By By Lilu Chkhartishvili and Lora Fekete
The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident was a catastrophic event caused by a combination of multiple natural hazards, engineering failures, communication and legal framework flaws. This essay analyzes the Japanese nuclear liability system, critical safety vulnerabilities, communication issues as well as the consequences on society and environment.
In the following, we will discuss how the tsunami hazard was a greatly underestimated risk by TEPCO and Japanese regulatory agencies as well as predictions from independent research and computer simulations. Furthermore, the technical issues will be addressed. The natural disaster caused a power shortage, which disabled the core cooling systems and safety relief valves. This led to multiple system failures, including cladding meltdowns, massive hydrogen gas production, system detonations, and highly dangerous manual operating conditions for workers. The evaluation of the crisis communication management will highlight key issues such as failed communication actors, unofficial communication routes, failure of technological tools as well as the desire for corporate self-defense over public information sharing. The significant environmental and social consequences will be examined, with a focus on the expanding of radioactive waste throughout the marine food chain and the issues affecting the citizens such as mental disorders, social discrimination and economic hardships.
From a legal perspective, this article will examine the legal and regulatory consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. By exploring the weaknesses of Japan’s pre-Fukushima nuclear regulatory framework, it will highlight regulatory capture, outdated safety standards, and the absence of effective mechanisms to prevent severe accidents, all of which contributed to transforming a natural disaster into a nuclear crisis. The paper will further evaluate the liability and compensation regimes established under Japanese nuclear law, focusing on the responsibilities of Tokyo Electric Power Company and the Japanese government, as well as the approaches to victim compensation and redress adopted in the aftermath of the accident. In addition, it will discuss transnational litigation arising from the accident, examining it in relation to international nuclear liability conventions and the broader impact of Fukushima on global nuclear safety governance.
Ultimately, the article will argue that robust oversight, transparent regulation, and proactive safety measures are essential to preventing large-scale nuclear disasters and ensuring effective victim protection.
The Great East Japan Earthquake of 11 March 2011 hit coastal Japan, alongside a tsunami, which reached heights of more than ten meters on the north-eastern coast.[1] Resulting in 15 000 people killed, over 6 000 injured, and around 2 500 reported to be missing, the natural disaster caused widespread devastation in the country.[2] Innately, buildings and infrastructure were also damaged along the coastline.[3] Multiple Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) were affected to different degrees by the earthquake and tsunami.[4] However, the Fukushima Daiichi NPP sustained substantial destruction of the operational and safety infrastructure because of the damage to the electric power supply lines. The loss of on-site and off-site electrical power resulted in the wreckage of the cooling function at three operating reactor units.[5]
Today, what is known as the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster involved hydrogen explosions and radiation leaks into the air, sea and soil, resulting in the evacuation of thousands of residents within and beyond a 20 km radius and restrictions on food and water consumption.[6]
The legal significance of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster is multifaceted. This piece explores regulatory shortcomings that turned a natural disaster into a nuclear one, delving into the pre-Fukushima legal framework and the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) legal obligations, as well as the thin line between corporate and government responsibility in cases that erupted. The accident also raised questions regarding existing compensation regimes and victim redress mechanisms. Additionally, to place this disaster on the map of events with an international impact, the relation with applicable international nuclear law is examined. The ultimate aim is to discover how sufficient oversight and regulatory compliance are vital to evade large-scale crises with domestic and global implications.
Legal Framework before the Fukushima Disaster
The nuclear disaster that occurred in Fukushima provoked much reflection on the applicable legal framework and regulatory regimes of Japan’s nuclear power industry. Many critics argued that regulatory and institutional failures resulted in the catastrophe, besides the earthquake and the tsunami.[7] Before Fukushima, nuclear safety oversight was rather fragmented and influenced by the relationship between regulators and commercial actors.[8] Furthermore, legal mechanisms lacked enforceability and failed to catch up with new standards.[9]
Regulatory capture refers to the specific ways regulated companies and/or interest groups influence the formulation and enforcement of laws that govern their activities, weakening regulators’ oversight and often sidelining rules aimed at the protection of the public.[10] Within the ‘nuclear village’, several organisations and governmental bodies were tasked with reinforcing safety standards. Notably, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) was the main regulating body, which was a semi-autonomous organisation under the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy (ANRE). The former is within the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). Formed in 2003, the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organisation (JNES) carried out on-site safety inspections and assessments. NISA relied on their findings. On the other hand, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) takes responsibility for monitoring environmental radiation, as well as promoting nuclear energy and safety regulation for research reactors. To monitor the work of NISA and MEXT, the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) was established, acting as an independent agency. In addition, they undertake the development of safety regulations. Next to these bodies, the Japan Technology Institute (JANTI) and the Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPC) served as the stakeholders, one acting as a channel to share information and best practices on safety concerns, while the other acted as a lobbyist of the nuclear industry.[11]
It is alleged that, although NISA was established as a “special agency” independent of METI, the reality in practice was quite different.[12] Industry interests often overpowered the organisation when it came to enforcing safety standards in place or promoting stricter ones.[13] METI, which was in charge of regulating commercial NPPs, simultaneously promoted the use of nuclear energy, causing conflict of interest.[14] This prompted criticism towards NISA’s performance as a nuclear watchdog and questions over the partiality of safety policies arose.[15]
Additionally, the structure of Japan’s regulatory corpus overlapped in ways that later contributed to significant oversight failures. The NSC was responsible for developing and advocating for updated safety regulations, which NISA monitored. However, NSC was established only as an advisory body and possessed limited authority to ensure that NISA incorporated recommendations into new regulations or effectively enforced them. Instead, the commission assumed a role of reviewing and investigating NISA’s work, while NISA similarly monitored NSC’s activities.[16] Over time, both organisations became focused on examining past incidents, rather than proactively strengthening the regulatory framework. Consequently, insufficient resources and attention were dedicated to implementing updated safety regulations based on new scientific knowledge and global best practices.[17]
Japan’s nuclear energy industry is governed by the following legal frameworks: the Atomic Energy Basic Act, which establishes the foundational legal principles of development, regulation, and peaceful use of nuclear energy, and the Act on the Regulation of Nuclear Source Material, Nuclear Fuel Material and Reactors (Nuclear Reactor Regulation Act), which regulates the operation and safety oversight of nuclear facilities and infrastructure.[18] ‘Nuclear villages’ promote the ‘safety myth’, which is the belief that nuclear power reactors were inherently safe, critically impeded efforts to strengthen nuclear safety prior to the Fukushima accident, and the regulatory framework was no exception.[19]
No “back-fitting” system and ineffective “backcheck”
