Discharging Fukushima’s Nuclear Wastewater: Assessing Human Rights Concerns Amidst Changing International Dynamics

Japan’s decision to release treated nuclear wastewater from Fukushima into the Pacific has triggered a complex web of reactions from international actors, civil society groups, and environmental organisations. In 2021, the Japanese cabinet approved the release of water that had been used to cool the reactors during the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Currently, Japanese authorities report that approximately 350 million gallons of this water are stored in over 1,000 tanks on the Fukushima site. With these tanks approaching full capacity and no additional space for new ones, the government believes that it has no choice but to begin releasing the water. The discharge of this wastewater has been defended by Japan against criticism from several of its close neighbours but has nonetheless received support from the UK and US, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Notably, while the scientific community, if reluctantly, appears to stand in support of Japan’s decision, civil society groups such as Greenpeace have remained staunchly critical, highlighting the environmental and human rights ramifications, which it believes violate international laws.

The UK supports Japan’s decision, stating that it is ‘standard practice’ for tritium, a radioactive isotope, to be discharged into bodies of water, while the US has similarly expressed its ‘satisfaction’ with Japan’s actions. Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog, has stated that the impact on health and the environment would be ‘negligible’, enabling Japan to claim scientific backing for its plans. By contrast, neighbouring countries such as China and South Korea have been enraged by the decision to discharge Fukushima’s wastewater. China has suspended all imports of aquatic products from Japan, with the country’s foreign ministry labelling Japan ‘a saboteur of the ecological system and polluter of the global marine environment.’ A seemingly coordinated campaign on social media has been waged to support this, with Chinese news outlets reinforcing the government’s position. Meanwhile, in South Korea, 50,000 protestors took to the streets in Seoul, with placards demanding that Japan ‘retract disposal of Fukushima contaminated water.’

For each of these international voices, however, an appropriate contextualisation is necessary. Thus, although South Korean protesters have taken to the streets, the government itself appears to have taken a tempered approach, implementing a temporary ban of aquatic imports from the Fukushima region to allay public fears despite finding no problems with the scientific evidence supporting the disposal. Such a measured response is unsurprising given the warming of diplomatic ties with Japan, with 2023 seeing the first official visit from a South Korean President to Tokyo in 12 years and reconciliation over trade disputes and legacy issues from the Second World War. By contrast, China’s more severe response aligns with broader tensions with Japan, with some positing that the wastewater release is serving as a useful distraction away from domestic economic problems in China. As the graph below demonstrates, China, as well as South Korea and the UK, are responsible for far higher levels of disposal.

Nevertheless, though Japan’s wastewater disposal is lower than neighbouring countries and other key international actors, this does not necessarily justify the release. Greenpeace Japan argues that the decision ‘violates the human rights of communities in Japan and the Pacific, and non-compliant with international maritime law.’ Such a view is supported by the possibility of Strontium-90 being released into the Pacific, a more dangerous radioactive isotope that could be missed by the filtration scheme and accumulate over time near the shore. Inconsistent readings of Strontium-90 in the past year highlight potential failings in the measurement methods used to evaluate the risks of the release to the environment and livelihoods. 

The varying perspectives and statistics at hand highlight the need for ongoing dialogue and scrutiny. This is especially applicable when it comes to the issue of global governance and the responsibility of states to uphold international conventions. Japan’s decision may appear to have a negligible impact on the environment, but amongst the various disposal methods available for accident nuclear sewage, including conversion into hydride discharge or injection into the earth’s crust, Japan opted the least costly approach with the highest risk factor. While the risk currently seems low, even minor impacts on the environment can lead to significant consequences over time. Additionally, Japan’s approach may violate several international obligations including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution over issues including the treatment methods employed and the lack of international cooperation. Where once Japan strongly advocated for strict guidelines on waste disposal into the sea, its current operations may indicate a failure to uphold its green credentials.

Japan’s decision to release the Fukushima wastewater, while unlikely to severely impact human rights immediately, still poses a potential threat. Nuclear wastewater, if allowed to reach highly concentrated levels, could threaten several human rights, including the right to a healthy environment as affirmed by the UN. This contamination of water bodies by nuclear waste can increase the risk of cancer, with millions, particularly those in seafood-reliant communities, potentially endangered. This is an especially important given the discrepancies in Strontium-90 measurements, emphasising the importance of the right to information. As advocated by UNESCO, this would enable stakeholders improved access to transparent information concerning nuclear wastewater disposal. Finally, for many Pacific communities, the ocean is more than a source of livelihood; it is deeply intertwined with their cultural heritage. Damage inflicted on marine ecosystems can damage traditions and ways of life, which, particularly for Pacific Island nations who have historically borne the brunt of nuclear tests during the Cold War, can infringe upon sociocultural rights also. Ultimately, in prioritising current conveniences over the well-being of future generations, the principle of intergenerational equity is put at risk. 

What the international fallout concerning Fukushima reveals is the failure of regional powers to coordinate effectively on nuclear wastewater disposal, resulting in heightened safety risks which not only threaten the local environment, but potentially human rights as well. The resolution of this global governance gap is essential if nuclear power is to be utilised effectively towards the green transition in a manner consistent with the protection of human rights across the globe.