The Challenge of Maritime Sovereignty: Japan’s Nuclear Wastewater Discharge

The determination of sovereignty of the sea isn’t as easy as creating barriers on land, since the sea is always fluid and has an unbounded nature. Unlike land, where barriers can define clear territories, under the continuous flow of ocean, the establishment of maritime borders could be extremely elusive. One of the disagreements that recently came to sharp focus is Japan’s decision to release treated nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean. Opposing parties are skeptical about the safety hazard this water release might cause, even though Japan had been given permission to release the wastewater by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the UN atomic regulator. This essay will analyze the dispute around Japan’s wastewater release, the rationale behind Japan’s decision, the environmental and geopolitical concerns it raises, and potential solutions to overcome the global dispute.

Background: The Fukushima Earthquake and Its Aftermath

The reason behind Japan’s wastewater discharge is because, in the year of 2011, a devastating earthquake, followed by a tsunami, struck Japan, causing huge damage to the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The destruction of its cooling system led to reactor meltdowns, contaminating water with highly radioactive material. Since the disaster, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) has been pumping water into reactors to cool their fuel rods, producing enough wastewater that fills more than 500 Olympic swimming pools on a daily basis.

To date, over 1000 storage tanks hold this water, occupying a significant amount of land Japan needs the land to safely decommission the plant. Moreover, these tanks pose serious risks; in a seismically active region, an earthquake or any other natural disaster could potentially lead to the tanks collapsing, releasing a dangerous level of radioactivity into the surrounding environment, threatening the nearby residents. Faced with these challenges, Japan has proposed releasing the treated wastewater into the sea as a controlled solution.

The primary environmental concern, raised by neighboring countries like South Korea, Philippines and China, comes from tritium—a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that cannot be fully filtered away with today’s technologies. While the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) removed 62 other radioactive elements, tritium still remains. Japan then decides to dilute the wastewater to reduce tritium concentration to 1500 becquerels per liter (Bq/L), which is seven times less than the World Health Organization (WHO) safety limit for drinking water of 10,000 Bq/L. Despite these measures, critics fear unforeseen environmental impacts. For instance, scientists, including Robert Richmond, a biologist at the University of Hawaii and one of the five experts commissioned by the Pacific Islands Forum to study the plan, warn that tritium could bioaccumulate into marine life, potentially affecting humanity through food chains. Additionally, Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace who regularly visits Fukushima, claims that “the concern is not over external exposure” and further highlights the risks of “internal exposure” when it binds with organic material in fish, seafood, and then humans.

Japan’s decision has drawn criticism from neighboring countries, including China, South Korea, and the Philippines, which argue that the discharge poses transboundary risks. Water currents, such as the cross-Pacific Kuroshio current, could carry the wastewater beyond Japan’s territorial waters, affecting ecosystems and economies globally. As Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning stated, “Japan’s release of treated nuclear-contaminated water concerns the global marine environment and public health, which is not a private matter for the Japanese.” These concerns have strained diplomatic relationships and fueled public opposition in affected regions. China, for instance, has banned seafood imports from Japan, significantly impacting Japan’s fishing industry, not its broader economy.

Supporting Arguments for Japan’s Wastewater Discharge

All the criticisms aside, Japan’s plan is supported by several scientific arguments and international standards. 

1) Global Safety Standards: Firstly, it should be mentioned that the safety standards for tritium vary drastically on a global level—ranging from 100Bq/L in the EU to around 30000Bq/L in Finland. While Finland’s acceptable standard is 3000 times more than the EU’s, all standards are designed to ensure minimal risk to human health.

2) Global Nuclear Reality: In reality, many countries release more tritium annually than Japan. For example, according to source 1, Japan releases less than 22 trillion Bq of tritium per year, while countries like Korea, China, the UK, Canada, and France release more. France’s La Hague reprocessing plant, for instance, discharges 10,000 trillion Bq, which is about 455 times more than Japan. Opposing countries should focus on these larger sources of tritium discharge. Moreover, if tritium is already being released into the sea elsewhere without exceeding safe drinking water limits, Japan’s release likely has minimal environmental impact.