The Regulatory Guide for Reviewing Seismic Design was first established in 1978 and then revised in 2006. However, there was no legal framework to retroactively apply new regulatory requirements to already existing power plants that had been licensed to operate before the guidelines were in place.[20] Naturally, this hindered continuous safety improvements.[21]
The legal framework also relied heavily on operator responsibility and self-assessment of risk. Under the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Act, nuclear operators were responsible for maintaining seismic safety.[22] Although regulatory authorities sought confirmation whether existing power plants complied with updated guidelines, the implementation of reinforcement measures remained voluntary conduct for the operators.[23]
In the case of TEPCO, the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant construction was based on seismological knowledge of more than 40 years. Over the years, research revealed a significant possibility that tsunami levels could exceed the assumptions made at the time of construction, alongside the risk of reactor core damage from such seismic activity.[24] However, TEPCO downplayed the danger and continued operating, even though their countermeasures were insufficient to maintain a safety margin.[25]
Inadequate Regulatory Scope regarding Severe Accidents
Regulatory requirements did not cover severe accidents, and countermeasures against them, including external events, were left to the discretion of the operators.[26]
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) advocated for a 5-tier defence policy to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants. The first three tiers concern ‘prevention’ of nuclear damage, while the fourth tier focuses on ‘mitigation’, reducing the effects of severe damage to nuclear cores. Tier 5 covers protecting residents from the emission of nuclear substances, ‘evacuation’.[27] Japan’s regulatory framework focused on the tiers of ‘prevention’, while the ‘mitigation’ tier, countermeasures to severe accidents, were left to be resolved by the operator using its knowledge base.[28]
Additionally, triggering events of severe accidents are classified distinctly. Internal events include failed equipment and human errors, while external events cover earthquakes, tsunamis and typhoons.[29] Lastly, man-made events, like terrorism, are also caught by the scope.[30] In the case of Japan, the framework only focused on countermeasures against severe accidents triggered by internal events. By the time of the Fukushima incident, sufficient solutions for external and man-made events had not been developed.[31]
Following the Fukushima disaster, Japan introduced reforms to its nuclear legal and regulatory frameworks. The amended laws expanded safety objectives beyond protecting the general public to include environmental protection, while broadening the scope of regulation to cover severe nuclear incidents. The reforms also introduced a retroactive system, allowing new safety requirements to be imposed on already existing facilities.[32]
One of the most significant post-Fukushima reforms was the creation of a new independent nuclear regulatory body known as the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA). It was tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of Japan’s safety guidelines and requirements in order to develop stricter regulations with protective mechanisms for the public and the environment.[33]
The objective of the legislation was also broadened to recognise the possibility of future large scale natural disasters, terrorist or other criminal acts. The revised framework aims to simultaneously protect public life, health, property, the environment and national security.[34]
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Regimes
Japan’s nuclear liability system is centred around the Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage (Compensation Act) and the Act on Indemnity Agreements for Compensation of Nuclear Damage (Indemnity Agreements Act).[35]
The Compensation Act defines a basic system for compensation when nuclear damage occurs. It is aimed at contributing to the protection of victims, as well as the development of the nuclear industry.[36] The provisions set out in the Act take precedence over general tort liability rules of the Civil Code by virtue of the principle of Lex Specialis, unless a matter is not specifically addressed by the framework, in which case the Civil Code continues to apply.[37]
In the context of the Compensation Act, “nuclear damage” constitutes “any damage caused by the effects of the fission process of nuclear fuel, or of the radiation from nuclear fuel, etc”.[38] However, any damage suffered by the liable nuclear operator is excluded from the scope.[39] Courts have also applied the general principle of ‘scope damage’ pursuant to section 416 of the Civil Code. [40]
The Act establishes a regime of strict, channeled, and unlimited liability. When nuclear damage results from the operation of a reactor, the engaged nuclear operator is liable for the damage (strict liability).[41] The following section further channels liability to the operator, making it the primary liable party.[42] Additionally, the Act does not impose any liability caps, instituting a system of unlimited liability.[43] However, Section 3 provides that if the damage is caused by a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character or by an insurrection, liability is not incurred.[44] In such cases of exoneration, Section 17 provides that the government must take appropriate steps to relieve victims and prevent the damage from spreading further.[45]
The Compensation Act obligates nuclear operators to provide financial security under Section 6. They are prohibited from operating a reactor unless financial security for compensation in case of nuclear damage is provided.[46] Nuclear operators must buy private and government insurance, or they can make a deposit. In Japan, all nuclear operators buy a policy from Japan Atomic Energy Insurance Pool, which insures up to 120 billion yen for nuclear damages.[47] However, the Pool does not cover some nuclear damages, including those caused by an earthquake or tsunami.[48]
The Indemnity Agreement Act was established to cover the following damages: damages caused by an earthquake, volcanic eruption or tsunami; nuclear damage caused by normal operation; and nuclear damages for which the affected persons have not claimed compensation within a period of ten years from the occurrence of the event.[49] Operators enter into indemnity agreements with MEXT by paying indemnity fees every year.[50] Where damages exceed the operator’s financial security, the government can provide additional aid with the authorisation of the National Diet.[51]
Compensation Scheme for Fukushima Nuclear Disaster
After the disaster, the Dispute Reconciliation Committee for Nuclear Damage Compensation published “Interim Guidelines for Determination of the Scope of Nuclear Damage Due to TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi and Daini Nuclear Power Plants”.[52] The guidelines established a broad compensation scheme for damages caused by evacuation orders, business losses, reputational harm, radiation exposure, and property damage to local governments.[53] The scope was quite flexible, as outside of the damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami, it allowed for additional damages where the nuclear accident was the legally sufficient cause. Later, it was also expanded to include voluntary evacuees and radioactive decontamination costs.[54]
Soon after the accident, the Government enacted the Nuclear Disaster Victims Prompt Relief Law and, under the Compensation Act, established the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund. The measures were intended to ensure prompt compensation, stabilise the conditions of the power plant, and prevent adverse effects on other operators dealing with the incident. Lastly, they aimed to ensure a stable supply of electricity.[55]
Analysis of the Liability of TEPCO
The legal issue was whether the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami were caught by the scope of “a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character”, therefore exempting the liability of TEPCO for the nuclear damage caused pursuant to Section 3 of the Act on Compensation.[56] The Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission interpreted the mentioned notion as a type of natural disaster beyond historical experience, limiting the exemption of force majeure to an extraordinarily high degree.[57] The commission further elaborated that “a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character” would be an unforeseeable disaster beyond design assumptions for a reactor.[58]
In 2008, TEPCO predicted that waves exceeding 15 meters were possible following a major offshore earthquake, while computer analysis showed that tsunami waves at the Fukushima plant could reach up to 13.1 meters.[59] Despite this knowledge, TEPCO failed to incorporate these findings into its safety countermeasures and only reported them to METI days before the disaster.[60] Consequently, the earthquake and tsunami were argued not to be considered unforeseeable or beyond the reactor’s design basis, preventing TEPCO from invoking the statutory exemption for “a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character.[61]
