 talk to us about these aspects. And the session moderator or the chairman of today's session is Mr. Patrick Reinus, who is standing in front of you. He is from the French nuclear industry. He has a lot of experience. And some of you might have seen him as a project guide and associated with him. And we also have Andrea, my colleague from IAEA. He is a senior legal expert from IAEA. He would be also talking to you subsequently. Followed by that, we are going to talk about legal aspects of IAEA safeguards. There is a safeguards legal expert coming from IAEA, Sylvain, who would be showing up here soon. In the afternoon, he will talk about these aspects briefly. And also we have another expert, William Folk, from the Pillsbury company. He would also share his information and thoughts. So a lot of things to talk about today about the legal aspects. So without wasting much time, I will hand it over to Patrick Reinus to take the proceedings of the day. Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. No problem. Could you hear me? And actually, today, one of my hats is to be the secretary general of what is the International Nuclear Law Association that is the World Association of Specialists of Nuclear Law. Maybe I may say a word about this and as a close of our day. Our busy day, certainly. You may wonder, at least rhetorically, why devoting one particular day in this dense program on management to legal aspect. The point is that you have covered already since the beginning of the course a variety of important subjects, radiation protection, nuclear safety, security, waste management, non-polyphorization, safeguards. And all these aspects, I'm sure you realize that, independently of your personal background, are based on a need to be based on a strong legal foundation. That's essentially why we have decided to devote this particular day to the legal aspect. Our program today is indeed quite comprehensive and therefore very compact. It will extend from nuclear safety to a new bill, including liability, non-polyphorization, security. And we therefore propose to invite you to put some questions within the limited time after each particular presentation, which is also why I will ask my dear colleagues starting with Prof. Joya to try to limit to their allocated time, including myself with my first presentation. Very briefly, now in eighth question, why is special law for nuclear energy? The point is that nuclear activities involves risk, special risk, which needs to be severely strictly controlled managed. If there were no benefits associated with the use of nuclear energy, nuclear materials, then life would be simpler. You would simply prohibit any such activities. Some activities involving radioactive materials are prohibited. For example, you cannot introduce radioactive materials into toys or some general consumption products because the advantage does not offset the risk. So interdiction is a rule. That's simple. But when you have to consider that there is sufficient benefit, then you, of course, you must introduce specific legal arrangement to protect the population. So this is one of the essential aspects of this activity. It is an activity at risk. As a common thread of all nuclear law, all aspects, even remote aspects, like safeguard, the common thread of all nuclear law is the existence of radioactivity and the risk associated with radioactivity. Of course, one must not also ignore the historical origin of nuclear energy that is started with a military program. And today, as somebody said, you cannot reinvent the bomb. So you have to live with this legacy of the military applications. A little closely associated with science and technology, I need not insist on that. A multidisciplinary legal system, because the regulation of nuclear activities involves a number of very specific elements of law, like radiation protection law, safety, security. But they also associate with branches of law, which are not nuclear specific, like, for example, transport or energy. Strong influence of state policy interventions in most practically all countries, at least if you talk about the generation of electricity of energy with nuclear, these are highly strategic programs, strat program of extreme national importance. The influence of the state in policy making is very strong. The existence of the risk requires also the state to regulate strictly these activities. So overall, a very strong influence. High level of internationalization. It does transpire through the complex architecture of international instruments, which we'll be introducing in the course of the day. But also, the original point is that nuclear law started in existence, started to be developed shortly after the Second World War. And all the countries, interested countries, combine their expertise, combine their strength into working together to develop common rules. And this is rather unique with you compare that with the regulation of other activities. And of course, the IEA has been the central point of such internationalization. And a close interaction with environmental law. Nuclear law, in fact, predates environmental law. The turning point was in 1972 with the United Nations Convention in Stockholm on environmental law, a declaration of principle. At that time, it was recognized that there were interactions between nuclear law and environmental law on a number of aspects. Since the ever-non-irresistible expansion of environmental law means that today, modern environmental law does include large aspects of nuclear law. Not all, of course. Non-proliferation is flowing to environmental law, at least to a large degree. But to a large extent, the frontier between environmental law and nuclear law are kind of blurred. The main branch that is reflected by our program today, by the program of this course, I need not to insist, except that nuclear security covers also aspects of physical protection, anti-traffic terrorism, for example. Transport is very important when you deal with nuclear safety. And when you talk about the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, you must not forget that there are aspects of management of industry program in respect of nuclear energy. That, therefore, raises the question of whether the policy of trade, the policy of exports, is consistent with the policy objective of non-proliferation. That requires specific arrangements. And, of course, liabilities compensation. When the prevention of accidents has failed, then you must, of course, confront the situation of compensation. An objective, generally, there is a consensus to formulate it here. A legal framework for the conduct of activities relating to nuclear energy and ionizing radiation. This is very important. It's not only the operation of large nuclear power reactors. It's also in every day the use of predictive material for a variety of medical and other purpose that adequately protect individuals, property, and the environment. Although, let's be honest, in most international instruments, there is a reference to the protection of the environment. This is politically obligatory today. You will not find much specific provisions in respect of the protection of the environment in international nuclear instruments. An effort at definition, the body of special nuclear norms to regulate, control the conduct of persons engaged in activities. Related, again, efficient development materials and other materials in between radiation. Principles, I guess most of these principles are very familiar to you. I don't think I need to elaborate much on that, because I understand that they have already been introduced to a large extent. I would simply maybe mention that by continuous control of bi-competent authorities, this is a policy to ensure that any material, any activity, does not escape regulatory control from