In response to the language used by Congress in the Law defining U.S. policy towards India, President Bush stated, “Given the Constitutional obligation on the authority of the presidency to direct the country`s foreign policy, the executive will consider these policy statements to be consultative,” citing Sections 103 and 104 (d) (2) of the Act. In order to assure Congress that his work would not be totally rejected, Bush added that the executive branch would “give the weight that should be established between the legislative and executive departments, as long as it is consistent with U.S. foreign policy.” [72] [44] B. Muralidhar Reddy, “Namibia decries ` nuclear apartheid,” The Hindu, October 18, 2016. Canada will be the newest country with which India is expected to conclude a civil nuclear agreement since the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) authorized New Delhi to resume global nuclear trade in September 2008. 01.08.2008: IAEA Board of Governors unanimously adopts a safeguard agreement specific to India. A fact sheet later released by the White House indicated that the agreement was intended to facilitate progress in licensing AP-1000 nuclear reactor technology in India. In response to the differences in fiscal adjustment, he said: “There is a risk that a synchronized fiscal adjustment between several major economies will have a negative effect on the recovery. There is also a risk that the failure of consolidation, if necessary, will undermine confidence and hinder growth. Former Indian president and Indian scientist A. P. J. Abdul Kalam also supported the agreement and noted that New Delhi could break its “voluntary moratorium” on the continuation of nuclear tests in the “greatest national interest.” [145] However, analyst M K Bhadrakumar discouraged.
He said that the consensus on GSS had been reached on the “basis” of Pranab Mukherjee`s commitment to India`s voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing, and India therefore made a “multilateral commitment” that included it in the “scope of the CTBT and the NPT”. [146] The blockade has had an impact to some extent on India`s plans to monitor nuclear energy and establish bilateral relations with other supplier countries. Section 17B of the Act allowed a responsible operator to recover compensation from suppliers in the event of a nuclear accident, with liability maintained for a potentially indeterminate period. [24] This has become a major challenge in the India-U.S. Agreement 123, as it violated international standards of redress in nuclear civil liability agreements, which impose sole liability on operators. India signed an international treaty called the Convention on Supplemental Compensation for Nuclear Damage,[25] which caused concern among its American counterparts due to a divergence in the adoption of the international treaty and Indian national laws. However, during President Barack Obama`s visit to India in 2015, a compromise was reached between the two sides and India agreed to create an insurance pool to protect companies that build reactors in the country. India would thus relieve investors of the payment clause of huge compensation in the event of an incident. [26] The issue of civil liability poses a challenge to India and other states in establishing bilateral and multilateral relations in the area of civil cooperation in the field of nuclear energy.