Under the State Redress Act, a public official who, during the exercise of their public authority as a state or public entity, causes damage or loss illegally to another person, negligently or intentionally, the State or the said public entity assumes the responsibility to compensate them.[62] Additionally, the provision covers not only actions but also omissions, as the Supreme Court has upheld that when human life and health are in danger, and the government fails to exercise its power over the cause of the said danger, the government is liable.[63]
After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, many argued for the potential liability of the Japanese government for a multitude of reasons. First, the government should have appropriately exercised its powers over nuclear operations. Although NSC was aware of the risk of a station blackout, as reported by TEPCO, it failed to take action and disclosed findings only eighteen years later. [64]
Second, the government should have properly exercised its supervisory powers over the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant. Prior to the disaster, the plant had experienced several incidents, most notably the nation’s first criticality incident in 1978 and an incident involving a recalculating pump in 1990.[65] Not only did the authorities conceal these accidents for nearly thirty years, but they also did not impose stricter oversight on TEPCO in light of them.[66]
Critics also argued that nuclear damage was exacerbated due to the government’s own omissions, as the Investigation Committee on the Accident at Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations reported that the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters failed to properly coordinate and utilise the intended facilities, such as the off-site centre designated for emergency response.[67] It was further suggested that the government failed to prevent the expansion of the disaster, as radiation monitoring systems and the System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information (SPEEDI) did not function as expected.[68] Additionally, evacuation plans and drills lacked considerations of the scale of the disaster, while evacuation directives were communicated ineffectively, causing confusion at the site of the accident.[69]
Court Assessments
Decisions on government liability in the Fukushima accident were rendered in nine cases in 2019. Court decisions were contrasting, and they attributed liability in six cases to both TEPCO and the government, while in three of the cases only the company was found liable.[70]
First, the courts identified the primary cause of the Fukushima accident – a station blackout caused by the tsunami, not the earthquake.[71] Based on that, the courts determined government responsibility by examining whether tsunami countermeasures fell within the scope of the government’s regulatory authority, whether the tsunami was foreseeable, and whether the government breached its duty to prevent the consequences of the tsunami by exercising regulatory authority or other available means.[72]
All nine court decisions found that the government possessed the regulatory authority and that the accident was foreseeable, thereby affirming the first two grounds.[73] Although the decisions varied slightly regarding legal basis and reasoning, this still established court practice.[74] Consequently, the determination of government liability came down to the third consideration, whether the government had breached its duty to prevent the consequences.[75]
One of the decisions of the State Redress litigations relating to the Fukushima accident is the Nagoya District Court decision of 2 August 2019.[76] The plaintiffs, who claimed to have suffered damages and mental anguish due to forced evacuation, sought compensation from both the government and TEPCO.[77] The court allowed the claim only against TEPCO, denying government responsibility. Both the plaintiff and TEPCO appealed.[78]
The court rendered the decision by assessing the criteria discussed above. It found that the government possessed the regulatory authority over measures against the disaster, as it could have ordered TEPCO to implement protective measures.[79] In addition, the court stated that the government and TEPCO were aware of the research conducted in 2006, which identified the possibility of a station blackout in the event of a tsunami that exceeded the seawalls of the site.[80] The scientific assessments from that time also made it possible for the government to foresee that such a tsunami could occur, providing a duty to have TEPCO calculate the potential impact of an expected tsunami based on the earthquake predictions made by the government agency.[81] The foreseeability of the tsunami was decided.
On the third ground, the court concluded that even if the government had exercised its regulatory powers, the proposed measures would likely be incomplete at the time of the disaster.[82] Furthermore, tsunami precautions had lower priority than earthquake ones and considering that the government and TEPCO had limited financial and human resources, it would not have been possible to take measures against every risk.[83] Taking all these circumstances together, the court found that the station blackout caused by the tsunami could not have been prevented, even if the regulatory authority had been exercised.[84] Therefore, government liability was not established under the State Redress Act.
Liability of General Electric Company (GE)
Five units of the power plant were built with Mark I type containment structures.[85] For units one, two, and six, the reactors were built by the General Electric Company.[86] The reactor for unit one was the first commercial reactor in Japan that was built as a “full turnkey project” by GE, meaning that the company designed and built it and turned it over to TEPCO in a ready-to-use condition.[87]
After the disaster, GE emphasized that the Mark I containment had a proven record of reliability for over 40 years.[88] However, doubts regarding its safety had existed long before. Safety officials of the U.S Atomic Energy Commission had recommended the discontinuation of the Mark I design because it presented safety risks.[89] Moreover, former GE nuclear engineers who resigned from the company believed that a design flaw in the Mark I could trigger a disaster.[90] One of the former employees, Dale G. Bridenbaugh, warned that the design “did not take into account the dynamic loads that could be experienced with a loss of coolant” and that the impact the containment would receive from a rapid release of energy could tear it apart, creating an uncontrolled release.[91]
The Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damages contains a channeled liability provision, meaning that the liability for nuclear damage is concentrated on the nuclear operator, in the case of Fukushima TEPCO, even where defects of fault in manufacturing may exist.[92] Consequently, pursuing redress from GE in Japan is generally not possible. Although the principal office of GE is located in Connecticut, potentially offering a venue to bring a lawsuit, issues relating to forum selection and conflict of laws present significant challenges to pursuing such claims. [93]
In fact, a class action lawsuit was brought against GE in the United States for a negligent reactor design.[94] However, the District Court of Massachusetts dismissed the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a court to dismiss a case before it when litigation would be more convenient or adequate in a foreign forum.[95] This decision was affirmed by the First Circuit, holding that Japan was the more appropriate forum for the dispute despite GE’s headquarters being located in the U.S.[96]
Cooper v. Tokyo Electric Power
The United States set up a humanitarian mission, ‘Operation Tomodachi’, to assist Japan after the disaster. Hundreds of U.S Navy servicemembers were deployed near Fukushima aboard vessels, including the USS Ronald Reagan. The plaintiffs alleged that they were exposed to massive levels of radiation because of TEPCO, which allegedly concealed and minimised the true extent of the nuclear meltdown and radiation leakage. Plaintiffs asserted that TEPCO’s misleading statements created a false sense of safety, preventing the U.S military from taking necessary precautions and repositioning the personnel at an earlier instance.[97]
The service members and their families filed a class action suit against TEPCO, and later GE, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. They sought damages and redress for physical injuries, emotional distress, medical monitoring costs and other harms resulting from radiation exposure.[98]
The litigation went through several procedural stages and became a significant transnational legal dispute concerning questions of jurisdiction, international comity, forum selection, political questions, treaty interpretation and choice of law.
