So it is ICAO compliant. Remember a RESA is there to reduce the risk of damage to an aeroplane undershooting or overrunning the runway, so what lies beyond or outside this area is irrelevant for an aircraft that overshoots or under-runs and stops on the RESA.
Does it make sense? Up to a point.
There are people and organisations that prefer to talk about de-lethalising the area around a runway so that an aircraft running off the runway will not kill people (even though the aircraft may ultimately be destroyed). But the current standards do not do this. But because there is a lot of pressure to comply with the rules you do get some daft outcomes - see the runway at Funchal, for example.
As for nuclear power plants and the like, aviation standards are about keeping aircraft and flying safe - there are other standards that keep nuclear power plants safe. Following your logic, it might be better to ban schools from being built near an airport because almost every time an aircraft comes to grief, the pilot has to valiantly steer the aircraft away from an inconveniently located school.
In theory, everything aviation should now be doing safety management. In very simple terms - although those who try to make common sense into SMS science may disagree - this means that someone building a runway should first apply the relevant standards and then say, 'OK, could we do anything to make it safe enough to use'. It is at this point that someone should say, 'Well, if an aircraft over-runs it will drop over the edge of the cliff. Maybe we need an arrestor system of some sort....'.