Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Moody's - Climate Risk Insurers series
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • September 2019
Students

Student: Lessons from Chernobyl

Open-access content Friday 30th August 2019 — updated 9.44am, Wednesday 6th May 2020

Adeetya Tantia explains how the nuclear disaster inched us closer to an international nuclear liability treaty

2


In 25 April 1986, nobody knew what a civil nuclear reactor meltdown would look like. The world would learn the following day, on 26 April. 

The Chernobyl disaster affected up to two million people, contaminated an area two-and-a-half times the size of California, and caused economic damage pegged at $235bn in 2009. But this wretched disaster also taught us about insurance.

Mikhail Gorbachev, then-president of the Soviet Union, often cited the Chernobyl nuclear disaster as the true reason for the fall of the Soviet Union - not only due to the failed cover up, which resulted in the glasnost policy of openness, but also because of the economic hardship it caused, which contributed to perestroika, the restructuring of the Soviet economy.

Due to its lack of adequate protections, Chernobyl was uninsured. The entire cost of the containment and clean-up efforts thus fell on the Soviet government; it spent close to 18bn rubles ($23bn in 1986) in the aftermath of the disaster. Additionally, the Soviet Union was not party to the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Vienna Convention or the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Paris Convention, allowing it to deny compensation to foreign victims.

Before Chernobyl, Western governments had already realised the unique nature of nuclear technology and its potential damage and had thus passed nuclear indemnity laws, which enshrine five basic principles - strict and exclusive liability of the operator of the plant, compensation without discrimination, mandatory financial coverage of the operator's liability, exclusive jurisdiction, and limits of liability in amount and time.

The OECD passed the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy in 1960; while IAEA member states passed the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, similar but with a larger geographical scope, in 1963. However, the existence of two similar yet different conventions was problematic - victims in a state that was party to one convention did not have any compensation rights for an accident happening in a state that was party to the other. Due to conflicting obligations, parties of one treaty couldn't sign onto the other. The Chernobyl disaster led to a push to connect the two, resulting in the Joint Protocol in 1988.

The Joint Protocol extends to states adhering to it the coverage that is provided under either convention to which the state is not already a contracting party. This created a bridge between the treaties and ensured that only one of the two treaties would be in force for a particular incident. 

The Vienna Convention was amended in 1997 by the IAEA, raising the minimum liability amount to 300m Special Drawing Rights, increasing the statute of limitation from 10 years to 30 years, increasing the damage covered and making the geographical scope truly global.

The Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage was also passed that year to establish a system of supplementary state funding. 

This does not require adherence to the Paris or Vienna nuclear conventions, appealing to states that do not want to spend a lot on phasing-in requirements.

In 2004, the Paris Convention was also updated, setting the total minimum liability amount at €700m and extending the scope, time and damages covered. This protocol has has not yet entered into force, as some signatories have not yet ratified the treaty. 

Today, only China, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Taiwan and South Africa are nuclear states not party to any convention on nuclear liability, signifying there is still a long way to go when it comes to an international nuclear liability treaty.


Adeetya Tantia is a guest student editor

This article appeared in our September 2019 issue of The Actuary .
Click here to view this issue

You may also be interested in...

grad

September quote unquote

September quote unquote
Friday 30th August 2019
Open-access content
2

September people and society news

An update for September on what our society has been up to...
Thursday 29th August 2019
Open-access content
2

Top 20 pension funds' assets decline for first time in seven years

Assets under management (AUM) at the world’s 20 largest pension funds fell last year for the first time since 2012, research from the Thinking Ahead Institute has found.
Monday 2nd September 2019
Open-access content
2

All accounted for

"You have to know accounting. It's the language of practical business life. It was a very useful thing to deliver to civilisation."
Monday 2nd September 2019
Open-access content
Insurers urged to offer on-demand policies as InsurTech funding soars

Insurers urged to offer on-demand policies as InsurTech funding soars

Insurance firms can no longer rely on their brand names to retain customers and should offer instant, flexible and digital quotes, a leading data analytics company has said.
Tuesday 3rd September 2019
Open-access content
2

Driverless vehicles could see most motor insurance premiums disappear

The adoption of driverless vehicles could see up to three in five motor insurance premiums vanish worldwide, a study by global law firm Kennedys has suggested.
Wednesday 4th September 2019
Open-access content
Filed in
Students
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Senior Reserving Analyst

London (City of)
Negotiable
Reference
149485

Senior GI Modeler - Capital and Planning

London (Central)
£ excellent
Reference
149436

Risk Oversight Manager

Flexible / hybrid with a minimum of 2 days per week office-based
£ excellent
Reference
149435
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2023 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