The Liability Of The Nuclear Power Plant Operator In

ABSTRACT

In our age, nuclear energy is being applied in many military and civilian uses. However this widespread usage has led it to be a reason of air pollution, and thus further the main reason of its responsibility. The damage of these facilities, whose benefits are innumerable in contrast will be higher if risk occurs1. Turkey is a party of the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (“Paris Convention”) which was signed 27th July 1960, the year that stipulates a special strict liability regime, in terms of nuclear installation operators including nuclear power plant operators. The Paris Convention is subject to major changes with Additonal Protocol in 2004 although it has not come into force in Turkish Law, but also it has been subject to major changes with additional protocol in 2004. The liability of danger is regulated with a general provision for the first time in Turkish Law with Article 71 of the Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 60982 (“TCO”)3. The responsibility of the Nuclear Power plant operator’s is also included in the scope of liability against the risks. In this context, the operator has strict liability, the amount of compensation to be paid is limited by the Paris Convention. 

I. INTRODUCTION

Energy is indispensable and essential for all social and economic activities for all countries. Having energy resources, and thus obtaining energy from these sources with appropriate methods, enabling the production of energy domestic and international supply safe, having relevant structures and technologies and being determenant in policy making and controlling are among the strategic issues for the countries4. Therefore, energy is a major force that has strategic priorities and is an important phenomenon that never falls from the agenda of national and international public opinion. There is a high level of security in the operation of nuclear power plants. Notwithstanding incidents may occur during the operation of a nuclear powerplant. In case of a nuclear accident, injured people are certainly subject to protection of the legal systems. Therefore, it is important that the damages of those who are injured in the event of nuclear incidents will be met within the principles and procedures5. In this context, the concepts of nuclear energy law will be indicated in this article. Afterwards, the legal responsibility of the nuclear power plant operator will be discussed. In this section, firstly, the legal regulations that are valid in terms of Turkish Law regarding the legal responsibility of the nuclear power plant operator will be explained below.

Subsequently, the conditions required to address the nuclear plant operator’s legal responsibility will be stated. Lastly, it will be referred to the issue of compensation under the legal responsibility of this nuclear power plant operator. 

II. CONCEPTS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY LAW

A. Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is a concept that engages the public today as it is a necessary source of energy and in terms of fear and anxiety that it creates in the society. The word of “nuclear” originates from English language. The adjectivated version of the word is ‘’nucleus’’ in English. Thus, nuclear refers to the meanings related to the core. Hence, nuclear energy may be similarly expressed as atomic energy6.

It has been revealed that the thesis for “the fact that every material is made up of atomic and non-divisible particles” that has been accepted to the middle of the 20th century for 2,000 years is wrong. As a result, Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassman, Lise Meitnerve and Otto Frisch, the German physicists, accomplished to split the atomic nucleus as a result of their experiments on uranium in 1938. In the following years, the American physicist Enrico Fermi managed to control the chain reaction, allowing the production of nuclear energy in 1942. This production is based on the fact that heavy atomic radioactive atoms (such as Uranium) are divided into smaller atoms (fission) by the collision of a neutron, or light neutrons are combined to form heavier atoms (fusion)7. Nuclear power plants produce radioactive isotopes8.

B. Nuclear Installation

In general, the concept of nuclear installation includes facilities where nuclear power plants and nuclear materials are produces, processed, stored and reprocessed.

The concept of nuclear installation is defined differently in various international concepts. According to the definition contained in Article 1 of the Paris Convention, they are “factories for the manufacture or processing of nuclear substances; factories for the separation of isotopes of nuclear fuel; factories for the reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel; facilities for the storage of nuclear substances other than storage incidental to the carriage of such substances”, are located time to time with the decision Administrative Council of the European Nuclear Energy Agency. In addition, in the amendment made in the Paris Convention in 2004, “plants for the destruction of nuclear materials, any type of reactor, plant, factory or enterprise in the process of removal from operation” and “means nuclear fuel or radioactive products or any other facility containing waste” phrases have been added to the definition of “nuclear facility”9. According to the Paris Convention, the nuclear installation is “nuclear power plant for civil purposes”10.

