Abstract
This chapter has two goals. First, I will present justice as an overarching notion for addressing the ethical issues of disaster governance. In different stages of disaster mitigation, preparation, response and recovery, there are three justice issues at play, namely distributive justice, recognition of those affected and procedural justice. Then second goal of this chapter is to spell out implications of procedural justice for disaster governance. More specifically, I argue that good governance of disasters requires that we at least warrant (i) the quality of information (i.e. transparency, credibility of knowledge and information and trust) and (ii) the fairness in stakeholders engagement (i.e. inclusiveness and due process in participation). Could citizen science contribute to more reliable and transparent information and more accountable local and national governments and corporations? Would regional (i.e. supranational) disaster governance better ensure the credibility and transparency of information?
The chapter will focus on disasters that involve radiological risk such as the Fukushima-Daiichi disaster in 2011, but the rationale of the argument is more broadly applicable. Similar to discussions on good governance of risk, I argue that the ambition of good disaster governance should be to provide a conceptual and normative framework to deal with the complexity of knowledge and information and to ensure a fair process during all stages of disaster governance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
There is also a recent discussion, started by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) , on the ethical foundation of the system of radiological protection. The findings will culminate in the publication of a new guideline publication that will spell out these ethical issues and help practitioners by providing the relevant tools and procedures that could be used (ICRP 2018). While the publication is about radiological risks in general, I believe that there are some interesting lessons to be learned for disaster governance in the case of nuclear risk.
- 2.
- 3.
For the purpose of this chapter I will not distinguish between principles of equity and justice. In this chapter they will be taken to mean the same.
- 4.
- 5.
The distinction mentioned here, but also my account of why justice matters in disaster governance is somewhat building on the ongoing discussions on Energy Justice, which in turn stem from the literature on environmental justice. The Energy Justice scholarship propose a tripartite model of distribution, procedure and recognition (e.g. Jenkins et al. 2016).
- 6.
This is in line with the ICRP’s Justification Principle which requires that any decision that alters the radiation exposure situation should do more good than harm (ICRP 2007).
- 7.
Prudence is one of the values that the ICRP is promoting as a key value in the system of radiological protection. This is part of the ongoing discussion on stipulating key values, but prudence has been a value discussed in previous ICRP-publications such as in ICRP (2007).
- 8.
This is based on an Open Source Network known as Safecast, which enabled citizens with no knowledge about radiation to contribute to the collection of data by using do-it-yourself kits. http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/13/how-citizen-science-changed-the-way-fukushima-radiation-is-reported
- 9.
This has important implications for the destining of nuclear policy and nuclear technologies such as reactors (Taebi and Kloosterman 2015).
References
Ahn, J., C. Carsen, M. Jensen, K. Juraku, S. Nagasaki, and S. Tanaka, eds. 2015. Reflections on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident – Toward social-scientific literacy and engineering resilience. Heidelberg: Springer Open.
Asveld, L., and S. Roeser, eds. 2009. The ethics of technological risk. London: Earthscan.
Bonney, R., J.L. Shirk, T.B. Phillips, A. Wiggins, H.L. Ballard, A.J. Miller-Rushing, and J.K. Parrish. 2014. Next steps for citizen science. Science 343: 1436–1437.
Bunn, M., and O. Heinonen. 2011. Preventing the next Fukushima. Science 333: 1580–1581. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1209668.
Crall, A.W., G.J. Newman, T.J. Stohlgren, K.A. Holfelder, J. Graham, and D.M. Waller. 2011. Assessing citizen science data quality: An invasive species case study. Conservation Letters 4: 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00196.x.
Doorn, Neelke. 2015. Resilience indicators: Opportunities for including distributive justice concerns in disaster management. Journal of Risk Research: 1–21.
Figueroa, P. 2016. Nuclear risk governance in Japan and the Fukushima triple disaster: Lessons unlearned. In Disaster governance in an urbanising Asia, ed. M.A. Miller and M. Douglass, 263–282. Singapore: Springer.
Gardiner, S. 2008. Why we need more than justification in the ethics of radiological protection: A view from outside. In Ethics and radiological protection, ed. G. Eggermont and B. Feltz, 97–111. Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia-Bruylant.
