Editor's note: Bobby Naderi, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a London-based journalist, guest contributor in print, radio and television, and documentary filmmaker. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Japan's recent announcement regarding the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean continues to trigger significant global concern and domestic backlash. The controversial decision has not only sparked protests within Japan but has also drawn sharp criticism from neighboring countries.

Despite Japanese government's assertions that the "treated water" is safe, a group of Japanese residents, called the National Liaison Council against the Discharge of Polluted Water from Nuclear Power Plants, have filed a complaint with the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor's Office. The lawsuit accuses Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) President Tomoaki Kohayakawa of negligence.

The complaint claims that radioactively contaminated water still contains radioactive material other than tritium, which is impossible to remove, even after being purified. It adds that this still poses health risks to numerous individuals who consume marine products.

After filing the lawsuit, Kaoru Iwata, a co-representative, stated at a press conference in Tokyo that "the report is purposefully based on predictions since it is unclear what kind of health hazard it [the discharge] would produce."

According to Japanese authorities, the radiation levels in the treated radioactive water have been reduced to safe levels, and the discharge of more than 1 million metric tons is deemed essential to avert additional environmental damage and potential catastrophes. Despite these promises, a number of serious issues about the choice to release the Fukushima treated water loom.

Examining the risks

Even after being processed by the Advanced Liquid Processing System, the release of contaminated water into the ocean carries the risk of long-lasting environmental effects. The treated water still contains radioactive isotopes like tritium and carbon-14, which endangers aquatic life and marine ecosystems. A major worry is the possibility of affecting fishing and the way of life in coastal towns.

Although tritium and carbon-14 release very little radiation, they can be dangerous if consumed in large amounts. These worries have damaged public trust in Japan, especially in communities close to Fukushima, where memories of information delays after the 2011 tragedy are still fresh.

Not surprisingly, Japan's action has also provoked debate throughout the world, particularly among its neighbors China, South Korea, and Russia. Japan has been charged with flouting international agreements and treating the ocean as its "private sewer." The resulting diplomatic and commercial confrontations have brought to light the geopolitical concerns.

Public skepticism and protests

The public in Japan has a deep-seated skepticism about the government's plan. According to an August survey by the newspaper Asahi Shimbun, 41 percent of respondents said they opposed it, while 53 percent supported it. The tragedy of the Fukushima disaster has had a long-lasting effect on public opinion.

Concerns voiced by UN-appointed human rights experts and environmentalists further highlight how complicated the situation is. Greenpeace says TEPCO's treatment method is ineffective in getting rid of radioactive materials, casting doubt on its effectiveness. Critics contend that Japan should keep the contaminated water for the time being to buy more time for the development of more sophisticated processing techniques and the natural elimination of residual radiation.

Additionally, scientists have expressed concerns, highlighting the need for more research on the potential effects on the ocean floor and marine life.

International obligations

Japan's decision to discharge radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean calls into question whether it complies with international agreements and environmental protection principles.

The ocean is regarded as the common inheritance of humanity by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which also requires states to preserve the marine environment. It's possible that Japan's conduct will be seen as a violation of the terms of this treaty.

The 1958 Convention on the High Seas obligates nations to stop ocean degradation that results from the disposal of nuclear waste. It is possible to view Japan's release of radioactive water as a breach of this duty.

More still, the 1996 London Protocol forbids the discharge of garbage into the ocean, with the exception of non-toxic substances with low radioactive levels. This policy might also be broken by Japan's decision to release tritium and carbon-14-laced water.

As a precautionary principle, pollution reduction should not take precedence over pollution prevention in environmental initiatives. Japan is yet to look into options with the least negative effects on the maritime environment, which would emphasize protecting both human and environmental health.

Japan must acknowledge its global responsibilities and take into account alternate options that place a higher priority on safeguarding human health and marine ecosystems instead of politicizing environmental challenges and hoping for the best. Joint efforts to discover long-term solutions for Fukushima's waste water can be made for the benefit of all people in the region and beyond.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)