The definition in paragraph i of the Article 2 entitled “Definitions”, of the Convention on Nuclear Safety which was signed on September 24 of 1994 by Turkey is ““nuclear installation” means for each Contracting Party any land-based civil nuclear power plant under its jurisdiction including such storage, handling and treatment facilities for radioactive materials as are on the same site and are directly related to the operation of the nuclear power plant. Such a plant ceases to be a nuclear installation when all nuclear fuel elements have been removed permanently from the reactor core and have been stored safely in accordance with approved procedures, and a decommissioning programme has been agreed to by the regulatory body.”11

C. Nuclear Incident

Nuclear incident is an event caused by radioactive properties of nuclear fuel, nuclear product or waste. Although different countries have special provisions, there is a general rule that facilities where extremely dangerous nuclear materials are located for the evaluation of a boiler as a “nuclear incident” must be carried out when these items are carried out or when very dangerous activities are carried out or when materials are transported12.

According to subparagraph i of the paragraph a of the Article 1 of the Paris Convention ““A nuclear incident” means any occurrence or succession of occurrences having the same origin which causes damage, provided that such occurrence or succession of occurrences, or any of the damage caused, arises out of or results either from the radioactive properties, or a combination of radioactive properties with toxic, explosive, or other hazardous properties of nuclear fuel or radioactive products or waste or with any of them, or from ionizing radiations emitted by any source of radiation inside a nuclear installation.” While the Paris Convention defines the concept of nuclear incident in detail, it remains silent on issues such as causality or damage; the settlement of such material or procedural matters leaves national legislation in accordance with paragraph b of the Article 1413.

In terms of the responsibility of the nuclear power plant operator, it is also necessary to have a nuclear accident and damage. Incident also includes diseases that happen suddenly as a rule, outbreak, occur with external or more or less unusual factors (Normaletrieb), and in a long-term14.

D. Operator

Nuclear power plant operators are the subject of responsibility for damage caused by nuclear accident. The operator of the nuclear power plant is a person or legal entitiy recognized and assigned by the competent authority. According to the subparagraph a of paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the the Preliminary Draft Law on Legal Responsibility on Nuclear Energy, nuclear installation operator is the person who is authorized by the Turkey Atomic Energy Agency. According to the draft law, operators who operates without a nuclear power plant license and whose licences are revoked, shall be held reponsible as nuclear power plant operators15.

E. Nuclear Damage

According to the subparagraphs i-ii of the paragraph a of Article 3 of the Paris Convention, the operator who operates the nuclear facility or/and who is considered as a operator in accordance with paragraph d of Article 4, is responsible for any kind of personal damage or property damage16. Danger liability is defined as an objective, flawless, strict reason responsibility based on the principle of being responsible for dominating a particular hazard17. There is no clarification whether moral damage has entered or not within the scope of the definiton of damage; and the preamble states that determining the scope of damage gives countries somehow margin of appreciation to determine the context. However, it is stated that material damages and moral damages may be compensated case by cases18.

III. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATION

Special and high technology applied for nuclear energy is under threat to create a serious danger in case of any error. In Cernobly case in 1986, it caused a nuclear boiler to revive old theories that it had led to excessive damage to the environment and surely to the people. The Chernobyl accident has shown that such nuclear catastrophe extends beyond the borders of the country, affecting beyond the countries. This accident did not damage only the individuals, but also caused catastrofic environmental damage for different countries19.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has set fundamental regulations in order to minimize the number of accidents caused by the operation of the nuclear power plants. These basic standards include technical and scientific rules. Although these rules are advisory, they promote guidliness to the countries that shall be taken into consideration. It is possible to sort principles that have been adopted internationally on nuclear energy on the order of. The relevant regulations are the principle of radiation safety, the principle of legal responsibility, the principle of operating license of facilities, the principle of continuous control, the principle of compensation, the principle of continuity, the principle of independence from national institutions, the principle of transparency, the principle of international cooperation, principle of right of information20.