Hansson, S.O. 2015. Nuclear energy and the ethics of radiation protection. In The ethics of nuclear energy: Risk, justice and democracy in the post-Fukushima era, ed. B. Taebi and S. Roeser, 17–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ICRP. 1977. Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Publication 26. Annals of the ICRP 1 (3). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
———. 1991. 1990 Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP Publication 60. Annals of the ICRP 21 (1–3). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
———. 2007. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Publication 103. Annals of the ICRP 37 (2–4). Oxford: Elsevier.
———. 2018. Ethical foundations of the system of radiological protection. Publication 138. Annals of the ICRP 47 (1). Sage.
Jenkins, K., D. McCauley, R. Heffron, H. Stephan, and R. Rehner. 2016. Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science 11: 174–182.
Kaliarnta, S., M. Hage, and S. Roeser. 2014. Involving stakeholders in risk governance. In Trade, health and the environment: The European Union put to the test, ed. M. Everson, E. Vos, and M.B.A. van Asselt, 235–253. London: Routledge.
Kermisch, C., and B. Taebi. 2017. Sustainability, ethics and nuclear energy: Escaping the dichotomy. Sustainability 9: 446.
Lochbaum, D., E. Lyman, S.Q. Stranahan, et al. 2014. Fukushima: The story of a nuclear disaster. New York/London: The New Press.
Oughton, D., and S.O. Hansson. 2013. Social and ethical aspects of radiation risk management. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Page, E. 2006. Climate change, justice and future generations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Rothstein, Bo. 2011. The quality of government: Corruption, social trust, and inequality in international perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 2012. Good governance. In The Oxford handbook of governance, ed. David Levi-Faur, 143–154. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Salzer, P., J. Pritrsky, A. Mrskova, and P. Richardson. 2012. The status of multinational waste management solutions. Deliverable 3.3. of the IPPA (Implementing Public Participation Approaches in Radioactive Waste Disposal).
Scarce, K. 2016. Nuclear fuel cycle Royal Commission report. Adelaide: Government of South Australia.
Taebi, B. 2012a. Multinational nuclear waste repositories and their complex issues of justice. Ethics, Policy & Environment 15: 57–62.
———. 2012b. Intergenerational risks of nuclear energy. In Handbook of risk theory. Epistemology, decision theory, ethics and social implications of risk, ed. S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, and M. Peterson, 295–318. Dordrecht: Springer.
———. 2017. Bridging the gap between social acceptance and ethical acceptability. Risk Analysis 37: 1817–1827.
———. 2018. How to bridge the gap between social acceptance and ethical acceptability: A Rawlsian approach. In Environmental health risks. Ethical aspects, ed. F. Zölzer and G. Meskens, 45–64. Abingdon: Earthscan from Routledge.
Taebi, B., and J.L. Kloosterman. 2015. Design for values in nuclear technology. In Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application domains, ed. J. Van den Hoven, P. Vermaas, and I. Van de Poel, 805–829. Dordrecht: Springer.
Taebi, B., and M. Mayer. 2017. By accident or by design? Pushing global governance of nuclear safety. Progress in Nuclear Energy 99: 19–25.
Taebi, B., and S. Roeser, eds. 2015. The ethics of nuclear energy: Risk, justice and democracy in the post-Fukushima era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taebi, B., S. Roeser, and I. Van de Poel. 2012. The ethics of nuclear power: Social experiments, intergenerational justice, and emotions. Energy Policy 51: 202–206.
Taebi, B., A. Correljé, E. Cuppen, E. van de Grift, and U. Pesch. 2016. Ethics and impact assessments of large energy projects. In Proceedings of the IEEE.Ethics 2016. Vancouver.
UN. 2015. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. Sendai: United Nations (UN).
Valentin, J. 2013. Radiation risks and the ICRP. In Social and ethical aspects of radiation risk management, ed. D. Oughton and S.O. Hansson, 17–32. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
van Asselt, M.B.A., and O. Renn. 2011. Risk governance. Journal of Risk Research 14: 431–449.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Taebi, B. (2019). Justice and Good Governance in Nuclear Disasters. In: O'Mathúna, D., de Miguel Beriain, I. (eds) Ethics and Law for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear & Explosive Crises. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11977-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11977-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11976-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11977-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)