One such law is Section 103(f)(1) of the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003. Congress amended this provision in 2012, requiring the Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct groundwater monitoring around the Runit Dome every four years. The United States constructed the Runit Dome in the 1970s to contain radioactive waste from the nuclear tests but there are ongoing concerns that radioactive materials are leaking into the oceans, posing threats to the environment and public health. However, the DOE has consistently denied responsibility for monitoring the Runit Dome and has failed to adequately complete studies required under Section 103(f)(1). Congress, as it had previously done so in a 2021 oversight hearing, should promptly require the DOE to act.

Additionally, Section 177 of the Compact (177 Agreement) established a $150 million trust fund to compensate the Marshallese for damages resulting from U.S. nuclear testing. RMI’s Nuclear Claims Tribunal, however, assessed more than $2.3 billion in claims, which means that injured claimants were never fully compensated. Because the 177 Agreement was intended as a “full settlement,” the United States claims that the 177 Agreement bars the Marshallese from pursuing further legal claims against the United States once the $150 million was depleted. There are many issues with this narrow reading of the 177 Agreement.

First, as the OHCHR report points out, the 177 Agreement was signed when RMI was under the control of the United States. Because RMI was not sovereign when it signed the agreement, the provision ratifying the “full settlement” and barring any future claims against the United States could not have reflected the “free and genuine expression of the will” of the Marshallese.

Second, the 177 Agreement contains a “changed circumstances” clause, which allows RMI to request additional claims if new evidence of harm or unforeseen consequences arises. However, the United States has repeatedly denied petitions brought under this clause. In 2000, RMI petitioned Congress, presenting newly declassified information and scientific studies that revealed greater health and environmental impacts than previously acknowledged. Despite these findings, a working group convened by the State Department concluded that the petition did not meet the agreement’s criteria. Congress has also failed to act on the petition.

The United States’s execution of the 177 Agreement is, therefore, inconsistent with its obligations under Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Pursuant to its international obligations, the United States should provide “effective remedy” to those harmed by its nuclear testing.

Above all, this remedy should include a formal apology to the Marshall Islands that acknowledges the United States’s responsibility for the full extent of the harm caused. As part of this acknowledgement, the United States should disclose to the Marshallese all relevant records related to its nuclear legacy in the Marshall Islands, including currently withheld information about nuclear fallout, environmental contamination, and health impacts. Full disclosure will never undo the profound wrongs that the United States inflicted on the Marshallese people. However, consistent with the principle of maximum disclosure, transparency is a necessary step toward healing, rebuilding trust, and redressing the lasting harms of the nuclear testing. In the perennial words of former Marshallese leader Tony de Brum: “[T]here can be no closure without full disclosure.”