A. Regulations Regarding the Legal Responsibility of the Nuclear Plant Operator in Turkish Law

1. The Paris Convention

Paris Convention whose members are all from the West European countries and whose secretariat is carried out by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was signed in 1960 to establish an international system to ensure that, in the event of the operation of nuclear facilities or the transport of nuclear material, the “third parties” of that country or of the other Parties suffer damage. The Paris Convention which is still in force today, has been revised in 1982. However, as a result of the new considerations that have arisen, the Convention updated in 1999 and signed by countries in 2004. Nevertheless, as the 2004 amendments have not been approved yet by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, it has not entered into force in Turkish law21.

In the Paris Convention, liability of a nuclear installiation shall apply during the transport of nuclear material or in the event of a nuclear accident22. Accordingly, it is a limited liability regime that is stipulated during an operation or due to an operation.

As stated above, the aim of the Paris Convention is to establish an universally accredited system for the compensation in the situation that the operation of nuclear facilities under the jurisdiction of a Party State or the transport of nuclear material results in the destruction of “third parties” in that or other party’s countries. Parties are obliged to take necessary legal and administrative measures in accordance with Articles 10 and 14 of the Paris Convention. In case third party states suffer during the operation of the nuclear facilities under the jurisdiction of the countries which does not take relevant measures or transport of the nuclear material ed by the third party in that country or the other jurisdiction, the government of that country is directly responsible for the compensation of the loss23.

Paris Convention stipulates the establishment of compulsory insurance system which holds the operators liable. The form and scope of compensation for nuclear accidents must be made in accordance with the law. Furthermore, it shall not be possible to discriminate according to nationality, residence or residence criteria when making this determination24. Therefore, a liability regime is envisaged from an objective perspective.

The responsibility that is regulated with the Paris Convention may be listed as follows;25

• Responsibility shall be directed to the operator of the nuclear installation.
• The operator shall have a strict liability. The strict liability is called “causal liability” or “objective liability” in doctrine. Causal liability is based on the principle of causing damage. In order for liability to be the case, it is necessary and sufficient to have a causal link between the event that creates responsibility and harm26. Liability is based on the existence of a violation of obligation of objective care or a dangerous business27.
• Responsibility shall be limited in terms of quantity and time. The amount and the upper limit of the number of persons responsible for the nuclear power plant operator are regulated by the Paris Convention.
• Jurisdiction over the actions shall lie only within Contracting parties, excluding courts in other countries. The general rule in the Paris Convention is that the state party that is involved in nuclear accidents occured in has jurisdiction. According to the Article 13 in the Paris Convention, the quantitiy of compensation due to a nuclear accident is determined by national law of the authorized court which has jurisdiction, in accordance with the other relevant provisions of the Paris Convention.

2. The Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution

The article 90 of the Constitution states that the international agreements which has been duly come into force are effective in domestic law28 is statutory. Therefore,some authors have argued that the Paris Convention is an international treaty that may be directly applied in domestic law. Based on that, it may be stated that prior to the regulation the Law on the Establishment and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants and the Sale of Energy numbered 5710 (“Law”) which was published in the Official Gazette dated 21st November 2007 and numbered 26707 it has already been applicable in legal terms29.