In the first appellate decision of 2017, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals considered whether the case should be dismissed before trial. TEPCO argued that the litigation belonged in Japan because as the response to the disaster Japan had already established a comprehensive compensation framework for Fukushima victims. They also had a strong interest in centralizing all Fukushima-related claims with Japanese courts. TEPCO further relied on doctrines such as international comity, forum non conveniens, and the political questions doctrine.[99]
At that stage, the Ninth Circuit refused to dismiss the case. The court held that the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) did not retroactively strip the U.S courts of jurisdiction over claims that occurred before the convention entered into force in 2015. Since the accident occurred in 2011, CSC could not automatically require the proceeding to be held solely in the contracting party where the accident occurred, in this case, Japan.[100]
The court also rejected TEPCO’s immediate request for dismissal on international comity and forum non conveniens grounds. It recognised Japan’s strong interest in managing the Fukushima compensation scheme and claims domestically but found that the United States also had significant interests in the case. The plaintiffs were all U.S servicemembers carrying out a U.S military operation when the alleged injuries were incurred. The court additionally paid attention to the factual developments regarding military decision-making and causation concerns, which were still incomplete at that point in time and deemed that dismissal would be premature at that stage.[101]
The court further concluded that the political question doctrine did not require dismissal yet.[102] While TEPCO argued that adjudicating the claims would force the courts to review sensitive military decisions and foreign policy matters, the Circuit held that the plaintiffs had reformulated their assertions in a way to focus on TEPCO’s alleged negligence rather than on military conduct.[103] Albeit, the court emphasised that these issues could potentially be revisited as facts would develop.[104]
Following remand, TEPCO and GE again moved to dismiss the case, resulting in the second opinion of the Ninth Circuit in 2020. This time, the chamber focused heavily on Japanese nuclear liability law and analysis on choice of law.[105]
In the centre of the dispute was the Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage. Channeling provision dictated that the operator of a nuclear facility would be liable, shielding other entities, including reactor manufacturers such as GE, from liability. The law was designed to ensure legal predictability and guarantee compensation through a centralised and state-backed financial support. GE was in favour of Japanese law applying to the case, as the legal framework would impose liability exclusively on TEPCO. The plaintiffs countered with support for California law, as California’s Products Liability law allows claims against manufacturers for defective reactor design.[106]
The Ninth Circuit ruled that Japanese law governed the dispute by applying California’s governmental interest choice of law test. The court found a true conflict between California’s interest in compensating harmed plaintiffs and Japan’s interest in channeling liability with its nuclear regulatory system. Essentially, Japan’s interests would be seriously impaired by the court’s determination, since the accident occurred in Japan, involved a Japanese nuclear facility, affected Japanese energy policy, and was already subject to an intricate Japanese compensation system. Accordingly, the court held that Japan’s Compensation Act overrode all claims against GE.[107]
The Circuit also affirmed dismissal of the claims against TEPCO on international comity grounds. The court considered Japan’s sovereign interest in adjudicating all Fukushima-related disputes, since it had already created an extensive legal process and compensation mechanism for both Japanese and foreign victims. The U.S court decided it should allow Japanese courts and institutions to handle the case instead, to not risk undermining the country’s carefully structured regime and its broader nuclear regulatory policy.[108]
International Nuclear Liability Regimes
Since the 1950s, the beginning of the development of nuclear power reactors, governments realised that ordinary common law would not be able to address the risks involved with this new source of energy.[109] No major civil nuclear accidents with off-site consequences had occurred until 1986 at Chernobyl. Even before, sovereigns were aware that large-scale emission of radiation would have widespread effects on human life and health, public and private property, as well as the environment and economy.[110] Hence, special liability regimes were deemed necessary. States slowly started adopting nuclear liability and compensation regimes at national and international levels.[111]
Nuclear accidents may cause damage beyond the geographical borders of the country where it occurs.[112] Therefore, it was detrimental to establish third-party liability regimes and treaty relations between Nuclear states and their neighbours to ensure compensation for all victims, including in neighbouring states.[113]
The international nuclear liability mechanisms is based on following conventions: the 1960 Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (Paris Convention), the 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (Vienna Convention) and the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC).[114]
These conventions lay down internationally accepted fundamental principles on nuclear liability, which are usually transposed into national legislation. [115]
- Strict Liability – the nuclear operator is held liable regardless of intention, whether of fault or negligence.
- Exclusive liability (legal channeling) – all liability for damage suffered by third parties are exclusively attributed (channeled) to the nuclear operator.
- Limitation of liability in amount – conventions originally provided for a maximum amount of compensation for the operator to be liable for. However, like Japan, several other states opted for unlimited liability. This was made possible by the conventions prescribing a minimum liability amount.
- Compulsory Financial Security – the nuclear operator must financially secure its liability, so, in the case of an incident, funds are available for compensation.
- Limitation of liability in time – overtime the conventions have extended the period in which redress can be pursued for the benefit of the victims of the accident, as health-related damages caused by radiation may not be perceptible for a certain time after the incident, making the legal period very important to the affected parties.[116]
Additionally, the conventions include two more important principles for handling the complexities that arise from the transboundary nature of nuclear damage. First, only the courts of the country where the nuclear accident happened have jurisdiction over the claims. Second, those courts apply both the convention rules and their own national laws to all claims equally, without discrimination based on nationality, residence, or domicile.[117]
Lessons Learnt for the International Community
The Fukushima Daiichi accident fundamentally altered global approaches to nuclear safety and regulation, reinforcing the significance of having stronger national and international standards to ensure the reliability of nuclear energy. The accident inspired the revision of IAEA’s safety standard, which promoted stricter safety requirements for nuclear installations worldwide. [118]
One of they key shifts in nuclear safety thinking was from the prevention of ordinary “design-basis” accidents to preparing for severe accidents and attempting to minimize their consequences. Regulators and operators now recognise that plants must be able to withstand extreme natural activities, like earthquakes or flooding, that exceed previously expected limits. Design standards are strengthened to account for rare and extreme events.[119]
Fukushima also accelerated reforms in emergency preparedness and accident management. Nuclear operators are now expected to include severe accident management measures in plant operation. Importance is placed on the ability to maintain transportation and communication systems during disasters, and to ensure that trained personnel can reach accident sites even in extreme conditions.[120]
The Fukushima accident demonstrated that nuclear incidents can affect the entire international community and therefore require coordinated global responses. This led to a broader legal and regulatory impact on strengthening international cooperation by adopting the IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety. [121]
Safety Vulnerabilities During the Event
To understand the Fukushima nuclear accident, it is crucial to consider not only the legal dimensions, but also safety aspects. Therefore, the following sections focus on two overarching safety issues related to the incident. In addition to these safety concerns, gaps in crisis communication processes between key actors will be examined.
Hazard Underestimation and Design Failures
One of the primary factors contributing to the Fukushima nuclear accident was the failure to adapt safety designs, which was rooted in the underestimation of tsunami hazards.[122].According to the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Analysis Report the tsunami that damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station had a 9.1 magnitude rate.[123] The post-event tsunami reproduction calculations showed that the waves, caused by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, reached approximately 13 meters in height.[124] In comparison, the Great Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 had an estimated magnitude of 8.7 and generated tsunami waves up to 10 meters high.[125] Multiple stakeholders including Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and The Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion (HERP) stated that an earthquake caused by the joint movement of multiple source regions was unforeseeable.[126] Furthermore, the expert committee of the Central Disaster Prevention Council expressed the unexpectedness of such a powerful tsunami, taking into consideration the earthquake history of Japan.
