The Legal Heritage of the Atom 151
primarily in resettlement and housing construction, social protection measures had priority in Ukraine. The Belarusian laws for Chernobyl victims
provided social benefits for about 2.1 million people (one-fifth of the total
population). Ukrainian laws included about 3.1 million people (6% of the
Ukrainian population). 53
Adriana Petryna and Astrid Sahm, in their studies, nevertheless concluded that in Belarus as a whole comparatively less funds were spent on
supporting Chernobyl victims than in Ukraine. Since 1996, expenditure in
the Belarusian state budget for the elimination of the consequences of the
Chernobyl disaster had been reduced to a minimum. This can also be seen in
connection with the construction of the first nuclear power plant in Belarus.
The Belarusian social law has been amended more than 16 times up until
today, and social benefits for Chernobyl victims have been gradually reduced.
Among other things, the number of residential areas recognized as contaminated in Belarus has been continuously reduced to date. 54 As a result, people from these villages are no longer able to benefit from the social support
for Chernobyl victims. Moreover, the liquidators gradually lost their special
status among the injured and benefits granted earlier, such as assumption of
50% of the rental costs, interest-free building loans, as other benefits were
already removed in the 2009 amendment of the law. The status of Chernobyl
claimants has been treated since then in the same way as that of “normal”
disabled people. 55
Nonetheless, in Ukraine, there were also practical problems and budget
bottlenecks in the implementation of the laws, as the declarations of independence in August 1991 exacerbated the problem of program financing. For
example, the inhabitants of the city of Kyiv had been ignored mainly for cost
reasons, although the radioactive contamination in some parts of the city was
considerable and corresponded to the resettlement criteria. 56 As mentioned
above, the Ukrainian state’s payment problems have more recently given rise
to a wave of claims filed by thousands of affected persons with the ECHR.
Adriana Petryna has coined the term “biological citizenship” for the way
in which Chernobyl victims in Ukraine claimed compensation based on
their exposed bodies. According to Petryna, in post-Soviet Ukraine, where
democratization was linked to a harsh market transition, the injured biology of a population has become the basis for social membership and staking
claims to citizenship. Government-operated radiation research clinics and
non-governmental organizations mediated an informal economy of illness
and claims to a “biological citizenship.” This implied a form of social welfare
based on medical, scientific, and legal criteria that recognized (on a limited
scale) injury and thus compensated for it. Petryna shows how communities of
“at-risk” populations came into being, how norms of citizenship changed, and
how these processes were related to institutions of medicine and law in Ukraine.
In this situation, reparations became an important source of income for many
of the victims, and their injured bodies now formed the basis for civil rights
and public recognition. This led to an informal economy of disease in which
primarily in resettlement and housing construction, social protection measures had priority in Ukraine. The Belarusian laws for Chernobyl victims
provided social benefits for about 2.1 million people (one-fifth of the total
population). Ukrainian laws included about 3.1 million people (6% of the
Ukrainian population). 53
Adriana Petryna and Astrid Sahm, in their studies, nevertheless concluded that in Belarus as a whole comparatively less funds were spent on
supporting Chernobyl victims than in Ukraine. Since 1996, expenditure in
the Belarusian state budget for the elimination of the consequences of the
Chernobyl disaster had been reduced to a minimum. This can also be seen in
connection with the construction of the first nuclear power plant in Belarus.
The Belarusian social law has been amended more than 16 times up until
today, and social benefits for Chernobyl victims have been gradually reduced.
Among other things, the number of residential areas recognized as contaminated in Belarus has been continuously reduced to date. 54 As a result, people from these villages are no longer able to benefit from the social support
for Chernobyl victims. Moreover, the liquidators gradually lost their special
status among the injured and benefits granted earlier, such as assumption of
50% of the rental costs, interest-free building loans, as other benefits were
already removed in the 2009 amendment of the law. The status of Chernobyl
claimants has been treated since then in the same way as that of “normal”
disabled people. 55
Nonetheless, in Ukraine, there were also practical problems and budget
bottlenecks in the implementation of the laws, as the declarations of independence in August 1991 exacerbated the problem of program financing. For
example, the inhabitants of the city of Kyiv had been ignored mainly for cost
reasons, although the radioactive contamination in some parts of the city was
considerable and corresponded to the resettlement criteria. 56 As mentioned
above, the Ukrainian state’s payment problems have more recently given rise
to a wave of claims filed by thousands of affected persons with the ECHR.
Adriana Petryna has coined the term “biological citizenship” for the way
in which Chernobyl victims in Ukraine claimed compensation based on
their exposed bodies. According to Petryna, in post-Soviet Ukraine, where
democratization was linked to a harsh market transition, the injured biology of a population has become the basis for social membership and staking
claims to citizenship. Government-operated radiation research clinics and
non-governmental organizations mediated an informal economy of illness
and claims to a “biological citizenship.” This implied a form of social welfare
based on medical, scientific, and legal criteria that recognized (on a limited
scale) injury and thus compensated for it. Petryna shows how communities of
“at-risk” populations came into being, how norms of citizenship changed, and
how these processes were related to institutions of medicine and law in Ukraine.
In this situation, reparations became an important source of income for many
of the victims, and their injured bodies now formed the basis for civil rights
and public recognition. This led to an informal economy of disease in which