Policy Approaches Addressing the Ongoing Humanitarian and Environmental Consequences of Nuclear Weapons: A Commentary

Abstract

The 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) not only bans nuclear weapons, it obligates its states parties to engage in assisting victims and remediating contaminated environments (Articles 6 and 7). As states and civil society consider the best methods to implement these provisions, it is important to take stock and review existing policy approaches addressing the ongoing humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons. This practitioner commentary, written by members of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its advocacy for the TPNW, reviews existing programs of victim assistance and environmental remediation. It highlights key considerations for policy makers seeking to improve on the existing mechanisms.

Human Rights Fallout of Nuclear Detonations: Reevaluating ‘Threshold Thinking’ in Assisting Victims of Nuclear Testing

“…The widespread dispersal of fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing and its circulation through weather systems and food chains reveal the absurdity of these efforts, which Vanderbilt, paraphrasing Hannah Arendt (2002, p. 103), calls ‘architecture‐as‐propaganda’. Nevertheless, many compensation programs for nuclear test victims, including in the USA, require proof of presence in state‐recognized downwind zones (Van Duzer & Sanders‐Zakre, 2021). It was not until 2021 that Japan recognized that fallout from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had health consequences for people outside ‘a government‐set boundary used to decide survivors’ eligibility for medical care’ (Associated Press, 2021).…”

“…Nevertheless, its current standard allows an individual effective dose from peaceful uses of nuclear energy of 1 mSv per year and 70 mSv over a lifetime for civilians not employed in nuclear industries. This norm has been incorporated into national policies around the world (Ruff, 2017) and guides some nuclear test victim compensation schemes, including the Morin Law (Van Duzer & Sanders‐Zakre, 2021).…”

“…Note that the researchers do not deny that exposure to radiation would have a negative health impact, just that it would not be ‘measureable’. When nuclear victim assistance policies adopt such reductive approaches to suffering, they establish a boundary around the kind of suffering the state recognizes (Van Duzer & Sanders‐Zakre, 2021). In addition to its spatial and dosage qualifications, the Morin Law limits eligibility to applicants with medical diagnoses of at least one of 23 cancers that the French state considers radiogenic (a shorter list than used in the comparable US scheme) (RNZ, 2019d).…”

“…The TPNW entered into force on 22 January 2021 and has 58 states parties and 86 signatories; it has broad support in the Pacific region, particularly from independent countries formerly downwind of the French Pacific tests (see online Table ). The TPNW has prompted a reevaluation of victim assistance and environmental remediation policy, including in Pacific countries subjected to nuclear testing (Bolton & Minor, 2021; Docherty, 2020; Van Duzer & Sanders‐Zakre, 2021). However, there has been less attention to the policy challenges of potential impact of fallout on communities downwind of test sites, including in states not typically considered ‘affected’.…”

“…This article is not intended to single out France for particular criticism. Many of the concerns raised here can also be applied to other states that conducted nuclear tests (Van Duzer & Sanders‐Zakre, 2021). Indeed, this article is part of a broader research program at Pace University's International Disarmament Institute documenting the humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear testing in the Pacific, contributing to the evidence base for policy making within the TPNW (e.g.…”