• Homepage
  • Blog
  • General
  • The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, President Trump’s proposal for ownership transfer, and liability for nuclear damages

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, President Trump’s proposal for ownership transfer, and liability for nuclear damages

By Jakub Handrlica
Published on 23 June 2025

Introduction

Nuclear power plants (NPP, NPPs) generate approximately half of Ukraine’s electricity. There are two reactors at the Khmelnytskyi NPP, four reactors at the Rivne NPP, three reactors at the South Ukraine NPP, and six reactors at the Zaporizhzhia NPP. Zaporizhzhia NPP is considered the largest NPP in Europe and among the ten largest in the world.

With the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine starting in February 2022, the safety situation of Ukrainian NPPs has been the focus of the international community of States. For the very first time in history, a NPP has become a military objective on the front lines of a war, namely the Zaporizhzhia NPP, which has become the target of military attacks several times from both sides of the conflict. A potential nuclear incident at the largest NPP in Europe will cause a profound transboundary impact. Radiation release will cause damage to human health and to the environment, both in the territory of Ukraine and abroad.

On 30 September 2022, the Russian Federation declared unilateral annexation of the territory of the Zaporizhzhia region (oblast), together with the Donetsk, Cherson and Luhansk regions. At the same time, the Russian Federation took control over the Zaporizhzhia NPP from the Ukrainian state company Energoatom. Since then, the Zaporizhzhia NPP has been operated by Rosatom, a state-controlled nuclear power company from Russia.

The future status of the Ukrainian NPPs is now a significant issue in President Trump’s negotiations. Amid ceasefire talks in March 2025, Donald Trump suggested that US ownership could be the best protection for these sensitive installations. In the aftermath, it was clarified that the actual proposal concerns only the Zaporizhzhia NPP and aims to guarantee that the electricity supply will be in the hands of a party not involved in the military conflict.

The proposal outlined caused considerable discussion in Ukraine and beyond. The details of this proposal have not been disclosed yet, and its future realisation remains uncertain. Despite these uncertainties, this blog post aims to analyse one particular aspect of this proposal: the implications of the ownership transfer for nuclear liability. This blog post will work with the scenario in which ownership of the Zaporizhzhia NPP is transferred from the current owner (Ukrainian state company Energoatom) to a US corporation that owns NPPs in the US, or a newly tailor-made subsidiary (US corporation). It argues that ownership transfer also implies the transfer of liability for nuclear damages that may arise with respect to any future incidents.

Nuclear liability in Ukraine 

Similar to other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, Ukraine is a Contracting Party to the 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (1963 Vienna Convention). Ukraine’s national legislation provides that nuclear liability issues are governed by the 2001 Law on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and its Financial Security (Law on Nuclear Liability). As explained in more detail below, while the US is not a party to the 1963 Vienna Convention, the US corporation owing the NPP in the territory of Ukraine will still be governed by the Convention and Ukraine’s Law on Nuclear Liability. Importantly, Ukraine’s regime for nuclear damages, as established by these legal instruments, contains significant deviations from the general regime of tort law. The main principles of Ukraine’s regime are as follows:

  1. Liability for nuclear damages is channelled to the person who controls and steers the nuclear installation in question. This person is referred to as an operator, that is, the person who holds the licence for operation of the concerned nuclear installation, as issued by the competent Ukrainian nuclear regulator. In principle, no other person bears liability for damages that occur because of an incident in the nuclear installation.
  2. The operator’s liability is absolute, and exoneration is only available in cases of an armed conflict, hostilities, civil war, insurrection, or a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character.
  3. Operator liability for nuclear damage is limited to the equivalent of 150 million Special Drawing Rights in Ukraine’s currency for each nuclear incident.
  4. The operator must maintain financial security to cover his liability for nuclear damage within limits equivalent to 150 million Special Drawing Rights for each nuclear incident. The operator may provide financial security by insurance or by obtaining other types of financial security as envisaged in Ukrainian law.
  5. If damage occurs because of a nuclear incident in one of the NPPs being operated in Ukraine, the Ukrainian court will be exclusively competent to decide on all claims.

President Trump’s proposal and nuclear liability

One needs to consider that any US involvement in the ownership (and subsequent operation) of NPPs in Ukraine will also have consequences in terms of nuclear liability. If a US corporation owns the Zaporizhzhia NPP, it will be considered an operator under the 1963 Vienna Convention and the Law on Nuclear Liability. Thus, the US corporation will bear exclusive liability for any damages that may occur because of a nuclear incident.

Having said this, one must bear in mind that a nuclear incident in the Zaporizhzhia NPP will most probably cause damage in Ukraine and abroad. Most of the potentially affected countries of Eastern and Central Europe are, in the same vein as Ukraine, Contracting Parties to the 1963 Vienna Convention. Under the Convention, the US corporation will also be exclusively liable for any damages that occur in the territory of these Contracting Parties because of a nuclear incident in the Zaporizhzhia NPP.

Ukraine is also a Contracting Party to the 1988 Joint Protocol Relating to the Application of the Vienna Convention and the Paris Convention (Joint Protocol). This fact further enlarges the range of damages which the US corporation would be liable to pay. The Joint Protocol provides for a ‘legal bridge’ to the liability regime, as established in Western Europe by the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy. Consequently, the US corporation will also be liable for damages occurring in the territory of countries such as Germany, France, Italy, etc.

Liability of the US corporation with respect to the armed conflict

President Trump’s proposal was made within the much broader context of a prospective peace settlement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Thus, it is presumed that ownership of the Zaporizhzhia NPP by a US corporation will discourage any further military attacks on the installation and facilitate a reliable supply of electricity to the concerned region.

However, one must highlight that any continuation of military operations will mean considerable risk for the US corporation. The 1963 Vienna Convention provides that ‘no liability under this Convention shall attach to an operator for nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident directly due to an act of armed conflict, hostilities, civil war or insurrection’ (Article IV. 3. a). However, this provision is to be interpreted and applied in a restrictive way.

In this respect, Nathalie L. J. T. Horbach and Omer F. Brown have very recently argued that the war-like exoneration was only intended to cover such exceptional circumstances under which ‘law and order might break down’. Further, they argued that from the travaux préparatoires of the 1963 Vienna Convention, it can be discerned that exoneration of liability only applies in exceptional situations in which a war-like act directly causes nuclear damage, e.g. in situations that are entirely beyond human control, and thus will become the responsibility of the nation. This would include bombing or other military attacks directed against NPPs. It would not include situations in which operational control of the installation has been compromised through ongoing hostilities. In such a case, the liability of the US corporation would apply.

Conclusions

The suggested ownership transfer concerning the Zaporizhzhia NPP implies a myriad of legal questions, and nuclear liability is one of them. If a US corporation takes over the ownership to the Zaporizhzhia NPP, this will also mean that this entity is liable for nuclear damages that may potentially occur because of an incident at the NPP. The fact that the NPP is currently right in the centre of military operations makes this potential ownership change even more sensitive. In this respect, realising President Trump’s proposal will also create an obligation for the US corporation to maintain financial security pursuant to the Law on Nuclear Liability, and to compensate potential nuclear damages that may arise both in the territory of Ukraine and abroad in Central Europe. One must bear in mind that Ukraine’s competent courts will be the responsible adjudicating body in deciding on compensation. These are all issues that must be considered in any future considerations about the ownership transfer regarding the Zaporizhzhia NPP. 

Jakub Handrlica is a full professor at the Law Faculty, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic. In May 2025, he visited the Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore as a Distinguished Visiting Scholar.