3. The Draft Law

The Draft Law on the Legal Liability on Nuclear Energy (“Draft Law”) which was prepared30 by Prof. Dr. Kemal Oğuzman in 1986, was prepared according to the the Paris Convention and the Nuclear Legal Liability Act of Switzerland dated 1983.The prominent points may be summarized as follows;31

• In the Draft Law, consecutive liability of the owner the nuclear power plant with the operator of the nuclear power plant has been. On the grounds of the Article 71 of the TCO which danger liability is regulated and is in line with the Draft Law in this respect, “...According to the principle stated in the first paragraph of the Article:” In the event that damage arises from the of activity of an enterprise which presents a considerable level of danger, owner of the enterprise and the operator if there is any, shall be jointly liable from this damage. Thus, the persons who carry out the activities of an enterprise which presents a considerable level of danger may not be immune from being responsible from the typical damage arising from the fact of typical danger even if they obtained the necessary permit and licences for these activities.” Therefore, it may be stated that the legislator has the purpose, holding the persons who carry out the activities of a nuclear power plant, jointly liable.
• The prescribed time limit for liability is 30 years from the date of the accident; 3 year period of prescription after the damage and the person who is liable are learned by the victim is stipulated
• It is regulated that evidences shall be collected ex officio by the court with an exception to the rule of presenting the evidences to the court. An important point has been stipulated herein; as a regulation including the aspect of the intervention to the trial by regulating “the authority of ex officio enquiry” by law.
• The judge is not restricted with the plaintiff’s claim for compensation; it is stipulated ability to rule compensation exceeds that amount. The responsibility regime of the nuclear power plant operator was not only burdened on the merits of the case, but it was also revised by considering the judicial dimension. 

4. The Law on the Establishment and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants and the Sale of Energy No 5710

The Law regulates liability which shall be determined against damages to third parties along with regulations on the establishment, operation of nuclear power plants and sale of energy32.

The paragrapf 5 of the Article 5 of the Law explicitly regulates that provisions of the Paris Convention, additional amendments and other national and international legislation shall apply in the event of the transport of radioactive material and radioactive waste or of an accident at the nuclear power plant33. In this regard, the Law does not contain any provision that is contrary to the Paris Convention.

5. The Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098

In the TCO which came into force on 1st June 2012, danger liability is regulated by a general provision34. According to the Article 71 of TCO, in order for a danger liability to exist, an existence of an enterprise that creates danger and the damage shall arise from the operations of an enterprise that presents danger in a significant level. 

It should be indicated that according to the Article 90 of the Constitution as stated above, the Paris Convention shall be applied directly to the internal law and is statutory varies from the Article 71 of the TCO by holding only the operator liable. The reason for that is TCO stipulates a system which holds both the operator and owner liable. Nevertheless, there is no obstacle for the owner and the operator to be the same person within scope the Paris Convention. It is set forth that the complement regulation may be added to the internal laws in the paragraph 4 of the preamble of the Paris Convention. On the other hand as Paris Convention adopts the principle of holding the operator liable and explains this principle explicitly in its justification, holding another liable contradicts the Paris Convention. It is unlikely to vest the liability to the owner according to the paragraph 1 of the Article 71 of the TCO since paragraph 3 of the Article 71 of the TCO reserves special regulations35. As a matter of fact, when nuclear fuel, radioactive material, radioactive waste are transported or in the event of an accident at the nuclear power plant, the Paris Convention shall be first applied in determining the amount of compensation and those who are liable of the damages. National regulation shall apply in case there is no indicative provision with respect to the scope of the liability in the additional protocols of the Paris Convention or in the Paris Convention. If it does so, the relevant laws (in particular the international conventions to which Turkey is a party), plays a decisive role in determining of liability36. In this context, since there are provisions on the Paris Convention or on the additional protocols of the Paris Convention, Article 71 of the TCO, which is the national legislation in shall not primarily apply.

However, it may also be stated that there is a specialnorm, general-norm conflict between the TCo and the Paris Convention. The special norm is applied as it constitutes the exception of the general norm. Likewise, as the special norm-general norm conflict is determined in accordance with the different norms, the one which has a more limited application are shall regulate more different conditions from the general norm.These differences exceptions to the norm with a broader coverage37. Since the TCO shall be regarded as subsidiary and as a special norm the Paris Convention shall be applied since the provisions constitue an exception to the TCO in case the owner and the operator may be different persons.

