Hello,

Scenario:
Country C is a party to IAEA treaty, but Country NK isn't (it used to be, but withdrew as it wants to use its nuclear power for military purpose)
Lets say there's a nuclear accident in Country NK today and caused widespread damage to both itself and Country C because Country NK wanted to cover the incident up and only notified Country C a few days after the incident. Country C wants compensation from Country NK and both of them agree to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

My question is:
How will the ICJ decide this case? Will it use the IAEA treaty even though Country NK isn't a part of it? On what basis?
What other issues could arise in this scenario? How would the ICJ deal with it?
What could be the possible judgment?

Thank-you!

Thank you for using our site, and thaink you for perhaps not cutting and pasting your homework but actually typing it out.

Of course as our "treaty" that you agreed to , you know we don't do your homework,

So what do you think they would do, we could discuss it here about your ideas

It's actually a research about nuclear law I'm doing right now about the possibilities of this, and this is the closest scenario I can think of to what I want to know.
From what I've read, I don't think the IAEA treaty can be used since Country NK isn't part of it.

What I really want to know - how would the compensation be given today? I'm thinking that there could be quite a few options,
Either that the ICJ can rule:
1) Polluter Pays Principle
2) Pay the Polluter Principle (by using International Funds to help clean up like in the Chernobyl disaster)
3) Country NK does not need to pay (like the Soviet Union refusing to pay compensation to other countries)
However, Chernobyl was many years ago - if an accident happen today, will the ICJ rule differently?
4) Rule according to normal tort law (not quite possible?)

These are questions I am stuck on - and thanks for answering!

Opinion, since the nation is not part of the treaty, they may also merely reject the ICJ as having any jurisdiction in the issue and ignore them.

Thank you for the answer -
I've got another question in regards to your answer:
Lets say that they have agreed to letting the ICJ have jurisdiction - since the ICJ will only take states that have agreed to let it have jurisdiction - what could be other outcomes in your opinion?
Thanks again!