Parliament will most likely debate the 123 text next week. One big talking point: did China get a better deal? Trawling through both 123 texts, Pranab Dhal Samanta explains why the opposite is true

National Laws

China: Each party shall implement this agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (Article 2.1).

India: Each party shall implement this agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (Article 2.1).

Reality Check: There is considerable opposition here on the question of the emphasis on “national laws” in the India 123 agreement, thereby underlining the supremacy of the Hyde Act. As is clear, the formulation is identical in China’s case and Beijing is not complaining nor experiencing difficulty.

International Law

China: The parties recognise, with respect to the observance of this agreement, the principle of international law that provides that the party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as a justification for its failure to perform a treaty (Article 2.1). Each proposed export pursuant to the agreement shall be subject to United States’ laws and regulations in effect at the time of each such export (Congressional Joint Resolution, Public Law 99-183, 16 December 1985).

India: This agreement shall be implemented in good faith and in accordance with the principles of international law (Article 16.4). No violation may be considered as being material unless corresponding to the definition of material violation or breach in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 14.3).

... contd.