B. The Character of the Liability of Nuclear Plant Operator

There may be very severe consequences in terms of character and quantity as a result of typical danger during nuclear power plant operation. Hereby, nuclear plant operator’s liability is a danger liability which is appealed in case of a dangerous activity or operating a dangerous enterprise; and the operator of the nuclear power plant is liable for the damage to assets and personal being, due to the operation of the nuclear plant38.

When public interest is taken into account, it may not be fair to claim the enterprises that engage dangerous activities are held accountable only for their faults. Therefore, the danger liability shall be proposed the most serious form of strict liability39.

The Liability of the nuclear power plant operator is described as the strict liability in the Paris Convention. According to the Convention, the liability of the nuclear power plant operator has been gathered around seven common principles40. These principles are;

• Strict liability of the operator
• Operator’s exclusive liability
• Compulsory financial assurance
• Limitation of the operator’s liability in terms of quantity
• Limitation of the operator’s liability in terms of time
• The jurisdiction of the country in which the accident occured.
• Applying international conventions without the consideration of the citizenship and/or residence of the victims.

C. The Requirements of Civilian Nuclear Power Plant Operator’s Legal Liability in Turkish Law

According to the Article 5 of the Law, in incident case during the transport of nuclear fuel, radioactive material or radioactive waste are carried or in the nuclear power plant, the Convention shall be primarly applied.  

If there is no provision there, then other national provisions (e.g. TCO and international provisions (in particular the international conventions to which Turkey is a party in the field of nuclear energy) shall be applied41. Taking all these rules into consideration, the conditions laid down in the Law can be generally listed as follows;42

• Realization of the typical danger (nuclear incident) bound to the liability by law the by the person liable (the transporter and the operator being liable for the for the nuclear accident)
• The existence of nuclear damage (a loss occurred by a typical danger)
• Non-dismantling of the appropriate causal connection between nuclear damage with the realization of the typical danger (nuclear incident).

1. Realization of the Typical Danger Attached to Legal Liability by the Liable Person

In the meaning of the Paris Convention, the realization of the typical danger connected with the law means that the nuclear installation owner or the carrier is responsible for the occurrence of an accident in the nuclear power plant or while carrying nuclear material. When we analyze the Article 5 of the Law, it is obvious that the typical danger is determined by the Law as nuclear accident during the transport of the nuclear fuel, radioactive material or radioactive waste, or in the nuclear power plant43. The realization of typical danger in the danger liabilitys is the basis of liability. The most severe one of the danger liabilities is the danger which is a result of faciliating nuclear operation44.

2. The Existence of Nuclear Damage

In order for the nuclear plant operator to be held responsible, it is imperative that there is a nuclear accident and thus damage incurred from such activities. Incidents may occur suddenly without fault which are more or less unusual and may occur under external factors. However, under danger liability, accidents are caused by the presence of internal factors as well as external factors. In addition, it may be a sudden accident or it shall cover damage after a long period of time45.

3. Eligible Causal Connection Between Nuclear

Damage with the Typical Danger that is not Cut The causal relationship between the event or the behavior that the liability is linked to is called causal connection. The damages that shall be compensated according to the Paris Convention are the damage under the causal connection46. Accordingly, in order for the nuclear plant operator to be held liable for the resulting damage, it is necessary and sufficient to prove the existence of an appropriate causal connection between the damage and the action causing the damage47.

Responsibility in the law of liability is considered to not exist in situations that cut the causal connection. The cases that cut off the link of being are regulated as force majeure, severe fault of the person who suffers the damage, and severe fault of the third person. In such cases, the person who cause a loss shall not have any fault and contributory negligence. If the victim or the third person has severe illness, it must be at the intensity to break this causal connection. However, it should be noted that in some of the danger liabilites (in particular at nuclear damages) are more limited, if compared to the other types of liabilities. While the situations that cut the causal connection are; force majeure, severe fault of the person who suffers the damage, and severe fault of the third person,48 the Article 9 of Paris Convention regulated the situations that cut the causal connection between the nuclear accident and the damage as “the operator shall not be liable for damage caused by a nuclear incident directly due to an act of armed conflict, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or, except in so far as the legislation of the Contracting Party in whose territory his nuclear installation is situated may provide to the contrary, a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character.” in line with the numerus clauses principle49.

