In its statement published on GOV.UK for the 10th Review Meeting of the Convention on Nuclear Safety, the United Kingdom said it remains gravely concerned by the nuclear safety risks created by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The statement placed particular weight on Russia’s continued presence at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, arguing that the situation has prevented Ukraine’s competent authorities from exercising effective regulatory control over the site. That point matters because the Convention is built around clear lines of legal responsibility. The UK’s position is that Ukraine, as the recognised state authority, cannot fully discharge its duties as a Contracting Party while its nuclear installation remains subject to external military control.
The statement then moved from safety risk to regulatory legitimacy. The UK rejected Russia’s claim that Zaporizhzhia has been transferred to Russian jurisdiction and dismissed Moscow’s attempt to report on the plant under the Convention. In doing so, the UK aligned itself fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s standing position that Zaporizhzhia remains a Ukrainian nuclear installation. The effect of that wording is to leave no room for parallel claims of authority within the Convention’s reporting process.
The legal argument set out by the UK was narrow but decisive. Referring to Article 4 of the Convention on Nuclear Safety, the statement said that only Ukraine is entitled to report on the safety of Zaporizhzhia. The UK further argued that reporting by a state which neither lawfully owns nor lawfully regulates a nuclear installation is not credible. In the government’s account, accepting such reporting would do more than distort one country submission; it would weaken the integrity of the Convention’s wider peer review arrangements. The UK therefore called on the Review Meeting, under the President’s leadership, to reject any such reporting and to uphold the principles on which the Convention rests.
The statement also framed Russia’s conduct as incompatible with the Convention’s stated purpose. The UK said Russia’s actions have shown disregard for the Convention’s objectives and obligations by exposing nuclear installations to risks for which they were neither designed nor licensed. That argument goes beyond the question of territorial control. The UK said interference with independent regulatory oversight, together with disruption to the responsibilities of the lawful licence holder, prevents the relevant Ukrainian organisations from meeting their duties under Articles 8 and 9. It added that the presence of unauthorised personnel at the plant is incompatible with the Convention’s aim of maintaining a high level of nuclear safety.
Alongside its criticism of Russia, the UK used the statement to commend Ukraine’s continued participation in the Review Meeting. The government said Ukraine has continued to meet its obligations under the Convention in exceptionally difficult circumstances. That recognition is important in institutional terms. It signals that, in the UK’s view, Ukraine remains the valid reporting authority under the treaty even while its ability to act on the ground is being obstructed.
The statement ended with a clear endorsement of the IAEA’s operational role in Ukraine. The UK expressed full support for the Agency’s work to reduce the risk of a nuclear accident and to maintain nuclear safety under what it described as unprecedented conditions. It also paid tribute to IAEA staff working in those conditions. That closing passage places the UK’s intervention within a wider effort to defend both the practical safety arrangements around Zaporizhzhia and the legal standards that govern how nuclear installations are supervised and reported under international convention rules.