3) Fukushima’s Minimized Risks: There are 62 radioactive elements in the wastewater, and all of them passed the accepted standard for the amount that could be taken in drinking water, except tritium. If it’s only tritium that didn’t pass the test, the problem with the wastewater release is not as inflated as some would think. In this case, tritium is the sole remaining concern regarding the safety standard of the wastewater. Furthermore, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which is responsible for discharging ALPS-treated water into the sea, expresses that tritium is not a concern. Tepco claimed that “although there is residual tritium even after this long purification process, the water is then further diluted thereby meeting and actually falling below the concentration levels as stipulated by Japan and other countries’ regulatory standards for radioactive materials in the water”. Therefore, according to the company, the level of tritium is harmless to the environment. It provided further information by saying that the radiation emitted by tritium is “extremely weak”, and that it can be “blocked with a single sheet of paper”. The radiation emitted by tritium “does not accumulate in the body tissues of humans”.

4) Limited Alternatives: Lastly, since the IAEA considers the wastewater mostly harmless to the environment and human health, the focus should be on how the release is carried out. The treatment technology is reportedly effective, but ensuring full transparency during the release is crucial. Treating and releasing the wastewater requires significant effort and cost, so it is important for Japan to share its process with the UN and the public. With complete transparency, the environmental impact should remain minimal.

Source 1: Annual amount of discharge of tritium over the world and Comparison of tritium concentrations standards

Realities surrounding Japan’s Decision

The release of treated wastewater from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has sparked immense international concern and debate. If the wastewater is safe, as supported by the IAEA, and poses no substantial harm to the environment, then, Japan’s decision could be considered acceptable. However, if the wastewater is indeed dangerous, Japan could still argue that the release happened within its territorial water, implying it does not directly affect anyone else. However, water currents, such as the cross-Pacific Kuroshio Current could spread the wastewater beyond Japan’s waters, raising concerns about its global impact. “I would like to stress that Japan’s release of treated nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima plant concerns the global marine environment and public health, which is not a private matter for the Japanese,” as Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning once stated. This highlights how Japan’s actions could inadvertently impose consequences on other nations.

Source 2: Current flows around the Pacific, Korea Hydrographic and Oceanographic Agency, American Meteroogical Society.

“States are bound to prevent and control marine pollution and are liable for damage caused by violation of their international obligations to combat such pollution,” states the United Nation’s Convention on the Law of the Sea. The UN permitted Japan to release the wastewater into the ocean, claiming that there is no better solution currently to deal with such a massive buildup of wastewater accumulated since 2011. Neighboring countries, particularly those in East Asia, have expressed the most disagreement, while western nations, being further away, have shown some tolerance towards this plan.

Standing from another point of view, Japan’s actions risk exacerbating conflicts between countries. As Dalnoki-Veress, a professor at Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, observes, “When we think about the effect of radiation, we can’t just think about the effect on the environment; we have to consider the effect on cultures, societies, and peoples who suffer psychological effects, a sense of fear, and reputational damage. Trust has been broken, and it will be difficult to repair.” Economically, Japan’s fishing industry, a vital segment for the nation, faces significant repercussions. With limited land and heavy reliance on the sea, the fishing industry plays a crucial role in sustaining Japan’s economy. However, customer concerns, both internationally and domestically, have disrupted the industry. According to BBC News, China is the biggest buyer of seafood from Japan, and it has banned all seafood from Japan completely. This ban could lead to an economic downturn and a shift in Japan’s workforce, with more jobs moving to other industries, such as services.  To address this crisis, Japan engaged in discussions with China, eventually reaching “a certain level of mutual understanding.” Under this agreement, China eased the seafood ban after monitoring the wastewater and finding it harmless, while Japan promised ongoing transparency and cooperation under the UN atomic agency framework.