IV. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF COMPENSATION

The Paris Convention sets forth a limited liability regime in terms of quantity. As a part of this system, operator of the nuclear power plant shall have insurance or have other financial guarantees in accordance with the paragraph a of the Article 1050.

According to Article 7 of the Paris Convention, amount for which the operator is responsible is limited with , “up to 15 million Special Drawing Right”51 52. According to the same article, The country that is party to the Paris Convention may set a fee of less or more, provided that it does not fall below the 5 million Special Drawing Rights. This price is determined solely for damages and will be paid by the operator in addition to the amount of interest and the amount to be awarded by the court53.

This amount, however, has been increased to € 700 million with the amendment of the 2004 Protocol, which has not yet come into force in our country’s law. How ever, the Party states also have the right to determine compensation, provided that it is not less than 5 million Special Drawing Rights by taking into account the insurance or other financial guarantee facilities or taking into consideration the nuclear facilities or the relevant nuclear material54.

V. CONCLUSION

The liability of the nuclear power plant operator is evaluated in the context of danger liablity which is a type of strict liability. Accordingly, fault is not required for the nuclear plant operator to be held liable. However there shall be proper causal connection between the nuclear accident and result of the damage for it. The conditions for cutting the causal connection are more limited in regard to the liability of the nuclear plant opeator. The additional protocol dated 2004, which includes important amendments to the in the Paris Convention, hasn’t come into force yet for Turkey. The amendments regarding the amount of liability of the nuclear power plant operator shall come to the agenda following the enactment of the amendments.

KAYNAKÇA

Gülin Güneysu, Nükleer Reaktörlerin Yol Açtığı Zararlardan Doğan Hukuki Sorumluluk, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 41, S.1, 1990

Onur Görmez, Nükleer Santral İşletenin Kusursuz Sorumluluğu, Kadir Has Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt.2, Sayı.1, Haziran, 2014

Murat Aydoğdu, Sivil Amaçlı Nükleer Santral İşletenin ve Nükleer Madde Taşıyanın Hukuki Sorumluluğu, Ankara, 2009 Mustafa Halit Korkusuz, Nükleer Santral İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu, Diyarbakır, 2011

Ayşe Aslıhan Erbaşı Çuhadar, Uluslararası Nükleer Sorumluluk Rejimi Çerçevesinde Sivil Amaçlı Nükleer Santral İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Özel Sayı Cilt:1, 2015

Agah Kürşat Karauz, Nükleer Santral İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu, Nevşehir Barosu Dergisi, Mart, 2014,

Aslı Arda, Nükleer Enerji Alanında Üçüncü Taraf Sorumluluğuna İlişkin Paris Sözleşmesi Kapsamında Nükleer Tesis İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu, Ankara, 2005,

Özge Yücel, Türk Borçlar Kanunu’na Göre Genel Tehlike Sorumluluğu, Ankara, 2013

Ayça Akkayan Yıldırım, 6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu Düzenlemeleri Çerçevesinde Kusursuz Sorumluluğun Özel Bir Türü Olarak Tehlike Sorumluluğu, İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası, Cilt 70, Sayı 1, 2012

Oytun Canyaş, İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu ve Vergi Usul Kanunu Arasındaki Çatışmaların Klasik Yöntemle Çözümü, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, Sayı 26, 2014

FOOTNOTE

1 Gülin Güneysu, Nükleer Reaktörlerin Yol Açtığı Zararlardan Doğan Hukuki Sorumluluk, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume 41, Issue.1, 1990, p.207

2 Official Gazette dated 04.02.2011 and numbered 27846.

3 Onur Görmez, Nükleer Santral İşletenin Kusursuz Sorumluluğu, Kadir Has Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume.2, No.1, June, 2014, p.109