However, researchers independent from the Japanese government identified a 1,000-year pattern of massive tsunamis occurrence in the region, with the last recorded one in 869.[127] In addition, the design-basis tsunami for the Nuclear Power Plant of Fukushima was the 1960 Chile tsunami with a height of 3.1 meters.[128] Despite the revision in 2009 to 6.1 meters and the relocation of the residual heat removal motors to a higher elevation; TEPCO failed to properly improve its safety measures to avoid flooding of the nuclear plant. James M. Acton and Mark Hibbs highlighted that TEPCO, as well as the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), did not follow international standards and internationally recognized practices.[129] Such regulations as, the guidance of International Atomic Energy Agency and, the site-specific computer modelling. Moreover, TEPCO decided to ignore the conducted computer modelling that forecasted the occurrence of a massive 15.7 meters high tsunami.[130] One of the underlying reasons for these failures was the strong government influence on promoting nuclear energy, which resulted in the disregard of independent nuclear expert opinion in this matter.[131]
Technical Deficiencies and Systemic Inadequacies
After the beginning of the nuclear accident multiple technical issues occurred that fell outside the scope of the company’s risk assessment and lacked any defined control measures.[132] The malfunction of the cooling systems located in the power plant units miscarried the removal of decay heat.[133] Without low-pressure water, which was the barrier between the increasing heat and the nuclear plant’s metal building structure, the crisis of Fukushima exponentially worsened.[134] The issue in Unit 1 appeared after the shut off the direct current power, meanwhile other units were affected by the overheating of suppression pool or the discharged batteries.[135] To prevent deepened repercussions such as substantial reactor pressure vessel malfunction, Safety Relief Valves must have been implemented.[136] However, these safety devices, which help pressure release when crucial, were unable to function in the absence of direct current power and nitrogen gas.[137] Unfortunately, improvisational countermeasures such as replacing essential power with batteries from employee’s cars, did not succeed.[138]
The crisis worsened due to the unmanaged gas production, which was one of the consequences of the core meltdown.[139] This escalation was driven by the zirconium-water reaction, where overheating fuel cladding reacted with steam to create large amounts of explosive hydrogen and release extra heat into the melting core.[140] Hydrogen backflow, which refers to the migration of gas in shared ventilation systems between Unit 3 into the offline Unit 4 building, triggered eventual detonation.[141] Ventilation of this containment was unmanageable, due to the electrical breakdown of both motor-operated and air-operated valves.[142] Furthermore, the lack of air and nitrogen resulted in the system being incapacitated, which decreased the available air rapidly.[143] This was hardened by the circumstances such as workers needing to operate manually in dark and high-radiation environments.[144] After multiple attempts of successful valves opening the “fail-close” safety design was activated when power or air pressure fluctuated.[145]
Systemic Failures in Crisis Communication
The failures in crisis communication contributed to both the unorganized and insufficient management during the Fukushima Nuclear Accident.[146] The multiple choke points in insufficiency indicates an overall flawed communication and information sharing system. A significant issue was seen at the receiver end of the communication.[147] An improvised group of politicians and advisors at the Prime Minister’s Office (Kantei) took over the control due to the failure of government accident response systems. The off-site Emergency Response Center was unable to function due to infrastructure damage.[148]. The lack of expertise of the group resulted in late reactions such as the Declaration of a Nuclear Emergency Situation with a 2-hour delay.[149]
The change in the official route of communication complicated the situation further.[150] After NISA failed to complete its role as leading entity in the management of the nuclear emergency, the intermediary responsibility rested with the Kantei. The direct information sharing between Kantei and the TEPCO headquarters and the Fukushima site resulted in unpredictability, improvised procedures, panicked on-site staff members and double workload to TEPCO due to the simultaneous communication channels and accident management.[151] The misunderstanding between the intention of full or temporary evacuation is a great example of the unclear communication during the crisis.[152]
In addition, the failure of technical communication tools hardened the cooperation between stakeholders.[153] The plant’s wired paging system including wireless phones data reporting and recording devices become inoperable. The information sharing between the on-site Emergency Response Center and Main Control Rooms depended on a single wired telephone line and whiteboards for data recording.[154] Furthermore, the Safety Parameter Display System, the government’s immediate plant status provider system lost power, which provided a significant disadvantage in the access of data about the situation.[155]
The withholding of information by TEPCO hindered the ability of the government to coordinate an effective emergency response.[156] Information suppression was actively maintained by forcing TEPCO employees to censor their comments about the disaster to mitigate negative public opinion. Immediately following the nuclear accident, the public received no information regarding the increasing pressure data from Unit 3.[157] This was done to protect TEPCO’s relationship with NISA, which had issued an information ban. Moreover, the company did not realise relevant radiation monitoring data after the incident, at the same time there was active communication with the press.
Environmental and Health Consequences of the Event
It is crucial to acknowledge how the environmental and health repercussions caused by the Fukushima nuclear accident shaped the region’s biodiversity and the long-term health of the citizens.[158]
This nuclear accident resulted in significant environmental damages, which affected multiple ecosystems.[159] Within an 1,800 square kilometer area of the nuclear accident the radiation level was double the worldwide average for natural background radiation.[160] Numerically, a cumulative radiation dose of 5 mSv/year was released to the atmosphere. The conflicting wind patterns were working at cross-purposes, which rapidly enlarged the area affected by radiation through airflow.[161]
The marine biodiversity was greatly affected by the nuclear accident.[162] The pollution originated from direct and indirect sources, which is the explanation for why this event was considered as the largest accidental release of radioactive material into the ocean in history[163]. After the leaking of the highly radioactive coolant water, the atmospheric deposition still remained as a non-point source. This did not stay as a local environmental issue due to the Kuroshio Current playing a hydrological transporter role across the North Pacific basin.[164] The radioactive material persisted in the seabed sediments for decades. By becoming integrated into the diet of the benthic organisms, the nuclear pollution continued throughout the whole food-chain.[165]
When analyzing the health risks related to the Fukushima nuclear accident there are multiple aspects that need to be taken into consideration such as the direct radiation impact, associated mortality and the mental and social wellbeing of the population.[166] 2,313 recorded deaths can be connected to insufficient evacuation processes.[167] The most affected group was the elderly and/or chronic patients, who were vulnerable to the relocation caused stress, lack of medical services and substandard temporary shelters.[168]
However, in comparison to other nuclear accidents including the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe no radiation caused death or diseases were recorded.[169] Furthermore, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) stated no increase in radiation-related illness is expected.[170]
Despite the absence of direct radiological impact on human health, various social and psychological effects were documented after the incident.[171] A survey conducted by the Fukushima Global Communication Programme of the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability discovered that the majority of the affected population suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression.[172] From this survey in February of 2013, results showed that out of 2425 survey respondents 65% were considered to be at high risk for PTSD.[173] In addition to losing their social connection, displaced residents needed to face discrimination due to fear from radiation as well as collapse of their local economies.[174]
To gain a thorough understanding of the situation, it is essential to acknowledge the aspects that contributed to the disaster. Although the activating events, the combination of the Great East Japan Earthquake and the resulting tsunami, occurred due to natural phenomena, the outcome was mainly shaped by existing legal, regulatory, technical, and institutional failures. Bureaucratic dichotomy, regulatory capture, outdated safety standards, and an overreliance on operator discretion were characteristics of the pre-Fukushima framework of Japan. Therefore, preventable risks such as station blackout, which occurred due to pre-existing flaws in the system, had no countermeasures in place.
