The 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami triggered the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident, which created unprecedented environmental and health challenges and long-term disputes over compensation.Although the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company introduced a compensation framework, many victims remained dissatisfied, and a significant number of claims remained unsettled.This study critically evaluates the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in this context, analyzing its practical application, inherent limitations, and potential areas for improvement.Methodologically, the study analyzes previous compensation cases and compares them across different contexts.Through case comparison, the conditions under which ADR was applied and their practical performance are identified and evaluated.The findings reveal that although ADR provides flexibility and prevents lengthy litigation, it faces severe limitations in large-scale, collective compensation disputes.Specifically, the lack of enforceability and the protracted nature of negotiations significantly reduce its effectiveness when involving thousands of claims simultaneously.The study further discusses potential improvements, including small-scale collective ADR, which integrates elements of individual and large-scale collective processes to balance efficiency, fairness, and feasibility.While exploratory, this approach illustrates potential directions for enhancing dispute-resolution mechanisms in future disaster contexts.By highlighting both the limitations of ADR and possible avenues for reform, the study contributes to the broader debate on compensation frameworks in Japan.It offers insights that may inform future responses to large-scale industrial disasters worldwide.
Hongfang Liu (Fri,) studied this question.