4 Murat Aydoğdu, Sivil Amaçlı Nükleer Santral İşletenin ve Nükleer Madde Taşıyanın Hukuki Sorumluluğu, Ankara, 2009, p.1

5 Mustafa Halit Korkusuz, Nükleer Santral İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu, Diyarbakır, 2011, p.4

6 Kadir Temurçin, Alpaslan Aliağaoğlu, Nükleer Enerji ve Tartışmalar Işığında Türkiye’de Nükleer Enerji Gerçeği, AÜCBD, V. 1ı. 2, p. 25-39 transfer from Korkusuz, , p.8

7 Ayşe Aslıhan Erbaşı Çuhadar, Uluslararası Nükleer Sorumluluk Rejimi Çerçevesinde Sivil Amaçlı Nükleer Santral İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Özel Sayı Volume:1, 2015, p.344

8 Korkusuz, p.8

9 Agah Kürşat Karauz, Nükleer Santral İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu, Nevşehir Barosu Dergisi, March, 2014, p.6-8

10 Aydoğdu, p.218

11 Aslı Arda, Nükleer Enerji Alanında Üçüncü Taraf Sorumluluğuna İlişkin Paris Sözleşmesi Kapsamında Nükleer Tesis İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu, Ankara, 2005,ps.27-28

12 Karauz, directly from page 10 Julia A. Schwartz, Liability and Compensation for Third Party Damage resulting from and a Nuclear Incident, International Nuclear Law: History, Evolution and Outlook, OECD, 2010, p.309

13 Arda, p. 29

14 Aydoğdu, p, 221 Karl Oftinger, Emil W Stark, Schweizerisches Haftpflichtrecht, Band II/3, Dritter Teilband, Übrige Gefahrdungshaftungen: 4. Aufl., Zürich, 1991, S 29, N. 189 vd; Max Keller, Sonja Gabi-Bolliger, Das Schweizerische Schuldrecht, B. II, Hasftpglichtrecht, 2 Aufl., Basel ıınd Frankfurt am Main 1988, s. 53, Erich Steffen, Veerschuldenshaftung als Alternative zum Schadensersatz, Köln-München, 1983, p.1820

15 Karauz, p.12

16 Gökhan Antalya, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, Volume 1, Beta Yayınevi, 2nd edition, İstanbul, 2013, p.725 transferred from Görmez, p. 129

17 Erwin Deutsch,: Das Recht der Gefährdungshaftung, Juristische Ausbildung (Jura), Dezember 1983, p. 618; Maximilian Fuchs,: Deliktsrecht – Eine nach Anspruchsgrundlagen geordnete Darstellung des Rechts der unerlaubten Handlungen und der Gefährdungshaftung, 7. Auflage, Heidelberg 2009,p. 233; Mehmet Erdem,: Türk Borçlar Kanunu Uyarınca Tehlike Sorumluluğu, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi Özel Hukuk Sempozyumu Özel Sayısı, 6098 Sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu Hükümlerinin Değerlendirilmesi Sempozyumu (3-4 June 2011) Prof. Dr. Cevdet Yavuz’a Armağan, İstanbul 2011,p 217; Fikret Eren, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, 14th Edition, Ankara, 2012,p 667; Çiğdem Kırca, Ürün Sorumluluğu, Ankara, 2007,p. 120-121 transfered from Özge Yücel, Türk Borçlar Kanunu’na Göre Genel  Tehlike Sorumluluğu, Ankara, 2013, p.15

18 Antalya, p. 725, transfer from Yücel, Aydoğdu, p.233

19 Wolf-Georg Scharf, Europaisches Nuklearrecht, Berlin, 2008, p.34 transferred from Aydoğdu, p.165

20 Korkusuz, p. 33; Aydoğdu, p. 166

21 Karauz, p. 16

22 Aydoğdu, p. 209 Jost Schindel, Die Haftung für Atomschaden, Göttingen, 1064, p. 239 vd, Oftinger/Stark, II/3, S.29, N.13; Güneysu, p. 217,