The Fukushima nuclear incident revealed the strengths and weaknesses in the nuclear liability regime of Japan. Holding the operating organization of the nuclear facility, TEPCO exclusively liable as well as providing a structured system for victim compensation were strong mechanisms designed to insulate the state from primary liability while ensuring structured financial restitution for affected populations. However, the limited government responsibility, the insufficiency of regulatory enforcement and the adjudicatory comity highlight the challenges of this legal system. This represents how legal responsibility is expected to operate in advance of a crisis, not only taking reactive measures. Consequently, a legal framework rooted in robust regulatory control is preferred overcompensation law.
Furthermore, the lack of safety adaptation in technical designs, alignment with international standards, and insufficient crisis communication contributed to the worsening of the nuclear situation. Fukushima highlighted the negative effect on the natural environment, public trust and health of citizens caused by unresolved risks triggered by the chain of catastrophic events. A stronger emergency response system and adequate accident preparedness with transparency and effective oversight of the system could have significantly mitigated these adversarial outcomes.
References and Footnotes
Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage 1961 (JPN).
Act on the Regulation of Nuclear Source Material, Nuclear Fuel Material and Reactors 1957 (JPN).
Atomic Energy Basic Act 1955 (JPN).
Acton, J. M., & Hibbs, M. (2012, March 6). Why Fukushima was preventable. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2012/03/why-fukushima-was-preventable
Asia Pacific Initiative. (2022). 10-year Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. https://apinitiative.org/GaIeyudaTuFo/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/10-year-Investigation-Commission-on-the-Fukushima-Nuclear-Accident_en_20220401-1.pdf
Barkan, R., ten Brink, U. S., & Lin, J. (2009). Far field tsunami simulations of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake: Implications for tsunami hazard to the U.S. East Coast and the Caribbean. Marine Geology, 264(1–2), 109–122. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025322708002818
Bhutto, S., Khoso, A. R., & Wang, S. (2025). Sociological and ecological vulnerabilities from nuclear waste discharge: A case study of Fukushima’s marine ecosystem. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation, 6(2), 877–886.https://www.allmultidisciplinaryjournal.com/uploads/archives/20250403191614_MGE-2025-2-213.1.pdf
Cooper v. Tokyo Electric Power Co. 860 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2017).
Cooper v. Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9th Cir. 2020).
Eri Osaka, ‘Corporate Liability, Government Liability, and the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster’ [2012] Washington International Law Journal 433.
Ferguson, Charles D., Mark Jansson, ‘Past Problems with Japan’s Regulatory System’ [2013] Regulating Japanese Nuclear Power in the Wake of the Fukushima Daiichi Accident <https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep18921.5?seq=1>.
Fukushima nuclear disaster. Risk Frontiers. https://riskfrontiers.com/insights/officials-acquitted-of-professional-negligence-in-the-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/
Imamura v. General Electric Co. (1st Cir. 2020).
International Atomic Energy Agency, ‘Case Law’ [2019] Nuclear Law Bulletin <https://inis.iaea.org/records/63sey-t4704>.
International Atomic Energy Agency, ‘Ensuring the Safety of Nuclear Installations: Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Daiichi Accident’ (IAEA Bulletin, March 2021) <https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/ensuring-the-safety-of-nuclear-installations-lessons-learned-from-the-fukushima-daiichi-accident>.
International Atomic Energy Agency, The Fukushima Daiichi Accident (IAEA 2015).
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2015). The Fukushima Daiichi accident: Report by the Director General (Report No. GC(59)/14). https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub1710-reportbythedg-web.pd
Jihwan Lim, Young Eal Lee, Minjeong Byeon, Jeongwon Yoo, Jongmin Lee, ‘Japan’s Nuclear Safety Regulation after the Fukushima Accident: Regulatory Framework Changes and Current Restart Status of NPPs’ (Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety 2017).
Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp. 236 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2001).
Nuclear Regulation Authority, Enforcement of the New Regulatory Requirements for Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors (2013).
National Research Council. (2014). Lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident for improving safety of U.S. nuclear plants. The National Academies Press.https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/18294/chapter/7
Ninokata, H., & Okamoto, K. (2021). Lessons learned from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Insights Concerning the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident, 1, 68–80. https://www.aesj.net/document/fukushima_vol1/1-68_80.pdf
Nuclear Regulation Authority, Japan. (2014). Analysis of the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi NPS accident: Interim report [Provisional translation]. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/anaylysis_nra1014.pdf
State Redress Act 1947 (JPN).
Somerville, P. (2020, February 4). Officials acquitted of professional negligence in the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Risk Frontiers. https://riskfrontiers.com/insights/officials-acquitted-of-professional-negligence-in-the-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/
The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, ‘Main Report’ [2012] <https://warp.ndl.go.jp/web/20121025090656/http://naiic.go.jp/en/report/>.
The National Diet of Japan. (2012). The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission: Executive summary.https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf
Toyohiro Nomura, Taro Hokugo, Chihiro Takenaka, ‘Japan’s Nuclear Liability System’ [NEA 2012] Japan’s Compensation System for Nuclear Damage 15.
Tokyo Electric Power Company. (2012). Fukushima nuclear accident analysis report. https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/120620e0104.pdf
Tsujiuchi, T. (2015). Mental health impact of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: Post-traumatic stress and psycho-socio-economic factors (Working Paper No. 8). United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability. https://i.unu.edu/media/fgc.unu.edu-en/page/922/FGC-WP-8-FINAL.pdf
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. (2021, March 9). A decade after the Fukushima accident: Radiation-linked increases in cancer rates not expected to be seen.https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/news/content/a-decade-after-the-fukushima-accident_-radiation-linked-increases-in-cancer-rates-not-expected-to-be-seen.html
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2012). General Electric advanced technology manual: Chapter 7.1. Fukushima Dai-ichi earthquake and tsunami event. Human Resources Training Division. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml1414/ml14140a185.pdf
Vasquez-Maignan, Ximena, ‘The Japanese Nuclear Liability Regime in the Context of the International Nuclear Liability Principles’ [NEA 2012] Japan’s Compensation System for Nuclear Damage 9.
