handed sanctions by States eager to find scapegoats for politically sensitive cases involving environmental damage." This paper looks at international discourse on this trend and examines whether it is reflected in New Zealand (“NZ”) by focusing on the statutory reality of the increasing criminalisation thesis. This maritime industry is largely regulated by the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (“MTA”). However, as with all jurisdictions, maritime specific laws do not exist in a vacuum. The MTA operates alongside maritime rules; the Crimes Act 1961; the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”); anti-terrorism measures; health and safety legislation; employee rights; human rights; and international obligations. This research paper analyses the NZ dimension in the context of this international discussion. This paper has four main aims: 1) To isolate the areas where industry participants believe there is a trend towards greater criminalisation; 2) To analyse legislative and policy developments in NZ, focusing on the MTA and earlier legislation; 3) Determine whether NZ is following the international trend towards increased criminalisation of seafarers; and 4) Highlight infamous cases giving rise to liability in this area and hypothetically applies them to the NZ context. The bulk of this paper focuses on the second aim above: Part IV identifies five areas of criminal responsibility. Every maritime offence and crime in NZ legislation has been examined.² Part V is a forecasting exercise where I apply the facts of four international cases into the NZ framework and examine a ‘worse case’ scenario. This paper focuses on offences applicable only to seafarers (including masters) of merchant ships, in the course of their professional duties. There are sundry offences in NZ law which apply to “every person” but this paper only examines these in the context of seafarers’ professional duties. For example, offences under the recent legislation to combat piracy and terrorism through policing and border control – Maritime Crimes Act 1999 and Maritime Security Act 2004 – are outside the scope of this paper though both Acts are important pieces of legislation for NZ international obligations.³ I do not examine offences relating to harbour-masters; owners or employers of seafarers; warships or defence force members; port operators or facilities; pleasure craft; fishing boats; search and rescue operators; wrecks; nor marine structures and operations.⁴ Further, the paper does not look at the civil penalties for the same activities as examined in the criminal context, liability under the Maritime Insurance Act 1908, or the delegated authority of Maritime New Zealand (“MNZ”).⁵ This scope has been chosen due to the parallel international discussion and concerns with this subject. ¹ International Transport Workers’ Federation “Out of sight, out of mind: Seafarers, Fishers and Human Rights” June 2006 at 29. Challengers assert is that the “criminalisation of accidental pollution may discourage feedback regarding incidents, failures, and even accidents and so inhibit their prevention” as well as the increasingly employment costs that such criminal sanctions trigger: see Kyriaki Mitroussi “Employment of seafarers in the EU context: Challenges and opportunities” (2008) 32 Marine Policy at 1047. ² For ease of discussion, Part IV divides these areas into (1) health and safety offences (including pollution and hazardous cargo situations); (2) emergency situations, collisions or accidents; (3) employment rights and obligations; (4) financial and regulatory responsibilities; and (5) obligations involving the administration of justice. ³ See International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1184 UNTS 1185 (opened for signature 1 November 1974, entered into force 25 May 1980). ⁴ See sections 31(4) and 71(1) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 [hereinafter referred to as the “MTA”]; Maritime New Zealand v Page [2013] DCR 102; and Sellers v Maritime Safety (5 November 1998) CA104/98. ⁵ See Part 25 of the MTA.</p>

Arbitrator ethics in New Zealand: The New Zealand approach to ethical obligations in international arbitration

<p>Arbitrators in international arbitrations must observe ethical obligations of impartiality and independence, competence, diligence, confidentiality and compliance with the arbitration agreement. A New Zealand understanding of these standard international obligations is influenced by New Zealand’s ethical culture. New Zealand arbitrators practicing overseas must recognise how their culture affects their approach to ethical obligations. In particular, they must be aware that a New Zealand approach to impartiality and independence may be seen as relaxed by those outside New Zealand. A New Zealand approach to ethical obligations is also applied during the enforcement of arbitrators’ obligations where New Zealand is the seat of an international arbitration. Foreign parties are likely to be satisfied with the enforcement of ethical obligations in New Zealand. This is good news for those seeking to establish New Zealand as a regional hub of international arbitration.</p>