23 Aydoğdu, p. 174; Korkusuz, p.38

24 Necip Kağan Kocaoğlu, Nükleer Tesis İşletenin Hukuki Sorumluluğu, Karşılaştırmalı ve Uluslararası Özel Hukuk Analizi, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, I.2010/2, p. 95 transferred from Korkusuz, p. 41

25 Karauz, p. 15-25

26 Veysel Başpınar, Mehmet Altunkaya, Depremden Doğan Zararların Tazmininde Zamanaşımının Başlaması ve Süresi, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 57, S1, p.95-131 transferred from Korkusuz., p. 90

27 Fikret Eren, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, 12. Baskı, İstanbul, 2010, p. 449

28 Kocaoğlu, p.59 transferred from Eren p.80; İlhan Ulusan, Türk Hukukunda Nükleer Zararlardan Doğan Hukuki Mes’uliyet, Prof. Dr. Halit Kemal Elbir’e Armağan, İstanbul, 1996, p.552; Güneysu, p.215-216

29 A.g.e. p. 80, tvt; Aydoğdu, p.203; Güneysu, p.215-216

30 Kemal Oğuzman, Turgut Öz, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, Volume 2, Vedat Kitapçılık,10th Edition, İstanbul, 2013, p. 236-238 transferrred from Görmez, s. 115

31 A.g.e., p.115-116

32 Korkusuz, p..58

33 Kocaoğlu, p. 63

34 Ayça Akkayan Yıldırım, 6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu Düzenlemeleri Çerçevesinde Kusursuz Sorumluluğun Özel Bir Türü Olarak Tehlike Sorumluluğu, İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası, Volume 70, No: 1, 2012, p.206

35 Görmez, p.119-120

36 Korkusuz.49

37 Oytun Canyaş, İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu ve Vergi Usul Kanunu Arasındaki Çatışmaların Klasik Yöntemle Çözümü, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, No 26, 2014, p.199

38 Karauz, p.13

39 Kemal Oğuzman, Turgut Öz, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2010, p. 488, Tiftik, s. 21, Fikret Eren, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, 14th edition, İstanbul, 2012, s. 667 transferred from Karauz, p. 14.

40 Anthony Thomas, Raphael J.A. Heffron, Third Party Nuclear Liability, The Case of a supplier in the United Kingdom, EPRG Working Paper 1205, s 3 transfer from Karauz p.14

41 Aydoğdu, p. 205

42 Mustafa Tiftik, Türk Hukukunda Tehlike Sorumluluklarının Genel Kural ile Düzenlenmesi Sorunu, 2nd edition , Ankara, 2005, p. 30, Ulusan, p. 34 transfer from Aydoğdu p.206

43 Görmez, s.117; Aydoğdu, s.212

44 Hansgeorg Kanno,Gefahrdungshaftung und rechtliche Kanalisierung im Atomrecht, Ein Beitrag zur Dogmatik der Schadenshaftungi Diss, Berlin, 1967, p.119 and p.126 transferred from Aydoğdu p. 207

45 Korkusuz, p.91; Aydoğdu, p. 221

46 Eren, p. 487 47 Korkusuz, p. 127-128

48 Güzin Üçışık, Tehlike Sorumluluğunun Genel Kural ile Düzenlenmesi, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, Ankara, 2009, p.127-143 transferred from Görmez p.133

49 Görmez, p.134

50 Görmez,p. 135

51 Özel Çekme Hakkı (Special Drawing Right), It is an international reserve unit brought in by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1969 for the purpose of replacing the old gold base. The value of the exchange rate against the special currencies of the national currencies is announced daily by the IMF.

52 As of the date 28th January, 2018 1 Special Drawing Right = 5.4641 Turkish Lira.

53 Karauz, p. 21

54 Görmez, p.136