Weightman, M. (2011). Japanese earthquake and tsunami: Implications for the UK nuclear industry (Report No. ONR-FR-REP-11-002 Revision 2). Office for Nuclear Regulation. https://www.onr.org.uk/media/bksbmyi4/final-report.pdf
World Nuclear Association. (2026, February 27). Fukushima Daiichi accident. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident
International Atomic Energy Agency, ‘The Fukushima Daiichi Accident’ (IAEA 2015) 19. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
Ferguson, Charles D., Mark Jansson, ‘Past Problems with Japan’s Regulatory System’ [2013] Regulating Japanese Nuclear Power in the Wake of the Fukushima Daiichi Accident <https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep18921.5?seq=1> accessed 10 May 2026 5. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid 9. ↑
Jihwan Lim, Young Eal Lee, Minjeong Byeon, Jeongwon Yoo, Jongmin Lee, ‘Japan’s Nuclear Safety Regulation after the Fukushima Accident: Regulatory Framework Changes and Current Restart Status of NPPs’ (Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety 2017) 6. ↑
Ferguson, Charles D., Mark Jansson, ‘Past Problems with Japan’s Regulatory System’ [2013] Regulating Japanese Nuclear Power in the Wake of the Fukushima Daiichi Accident <https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep18921.5?seq=1> accessed 10 May 2026 6. ↑
Jihwan Lim, Young Eal Lee, Minjeong Byeon, Jeongwon Yoo, Jongmin Lee, ‘Japan’s Nuclear Safety Regulation after the Fukushima Accident: Regulatory Framework Changes and Current Restart Status of NPPs’ (Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety 2017). ↑
ibid. ↑
Ferguson, Charles D., Mark Jansson, ‘Past Problems with Japan’s Regulatory System’ [2013] Regulating Japanese Nuclear Power in the Wake of the Fukushima Daiichi Accident <https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep18921.5?seq=1> accessed 10 May 2026 6. ↑
ibid. ↑
Atomic Energy Basic Act 1955 (JPN); Act on the Regulation of Nuclear Source Material, Nuclear Fuel Material and Reactors 1957 (JPN) art 1. ↑
Ferguson, Charles D., Mark Jansson, ‘Past Problems with Japan’s Regulatory System’ [2013] Regulating Japanese Nuclear Power in the Wake of the Fukushima Daiichi Accident <https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep18921.5?seq=1> accessed 10 May 2026 7; Nuclear Regulation Authority, Enforcement of the New Regulatory Requirements for Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors (2013) 1. ↑
The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, ‘Main Report’ [2012] <https://warp.ndl.go.jp/web/20121025090656/http://naiic.go.jp/en/report/> accessed 10 May 2026 10. ↑
Nuclear Regulation Authority, Enforcement of the New Regulatory Requirements for Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors (2013) 1. ↑
The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, ‘Main Report’ [2012] <https://warp.ndl.go.jp/web/20121025090656/http://naiic.go.jp/en/report/> accessed 10 May 2026 10. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid 22. ↑
ibid. ↑
Nuclear Regulation Authority, Enforcement of the New Regulatory Requirements for Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors (2013). ↑
The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, ‘Main Report’ [2012] <https://warp.ndl.go.jp/web/20121025090656/http://naiic.go.jp/en/report/> accessed 10 May 2026 53. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
Nuclear Regulation Authority, Enforcement of the New Regulatory Requirements for Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors (2013). ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
Toyohiro Nomura, Taro Hokugo, Chihiro Takenaka, ‘Japan’s nuclear liability system’ [NEA 2012] Japan’s Compensation System for Nuclear Damage 15. ↑
Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage 1961 (JPN) art 1. ↑
Toyohiro Nomura, Taro Hokugo, Chihiro Takenaka, ‘Japan’s nuclear liability system’ [NEA 2012] Japan’s Compensation System for Nuclear Damage 15. ↑
Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage 1961 (JPN) art 2. ↑
ibid. ↑
Eri Osaka, ‘Corporate Liability, Government Liability, and the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster’ [2012] Washington International Law Journal 433, 434. ↑
Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage 1961 (JPN) art 3 para 1. ↑
ibid art 4 para 1. ↑
ibid arts 3-4. ↑
ibid art 3. ↑
ibid art 17. ↑
ibid art 6. ↑
ibid. ↑
Eri Osaka, ‘Corporate Liability, Government Liability, and the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster’[2012] Washington International Law Journal 433, 436. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid 437. ↑
ibid 439. ↑
ibid 440. ↑
ibid 442-443. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid 444, Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage 1961 (JPN) art 3. ↑
Eri Osaka, ‘Corporate Liability, Government Liability, and the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster’ [2012] Washington International Law Journal 433, 445. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid 446. ↑
ibid 447. ↑
ibid. ↑
State Redress Act 1947 (JPN). ↑
ibid. ↑
Eri Osaka, ‘Corporate Liability, Government Liability, and the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster’[2012] Washington International Law Journal 433. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
International Atomic Energy Agency, ‘Case Law’ [2019] Nuclear Law Bulletin <https://inis.iaea.org/records/63sey-t4704> accessed 10 May 2026 47. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid 48. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid 49. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
Eri Osaka, ‘Corporate Liability, Government Liability, and the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster’ [2012] Washington International Law Journal 433, 451-452. ↑
ibid 452. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid 453. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage 1961 (JPN) art 4. ↑
Eri Osaka, ‘Corporate Liability, Government Liability, and the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster’ [2012] Washington International Law Journal 433, 454. ↑
Imamura v. General Electric Co. (1st Cir. 2020). ↑
ibid; Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp. 236 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2001). ↑
Imamura v. General Electric Co. (1st Cir. 2020). ↑
Cooper v. Tokyo Electric Power Co. 860 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2017). ↑
Cooper v. Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9th Cir. 2020). ↑
Cooper v. Tokyo Electric Power Co. 860 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2017). ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
Cooper v. Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9th Cir. 2020). ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
Ximena Vasquez-Maignan, ‘The Japanese nuclear liability regime in the context of the international nuclear liability principles’ [NEA 2012] Japan’s Compensation System for Nuclear Damage 9. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
International Atomic Energy Agency, ‘Ensuring the Safety of Nuclear Installations: Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Daiichi Accident’ (IAEA Bulletin, March 2021) <https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/ensuring-the-safety-of-nuclear-installations-lessons-learned-from-the-fukushima-daiichi-accident> accessed 11 May 2026. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
ibid. ↑
Asia Pacific Initiative. (2022). 10-year Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. https://apinitiative.org/GaIeyudaTuFo/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/10-year-Investigation-Commission-on-the-Fukushima-Nuclear-Accident_en_20220401-1.pdf ↑
Tokyo Electric Power Company. (2012). Fukushima nuclear accident analysis report. https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/120620e0104.pdf ↑
Asia Pacific Initiative. (2022). 10-year Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. https://apinitiative.org/GaIeyudaTuFo/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/10-year-Investigation-Commission-on-the-Fukushima-Nuclear-Accident_en_20220401-1.pdf ↑
Barkan, R., ten Brink, U. S., & Lin, J. (2009). Far field tsunami simulations of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake: Implications for tsunami hazard to the U.S. East Coast and the Caribbean. Marine Geology, 264(1–2), 109–122. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025322708002818 ↑
Tokyo Electric Power Company. (2012). Fukushima nuclear accident analysis report. https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/120620e0104.pdf ↑
Somerville, P. (2020, February 4). Officials acquitted of professional negligence in the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Risk Frontiers. https://riskfrontiers.com/insights/officials-acquitted-of-professional-negligence-in-the-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/ ↑
Acton, J. M., & Hibbs, M. (2012, March 6). Why Fukushima was preventable. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2012/03/why-fukushima-was-preventable ↑
Acton, J. M., & Hibbs, M. (2012, March 6). Why Fukushima was preventable. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2012/03/why-fukushima-was-preventable ↑
Asia Pacific Initiative. (2022). 10-year Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. https://apinitiative.org/GaIeyudaTuFo/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/10-year-Investigation-Commission-on-the-Fukushima-Nuclear-Accident_en_20220401-1.pdf ↑
