...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of risk research >Nuclear energy and risk assessment by Indian courts: analysis of judicial intervention in the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project
【24h】

Nuclear energy and risk assessment by Indian courts: analysis of judicial intervention in the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project

机译:印度法院进行的核能与风险评估:库丹库拉姆核电项目的司法干预分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Judicial intervention on nuclear energy safety discourse in India is very recent. The debate on the Civil Nuclear Liability for Damage Act 2010 in the Parliament and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan provoked public apprehension about nuclear safety in India. The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KNPP) in South India became the flash point. The localized agitation against the project consequently gained momentum and was taken up aggressively by civil society groups citing safety compromise on various technical parameters. Though the government constituted expert committees to assuage any misgivings, the matter, however, was challenged before the Madras High Court and as appeal before the Supreme Court of India. The former assured safety and legality of the project and the latter endorsed this view, with supplemental directions, determining the superiority of expert committees who unequivocally concluded that the project was safe. The Courts similarly converged on the issue that the project was of national importance. On the access to project information, though the Central Information Commission ordered to make public the KNPP site and safety evaluation reports, however, Nuclear Power Corporation appealed to the Delhi High Court arguing the information was proprietary and obtained a stay order.
机译:印度对核能安全话语的司法干预是最近的事。国会针对《 2010年民事核损害赔偿法》和2011年日本福岛核事故的辩论激起了公众对印度核安全的担忧。印度南部的Kudankulam核电项目(KNPP)成为了热点。因此,针对该项目的本地化鼓动获得了动力,并因各种技术参数的安全性折衷而被民间社会团体积极地采用。尽管政府为减轻任何疑虑而成立了专家委员会,但此事在马德拉斯高等法院受到质疑,并在印度最高法院提出上诉。前者保证了该项目的安全性和合法性,而后者则支持这一观点,并提出了补充指示,从而确定了专家委员会的优越性,后者明确认为该项目是安全的。法院在该项目具有国家重要性的问题上也进行了类似的讨论。关于获得项目信息的问题,尽管中央信息委员会命令公开KNPP站点和安全评估报告,但是,核电公司向德里高等法院提起上诉,称该信息是专有信息并获得了中止命令。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号