This issue underscores one of the many global challenges: the interpretation and enforcement of international regulations. Similar issues are likely to arise in the future, so it is important to establish a stronger system of international communication and cooperation. Maintaining healthy political relationships while safeguarding environment will require collective action, transparency, and mutual respect among nations.

Potential Solutions

Solutions are key to overcoming this issue and its challenges. There are three main solutions: Legal Action, UN involvement, and International Cooperation.  

1. Legal Resolution Through International Courts

A direct solution to this is to bring the issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). “The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.” The International Court of Justice provides a definitive ruling, potentially eliminating the need for further debate. If this issue is deemed important for voting, the ICJ would recommend a voting session within the UN General Assembly, where a majority decision would guide actions.

2. UN Bodies for Further Regulations 

A second solution involves bringing the issue through relevant UN bodies, such as the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The Economic and Social Council “is the United Nations’ central platform for reflection, debate, and innovative thinking on sustainable development,” and could potentially provide a framework for regulating international practices under existing conventions. For example, the council can provide regulation under key provisions from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: “States are bound to prevent and control marine pollution and are liable for damage caused by violation of their international obligations to combat such pollution”.

3. Bilateral or Multilateral Agreements  

A third solution is direct negotiation between affected countries. Japan could collaborate with other nations to develop specific strategies for managing wastewater. For instance, countries with available space and lower risk could agree to store their wastewater under “fair” terms. In exchange, Japan might offer economic incentives such as trade benefits or technological support. This approach would require mutual understanding and willingness to cooperate.

The Fukushima wastewater release raises complex environmental, economic, and diplomatic challenges. By pursuing legal avenues, engaging UN bodies, and fostering international cooperation, nations can work toward solutions that balance protection with political and economic realities. Transparent decision-making and multilateral collaboration will be essential to resolving this and future global disputes effectively. 

References

1. Background and Scientific Explanation for the Discharge of Treated Water [Online]. Background and Scientific Explanation for the Discharge of Treated Water | Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Incorporated. Avaliable at: www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommission/progress/treated-water-lan/index-e.html#content_3. (Accessed: 27 Nov. 2024)

2. (4 Jul. 2023) IAEA Finds Japan’s Plans to Release Treated Water into the Sea at Fukushima Consistent with International Safety Standards [Online].International Arts and Entertainment Alliance. Avaliable at: www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-finds-japans-plans-to-release-treated-water-into-the-sea-at-fukushima-consistent-with-international-safety-standards. (Accessed: 27 Nov. 2024)

3. Khadka, Navin Singh. (26 Aug. 2023) The Science behind the Fukushima Waste Water Release. BBC News, BBC. Avaliable at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66610977. (Accessed: 27 Nov. 2024)

4. Main Bodies. United Nations, United Nations. Avaliable at: www.un.org/en/about-us/main-bodies. (Accessed 8 Dec. 2023)

5. “Overview - Convention & Related Agreements.” United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm. Accessed 8 Dec. 2023.

6. “Standards and Guidelines for Tritium in Drinking Water,” Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), www.nrc.gov/docs/ml1029/ml102990104.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov. 2024.

7. “UN Report on Japan’s Fukushima Water Plans Fails to Placate Opponents.” The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, Guardian News and Media, 7 Jul. 2023, www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/07/un-report-on-japans-fukushima-water-plans-fails-to-placate-opponents.

8. Westerman, Ashley, 5 Jul. 2023. “The U.N.’s Nuclear Watchdog Says Japan Can Release Nuclear Waste Water into the Ocean.” NPR, www.npr.org/2023/07/04/1185971497/the-u-n-s-nuclear-watchdog-says-japan-can-release-nuclear-waste-water-into-the-o.

9. Wong, Tessa, 24 Aug. 2023. “Fukushima: China Retaliates as Japan Releases Treated Nuclear Water.” BBC News, BBC, www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-66577769.