The National Diet of Japan. (2012). The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission: Executive summary. https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf ↑
Weightman, M. (2011). Japanese earthquake and tsunami: Implications for the UK nuclear industry (Report No. ONR-FR-REP-11-002 Revision 2). Office for Nuclear Regulation. https://www.onr.org.uk/media/bksbmyi4/final-report.pdf ↑
Ibid. ↑
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2015). The Fukushima Daiichi accident: Report by the Director General (Report No. GC(59)/14). https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub1710-reportbythedg-web.pd ↑
Asia Pacific Initiative. (2022). 10-year Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. https://apinitiative.org/GaIeyudaTuFo/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/10-year-Investigation-Commission-on-the-Fukushima-Nuclear-Accident_en_20220401-1.pdf ↑
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2015). The Fukushima Daiichi accident: Report by the Director General (Report No. GC(59)/14). https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub1710-reportbythedg-web.pd ↑
Nuclear Regulation Authority, Japan. (2014). Analysis of the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi NPS accident: Interim report [Provisional translation]. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/anaylysis_nra1014.pdf ; Tokyo Electric Power Company. (2012). Fukushima nuclear accident analysis report. https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/120620e0104.pdf ↑
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2012). General Electric advanced technology manual: Chapter 7.1. Fukushima Dai-ichi earthquake and tsunami event. Human Resources Training Division. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml1414/ml14140a185.pdf ↑
National Research Council. (2014). Lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident for improving safety of U.S. nuclear plants. The National Academies Press.https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/18294/chapter/7 ↑
ibid. ↑
Nuclear Regulation Authority, Japan. (2014). Analysis of the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi NPS accident: Interim report [Provisional translation]. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/anaylysis_nra1014.pdf ↑
Tokyo Electric Power Company. (2012). Fukushima nuclear accident analysis report. https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/120620e0104.pdf ↑
Ninokata, H., & Okamoto, K. (2021). Lessons learned from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Insights Concerning the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident, 1, 68–80. https://www.aesj.net/document/fukushima_vol1/1-68_80.pdf ↑
National Research Council. (2014). Lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident for improving safety of U.S. nuclear plants. The National Academies Press.https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/18294/chapter/7 ↑
Ninokata, H., & Okamoto, K. (2021). Lessons learned from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Insights Concerning the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident, 1, 68–80. https://www.aesj.net/document/fukushima_vol1/1-68_80.pdf ↑
The National Diet of Japan. (2012). The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission: Executive summary. https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf ↑
ibid. ↑
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2015). The Fukushima Daiichi accident: Report by the Director General (Report No. GC(59)/14). https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub1710-reportbythedg-web.pd ↑
Tokyo Electric Power Company. (2012). Fukushima nuclear accident analysis report. https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/120620e0104.pdf ↑
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2015). The Fukushima Daiichi accident: Report by the Director General (Report No. GC(59)/14). https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub1710-reportbythedg-web.pd ↑
ibid. ↑
Tokyo Electric Power Company. (2012). Fukushima nuclear accident analysis report. https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/120620e0104.pdf ↑
Ibid. ↑
National Research Council. (2014). Lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident for improving safety of U.S. nuclear plants. The National Academies Press. https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/18294/chapter/7 ↑
Tokyo Electric Power Company. (2012). Fukushima nuclear accident analysis report. https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/120620e0104.pdf ↑
The National Diet of Japan. (2012). The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission: Executive summary. https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf ↑
The National Diet of Japan. (2012). The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission: Executive summary. https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf ↑
Asia Pacific Initiative. (2022). 10-year Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. https://apinitiative.org/GaIeyudaTuFo/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/10-year-Investigation-Commission-on-the-Fukushima-Nuclear-Accident_en_20220401-1.pdf ↑
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. (2021, March 9). A decade after the Fukushima accident: Radiation-linked increases in cancer rates not expected to be seen.
https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/news/content/a-decade-after-the-fukushima-accident_-radiation-linked-increases-in-cancer-rates-not-expected-to-be-seen.html ↑The National Diet of Japan. (2012). The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission: Executive summary. https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf ↑
Tokyo Electric Power Company. (2012). Fukushima nuclear accident analysis report. https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/120620e0104.pdf ↑
Bhutto, S., Khoso, A. R., & Wang, S. (2025). Sociological and ecological vulnerabilities from nuclear waste discharge: A case study of Fukushima’s marine ecosystem. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation, 6(2), 877–886.
https://www.allmultidisciplinaryjournal.com/uploads/archives/20250403191614_MGE-2025-2-213.1.pdf ↑Tokyo Electric Power Company. (2012). Fukushima nuclear accident analysis report. https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/120620e0104.pdf ↑
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2015). The Fukushima Daiichi accident: Report by the Director General (Report No. GC(59)/14). https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub1710-reportbythedg-web.pd ↑
Bhutto, S., Khoso, A. R., & Wang, S. (2025). Sociological and ecological vulnerabilities from nuclear waste discharge: A case study of Fukushima’s marine ecosystem. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation, 6(2), 877–886. https://www.allmultidisciplinaryjournal.com/uploads/archives/-20250403191614_MGE-2025-2-213.1.pdf ↑
Asia Pacific Initiative. (2022). 10-year Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. https://apinitiative.org/GaIeyudaTuFo/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/10-year-Investigation-Commission-on-the-Fukushima-Nuclear-Accident_en_20220401-1.pdf ↑
World Nuclear Association. (2026, February 27). Fukushima Daiichi accident. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident ↑
ibid. ↑
Asia Pacific Initiative. (2022). 10-year Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. https://apinitiative.org/GaIeyudaTuFo/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/10-year-Investigation-Commission-on-the-Fukushima-Nuclear-Accident_en_20220401-1.pdf ↑
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. (2021, March 9). A decade after the Fukushima accident: Radiation-linked increases in cancer rates not expected to be seen.
https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/news/content/a-decade-after-the-fukushima-accident_-radiation-linked-increases-in-cancer-rates-not-expected-to-be-seen.html ↑International Atomic Energy Agency. (2015). The Fukushima Daiichi accident: Report by the Director General (Report No. GC(59)/14). https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub1710-reportbythedg-web.pd ↑
Tsujiuchi, T. (2015). Mental health impact of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: Post-traumatic stress and psycho-socio-economic factors (Working Paper No. 8). United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability. https://i.unu.edu/media/fgc.unu.edu-en/page/922/FGC-WP-8-FINAL.pdf ↑
ibid. ↑
Asia Pacific Initiative. (2022). 10-year Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. https://apinitiative.org/GaIeyudaTuFo/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/10-year-Investigation-Commission-on-the-Fukushima-Nuclear-Accident_en_20220401-1.pdf ↑
Disclaimer of liability:
While we are transparent about all sources used in this article and double-checked all the given information, we make no claims about its completeness, accuracy or reliability. If you notice a mistake or misleading phrasing, please contact centuria-sa@hhs.nl .
This article also contains links to other third-party websites, which have only been placed for the convenience of the reader and does not imply endorsement of contents of said third-party websites.
Leave a Reply