Development of Framing in Legal Debates over “Voluntary Evacuation” in Fukushima Accident and STS Contributions

• In Event: Citizen Bureaucraft - I

Abstract

This paper focuses on debate over the legal reasonableness of so-called “voluntary evacuation” from the area contaminated by radioactive fallouts caused by a nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant on March 11, 2011. Justification of reasonableness of voluntary evacuation is crucially vital for the evacuees to gain due and sufficient compensation for their damages. The paper analyzes two competing types of framing the issue in the debates that have taken place inside and outside the court.

One type of framing focuses on scientific aspects of the issues. It seeks for sound scientific evidence for reasonableness of evacuation, but it tends to emphasize safeness of low dose radiation while placing burden of proof on those claiming riskiness. When communicating risk issues with public, the most important tasks are to correct misunderstanding and misperception of the public based on scientific risk assessment, and, by doing so, to persuade people to assure the safety. In contrast, the another type of framing is first characterized by a concept of precautionary principle. It focuses on uncertainties in scientific evidence for the safeness of radioactive contamination while attaching weight to the evidence suggesting riskiness of even lower dose of radiation. At the same time, it draws attention to socio-normative meaning of risk perception of people.

In the course of formation of court decisions, dominance of framing has shifted from the former to the latter. The paper analyzes this process and lawyers’ attempt to mobilize the concepts of STS concerning risk perception and risk communication.

Author

• Hideyuki Hirakawa, Osaka University