So Libya intends, with France's help, to build a nuclear reactor, by its coast, for civil purposes, to provide the energy for the production of potable water. Would this reactor, so close to Malta, throw us into the proverbial soup? The last time I looked, around three-quarters of the respondents to this newspaper's online poll thought such a reactor would greatly increase the risk to Malta's environmental security.

Risk assessment needs to be based on a scan of the available options. At the moment, Maltese public discussion assumes only two. There is a third option available, however, that should be discussed, particularly since it arguably safeguards Malta's interests better than the current two.

But first, what are the two options being discussed?

One can take the view - expressed explicitly in this way by the opposition but apparently shared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - that Libya is a sovereign state and that one cannot interfere in an internal matter. Both the government and opposition agree that, in the final analysis, there is no added risk that should greatly concern Malta. Let us call this the official view (while conceding that there may be more to the actual official view than we are currently being told).

Or else one can take the alarmed view - pressed by Alternattiva Demokratika, by much of the editorial comment in the print media and probably much more representative of public opinion - that there is a lot to be concerned about. In particular, even allowing for benign intentions, a nuclear accident might happen, with its environmental effects spreading to Malta. Therefore France was mistaken in offering such aid, and the EU should, somehow, do something, anything, whatever is possible, to stop this project from going through. Let us call this the alarmed view.

The alarmed view accuses the official view of increasing Malta's risk by its complacency. Although the argument has not been publicly made so far, the alarmed view could add that international law in matters like this - where environmental risk could be spread to third parties - qualifies state sovereignty, in any case.

As it happens, I doubt either government or opposition are complacent about this development; and, as this newspaper reported, there are nuclear energy experts available to support the official view as well as the alarmed one. I would be surprised if backroom dialogue is not going on.

In addition, however, there is an argument that, although it has not been officially made so far, could be made about the alarmed view, namely, that the alarmed view, if acted on, could increase the risk to Malta's security.

How come? There are currently many nuclear plants being built for civil purposes around the world. We have heard about Iran's claims. But there are about a dozen being built by India and China between them. Russia is pioneering a floating nuclear power station.

All this, apart from the fact that some European countries, not just France, have such plants; so does the US. And more are planned - Finland is behind schedule, but it could have one by 2010. In fact, there are so many nuclear plants around and on the way, that it is quite possible that the price of uranium is going to shoot up.

All these countries have their reasons, some of which are respectable. There are distinguished environmentalists who believe that nuclear power (for all the risks in building, running and decommissioning them) needs to be an important part (though only a part) of the response to climate change.

The point is this: With so much going on, on what grounds is Libya going to be stopped from building one? Europe cannot say not-in-my-backyard because it would be hypocritical. If it says not-in-anyone's-backyard, it would not just be hypocritical but also unrealistic - there is a trend that will not be bucked unless member states, Russia, India and China are addressed.

In fact, the only reason that would remain for picking on Libya would be that somehow Libya is not trustworthy - a rogue, pariah or incompetent state, at least in environmental terms. Some Maltese commentators have more or less said this. But those of us Europeans (and Americans) who cringed when President George W. Bush spoke of rogue states and the Axis of Evil, should remember that one reason why we cringed was because such ostracism or stigmatisation creates its own kind of international instability. It is an approach that reeks of counter-productive neo-imperialism.

Fortunately, there is a third option that combines aspects of the first two. It is based on three elements.

First, new technologies - whether it is the Internet, the ability to manipulate the genome, or nuclear power - require new legal and institutional regimes, because the ones we have, having been developed for other technologies, are inadequate.

Second, states can be sovereign but pool their sovereignty to develop and maintain such new legal and institutional regimes. Third, there already is a basis for the development of such a regime that is relevant to our case: The international law of the sea, the first international law covering environmental security, among other matters, provides the basis for governance.

Malta should therefore seriously consider pushing an initiative, through the EU, to pursue the setting up of regional institutions where the EU would share governance with third countries in order to monitor and coordinate environmental security.

Malta has made such proposals in the past. Perhaps the time has come to push them energetically. In maritime affairs, the EU has shown a willingness to consider the option. Libya under Muammar Gaddafi has been interested, in the past, in novel methods of international cooperation that would respect Libya's sovereignty.

It takes several years to build a nuclear plant, even with modern methods. Time enough to begin to develop the regional institutions that simultaneously permit the secure operation of such a plant in the Mediterranean while enhancing international trust and oversight.