Regarding the maritime areas beyond national jurisdiction of individual states, the consistently evolving norms of the international marine environment have adopted a forward-looking stance. Japan’s argument that the discharge of radioactive contaminated water from a nuclear power plant is simply not a violation of international law and is comparable to the emission standards of neighboring countries is disappointing as it indicates Japan’s attempt to evade international legal responsibility by complying with the bare minimum of international legal standards. In cases where scientific evidence is required, it is necessary to consider the high probability that prolonged litigation could fail to prevent the discharge of contaminated water. Even if the litigation is successful, there is no guarantee that it would effectively sanction Japan's discharge. Conversely, if the litigation were to end in defeat, there is concern about the potential legitimization of Japan's discharge. Furthermore, at present, it is unclear which sovereign state may bring suit in the context of these international legal proceedings. Therefore, it is important to approach the issue with a long-term policy perspective rather than a narrow assessment solely focused on the current discharge decision. It is worth emphasizing once again that the nuclear accident Japan experienced during the 2011 Tōhoku Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan is a disaster that can occur in any country that uses nuclear power. History has proven this. And yet there is a clear lack of international norms specifically addressing the disposal of nuclear waste into the ocean. Hence, Japan's action regarding the discharge of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant is a significant precedent that provides a valuable opportunity for the international community to dictate the direction it aims to pursue. Failing to seize such an opportunity would be a regrettable occurrence for the international community.