grave, from cradle to grave. That's the end. This is the same policy which applies to the law on nuclear liability. And in respect of the separation of regulatory and promotional functions, this is today reflected in the nuclear safety convention, for example, 1994. But it was introduced some 30 years before, 20 years before. Sorry, are in the United States by a decision to split the old atomic energy commission into new instruments, the nuclear regulatory commission on the one side, and the IRDA, now the Department of Energy on the other side, as often this policy was initiated in the United States, and then it spread in most other countries. You might wish to add, but it is not nuclear specific, you might wish to add at this list of principles the precautionary principles. Are you familiar with the precautionary principles? It's a principle which appears now in a number of instruments, not specifically nuclear instruments in national laws, which suggests that when a risk is identified, though, in fact, the scientific foundation of this risk are still somewhat uncertain, are the precautionary, you should suspend the use, the application of this activity, unless and until the matter can be clarified. So it's not a day-to-day or ordinary prudence principle which is something that everybody should follow. It's an anticipation on the existence of a risk which is not yet completely understood and therefore controlled. Culture, I guess that is very clear for you. I will not elaborate. I remember that there was a discussion yesterday about the distinction between the concept of safety culture and the concept of security culture. So again, I do not wish to elaborate. It's not worth to say and to acknowledge the limits of law. You cannot really legislate and control safety culture. You integrate safety culture. You integrate security culture. But while you can express this in terms of objective, you cannot effectively state by law, you will abide by safety culture. It's something which comes from you. That's typically something which is cultural. And how nuclear law to conclude those feet in the national legal framework, it's part of hierarchy. On top, you have constitutions of states. And in most states, international treaties, regularly adopted, confirmed, are on the same level as the constitutions, which means that they are a step above ordinary national laws. National laws must conform with the commitment under international treaties. There are exceptions, but that is the case for both countries. You may ask yourself, is that the case for my particular country? We can discuss it. Below the legislative level, of course, Act of the Parliament. And below the regulatory level, acts of government, such as decrease, ordinances, orders, whatever. And then you have a non-mandatory guidance document. And there is a particular case of the license conditions, which are, to some extent, from a legal viewpoint, are partly regulatory, partly contractuals. Because the license confirms the rights and obligations to a given individual company, person, and that person commits to abide by the conditions of the license. So there is a contractual dimension in the licensing exercise. Would it be possible to show the other table, which I thank you? And that would be the end of my presentation. New covering. Yes, this other diagram, which I borrowed from my former NEA colleagues, shows things slightly differently by showing something which is very important, which is the distinction between what you might call the hard law and the soft law. Soft law. Are you familiar with the concept of soft law? Well, typically, any government body entrusted by its constitution to make regulations is enacting such regulations. And all citizens of the country must abide by this regulation. Otherwise, they may be subject to a variety of sanctions. So it's effective and mandatory. But it has proved in the course, not only in respect of nuclear activities. It's very true for the protection of the environment, for example. But it has proved, over time, useful, convenient to enact arrangements which have normative nature, which are legal nature, but which are not, however, strictly mandatory. Very often, these elements of soft law are either a kind of anticipatory on the development of strict regulations. Or, alternatively, they have a nature which, although it is regulatory, it does not benefit from being imposed as a strict regulation. And there are advantages to that. Because, particularly when you want to develop international instruments, if you decide that such rules will be mandatory, then, of course, all countries must figure it twice before accepting these rules. Because they know that there will be responsible to enforce them. These rules, though reflecting a very large international consensus, may create some difficulties for them on one or the other aspect. So to stay on the level of recommendations, this is the expression used by the IA executive bodies, for example, to stay on the level of recommendations facilitates the dissemination of these good practices, best practices, for example, of these scientific and technical recommendations. And then they come short of making it mandatory. Because to make them mandatory in the process of formulation of this norm might crystallize opposition. Even if there is a scientific and technical consensus by experts concerned in the formulation, one country will say, it does not coincide with the way I'm doing things at the moment. They're going to create problem at all. So I'm going to vote against. And therefore, you have sometimes the law of the lowest common denominator. Everything which creates a problem for the country is removed. So again, one advantage of soft-flow arrangement, provided they are scientifically authoritative, the advantage of soft-flow instruments is that they can effectively be implemented with a greater flexibility and without breaking sometimes the opposition of individual countries. So soft-flow has been much used in the context of nuclear energy. And all the very wide sector of technical recommendations, this is soft-flow. But in a moment, for example, Professor Joyer will introduce instruments which are hard-low or positive low, as you may call it. So that Pierre Ramey reflects this arrangement between hard-low and soft-flow. And being clearly understood that if you talk of legislation, if you talk of post-constitutional treaties, if you talk of regulations per se, these are effectively mandatory. But on the top, then you have a large series of instruments which belong to the category of soft-flow. This is what I wish to introduce. And we'll proceed now to the first presentation of today's program. And that presentation will be introduced by Professor Andrea Joyer. Andrea, you're Italian, by the way. And you have had a distinguished academic career, particularly teaching at the University of Modena, which is not very far from here. But you joined several years ago the IA. I remember that maybe you would confirm that your first appearance in an IA meeting, one of the occasions of the revision of the Vienna Convention on Nuclear Liability as part of the Italian delegation. And for good or bad reasons, it was felt that you could not escape the IA to propose you to stay, first as a consultant. And then now you are firmly established in the Office of Nuclear Law of the IA as senior legal officer. It should be said that the IA has wide responsibility involving nuclear activity, nuclear law. And besides its functions as supporting the operation of the Vienna Agency, Office of Nuclear Affairs is a boutique, is really a shop, but I'm saying that with your respect, of specialist of nuclear law. And it's our privilege today to have several of IA colleagues coming to make presentation, starting with you, Andrea. Thank you very much.