You are here

Prateek asked: Why did India ratify the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) which seems to go against certain clauses of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA)?

  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Whatsapp
  • Linkedin
  • Print
  • G. Balachandran replies: No party to CSC has raised any objection to India’s accession on the ground that CLNDA is inconsistent with the provisions of CSC. The CSC too does not impose any obligation to which India may have an objection. Finally, in case of a nuclear incident in India, CSC may provide additional resources for compensation. Given the small share of India’s nuclear capacity subject to CSC, India’s contribution for any nuclear incident in any other CSC member’s territory will be insignificant. For these reasons, there is no downside to India’s accession to CSC with potential benefits.

    Editor’s Note: Please find below list of publications on/relating to the subject by the IDSA faculty:

    G. Balachandran, “Some issues in respect of Indian’s nuclear liability law – I”, IDSA Issue Brief, February 10, 2015.

    G. Balachandran, “India and the Convention on Supplementary Compensation: Some issues in respect of India’s nuclear liability law – II”, IDSA Issue Brief, February 19, 2015.

    Rajiv Nayan, “Breaking the N-deadlock”, The Pioneer, February 08, 2015.

    A. Vinod Kumar and Kapil Patil, “Resolving India’s Nuclear Liability Impasse”, IDSA Issue Brief, December 06, 2014.

    G. Balachandran, “A primer on the Indian Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010”, IDSA Backgrounder, September 23, 2014.

    G. Balachandran, “Should India Give US Nuclear Suppliers a Reprieve from the Indian Nuclear Liability Law?”, IDSA Comment, July 22, 2011.

    G. Balachandran, “Should India Sign the Convention on Supplementary Compensation?”, IDSA Issue Brief, October 27, 2010.

    G. Balachandran, “The Civil Nuclear Liability Bill”, IDSA Policy Brief, July 23, 2010.

    Posted on December 31, 2018