Contribution/ Originality: This study contributes in the existing literature relating to the mechanisms adopted by Japan to compensate victims of the Fukushima nuclear accident. There are a lot of lessons to be learnt from Japan's experience in compensation mechanisms and Malaysia may consider adopting such compensation mechanisms into its national legislation. 1. INTRODUCTION On 11 March 2011, northeastern of Japan was hit by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake known as the "Great East Japan Earthquake" and tsunami, which was later followed by the nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). It was reported that the earthquake and tsunami has caused the death of 15,870 people, 6,119 were injured, and 2,813 were missing and also severe damage to the properties and economic loss (Faure and Liu, 2012; United Nations Human Rights, 2013). As a result of this nuclear accident, the Government of Japan (GOJ) and the Tokyo Electric Power Company ("TEPCO"), as the owner and operator of the Fukushima NPP have

Initially, the Government of Malaysia (GOM) agreed to consider deploying nuclear energy as an alternative source of energy in Peninsular Malaysia and planned to build a 2 gigawatts nuclear power plant (NPP) to be operational post 2030. However, after the 2018 General Election (GE), the GOM decided that it will no longer proceed with its nuclear energy program. Despite the GOM"s decision, there is a necessity to further strengthen the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984 (Act 304) particularly regarding nuclear liability issues. Nuclear incidents are transboundary in nature, it can easily spread highly radioactive materials into the environment through water and air, and cause damage to neighboring States. Therefore, this paper aims to explore Act 304, its present and future prospects in dealing with nuclear liability issues. References shall be made to the principles of the global nuclear liability regimes (liability regime). This paper finds that the provisions of Act 304 are consistent with the principles of the liability regime such as the definition of important terms like "nuclear damage", "nuclear incident" and "nuclear installation"; "strict and exclusive liability"; liability limited in amount and time; compulsory financial security; and exoneration. Nonetheless, there are also several shortfalls in Act 304. As for the future prospect, this paper hopes that Act 304 will be amended in accordance with the revised liability regimes which provide enhanced protection to the people, their property and environment. Furthermore, Malaysia should also consider adhering to the liability regime. Contribution/ Originality: This study contributes in the existing literature regarding nuclear liability fromMalaysia"s perspective by conducting comparative analysis between Malaysia"s Act 304 and the liability regimes. This paper"s primary contribution is the finding that Act 304 is consistent with the principles of liability regimes. INTRODUCTIONThe enabling legislation that regulates the peaceful use of nuclear energy and technology in Malaysia is the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984 (Act 304). The Act 304 came into force on 28 June 1984 and has never been amended since it came into force. Although Malaysia has not adhered to any global nuclear liability regime (liability regime), and only possess a one (1) megawatt (MW) nuclear research reactor, TRIGA PUSPATI Reactor (RTP), Part IX of Act 304 (sections 42 -65) deals extensively with issues concerning liability. The majority of the provisions in Part IX are consistent with the principles of liability regime particularly the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage 1963 (the Convention) such as the definition of the terms "nuclear damage",