INTERVIEW FOR CSE 2019
All ForumIAS members selected for CSE 2019 Personality Test must submit their details and DAF and register below to receive further instructions and guidance from ForumIAS. Click here to register now
INTERVIEW 2020 CHANNEL
ForumIAS Channel for Interview Preparation is now Active! Please join the channel by clicking here
We are hiring!

How is India's Civil Nuclear Liability Bill in contravention of CSC?

2

Comments

  • @iasdream thank you.

    @Mehr it clarified many doubts :-)
  • Can someone explain why this liability law is an issue with USA only? We are working with France and Russia too but there wasn't any compromise. Or was there any?

  • @Armstrong

    From IDSA-
    "The provisions of the CLNDA have stalled not only sales of nuclear reactors from US to India but from other major nuclear suppliers – Russia and France – as well. Even though the NSG exemption for nuclear commerce was granted more than six years ago, and India had signed the nuclear cooperation agreements with these countries nearly six years ago, it has not been able to finalise even a single commercial contract for the import of a reactors from any of these countries. The only nuclear cooperation that India has been able to conclude with any of the countries with whom it has nuclear cooperation agreements is in respect of nuclear fuel which would not have any implication for application of CLNDA."

  • Thanks @Mehr. Looks like we are dealing with each nation individually as far as liability law is concerned. This article states that Russia has agreed "in principle" to Indian law. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/russia-remains-india-important-defence-partner-says-pm-modi-both-countries-sign-key-nuclear-deal/
  • Under the law, all the liabilities have been capped to 300 million Special Drawing Rights. Why SDR is used here and not any currency? I haven't seen anything before where SDR is used, we generally use USD.
  • Under the law, all the liabilities have been capped to 300 million Special Drawing Rights. Why SDR is used here and not any currency? I haven't seen anything before where SDR is used, we generally use USD.
    its as per international nuclear liability convention from Brussels Supplementary Convention . May be because SDRs can be exchanged for any freely usable currencies and it is based upon 4 international currencies. I think in case of nuclear accident this compensation would be paid by IMF. May be thats why SDR in this case.
  • edited February 2015
    today's article in The Hindu on nuclear liability is a good one
  • Under the law, all the liabilities have been capped to 300 million Special Drawing Rights. Why SDR is used here and not any currency? I haven't seen anything before where SDR is used, we generally use USD.
    its as per international nuclear liability convention from Brussels Supplementary Convention . May be because SDRs can be exchanged for any freely usable currencies and it is based upon 4 international currencies. I think in case of nuclear accident this compensation would be paid by IMF. May be thats why SDR in this case.
    Brussel covention nahi vienna convention
  • Under the law, all the liabilities have been capped to 300 million Special Drawing Rights. Why SDR is used here and not any currency? I haven't seen anything before where SDR is used, we generally use USD.
    its as per international nuclear liability convention from Brussels Supplementary Convention . May be because SDRs can be exchanged for any freely usable currencies and it is based upon 4 international currencies. I think in case of nuclear accident this compensation would be paid by IMF. May be thats why SDR in this case.
    Brussel covention nahi vienna convention
    actually both say the same thing but india signed CSC without being a member of either of these convention
  • What I've summed up is this:

    USA had following problems with CLND Act, 2010

    1. S. 17(b): the operator the right to recover whatever he pays out as no fault liability from the Supplier, if the accident had resulted from an act of the supplier or his employees. However, the operator's liability is capped at 1500 cr.

    US & Fr feels this right to recourse isn’t in tune with CSC (Convention of supplementary convention) on N-damages where the primary liability is with the operator & Not Supplier.

    2. S. 46: puts liability on N-suppliers in case of accident due to faulty material supplied by suppliers. US Cos like Westinghouse & GE-Hitachi are worried. It is also interpreted that victims can use S. 46 to tort claims & compensation (i.e. sue these N-suppliers). So US want amendment in CLND Act 2010

    India clarifies: A clarification issued by MEA says that the right to recourse will be possible only if under 6a, it is written in the contract between the NPCIL and the supplier. Thus it isn’t by default part of Civil N-Cooperation agreement.

    3. Another contentious clause in the liability law was unlimited liability for which international companies will find it difficult to get insurers.

    Now Question is How did the reconciliation happen without amending CLND Act?
    Point 3 was addressed without changing law how? Point 2 was addressed as can be seen from MEA statement.

    Also for Point 1 it is said that N-risk fund is planned but when we make a Nuclear Risk fund with funding from Insurance PSUs. Isn't public money used in here?
Sign In or Join to comment.

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google