Abstract
Since the launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, space-related technology has developed to the point that humankind is now engaged in a broad range of space activities. The utilization of this technology forms an integral element of global society, such that the world is dependent upon constant and unimpeded space “access.” Yet, the existing international legal and governance framework, largely developed in a very different era of space activities (1960–1980s), is now straining to provide the necessary certainty, standards, and protections and is not sufficiently detailed or nuanced to comprehensively regulate recently evolving space technologies. This will increasingly impact upon each country’s space “security” and may impede opportunities for industrial progress and commercial initiative. The disconnect between law and technological development will become even more pronounced in the future with the development of small satellite technology, which offers both strategic and commercial opportunities, but also challenges, to existing space participants while facilitating the market entry of new space “actors.” This paper discusses a number of the more significant regulatory requirements that apply to small satellite technology now and into the future under the international lex lata of space law. Since the Space Treaties were not designed to apply to such technology, this represents an unsatisfactory regulatory regime. This paper will therefore argue that the imperative will be to develop and adapt legal and regulatory frameworks to appropriately address the demands and inevitability of new technological innovation, not the other way around.
This chapter was written in September 2015.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
These are (i) 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, 610 U.N.T.S. 205 (Outer Space Treaty); (ii) 1968 Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 672 U.N.T.S. 119 (Rescue Agreement); (iii) 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 961 U.N.T.S. 187 (Liability Convention); (iv) 1975 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 1023 U.N.T.S. 15 (Registration Agreement); and (v) 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, 1363 U.N.T.S 3 (Moon Agreement).
- 2.
See, in particular, (i) 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, United Nations General Assembly Resolution No 1962; (ii) 1982 Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting, United Nations General Assembly Resolution No 37/92; (iii) 1986 Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space, United Nations General Assembly Resolution No 41/65; (iv) 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space, United Nations General Assembly Resolution No 47/68; and (v) 1996 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries, United Nations General Assembly Resolution No 51/122.
- 3.
See, generally, Stephan Hobe, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd and Kai-Uwe Schrogl (eds), Cologne Commentary on Space Law, Volume I – Outer Space Treaty (2009), and Volume II – Rescue Agreement, Liability Convention, Registration Convention, Moon Agreement (2013).
- 4.
See United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) website, “National Space Law Database” http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/SpaceLaw/national/state-index.html.
- 5.
For a discussion of the increasing trend toward the conclusion of non-binding instruments in the realm of outer space, see Irmgard Marboe (ed), Soft Law in Outer Space: The Function of Non-binding Norms in International Space Law (2012); Steven Freeland, “For Better or For Worse? The Use of “Soft Law” within the International Legal Regulation of Outer Space” (2011) XXXVI Annals of Air and Space Law 409.
- 6.
Outer Space Treaty, article VI.
- 7.
Space Activities Act, Australia, No. 123, 1998.
- 8.
The QB50 mission involves the launching in 2015 of a network of 50 ‘CubeSats’ built by Universities all over the world as a primary payload, with the aim of performing various scientific experiments in the lower thermosphere at an altitude of approximately 320 kilometers: see “QB50, an FP7 Project: Mission Objectives,” https://www.qb50.eu/index.php/project-description-obj. Australian Universities are involved in this project: Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research, “QB50 – an International Network of 50 CubeSats” http://www.acser.unsw.edu.au/QB50/index.html.
- 9.
See Steven Freeland, “Matching Detail with Practice: The Essential Elements of National Space Legislation” (2010) Proceedings of the International Institute of Space Law, 540.
- 10.
Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty prescribes the general terms giving rise to international liability for damage caused by an object launched into outer space. The scope of international liability is then elaborated in the Liability Convention. However, even if it is not a State Party to the Liability Convention, a State would still be subject to the liability provisions in the Outer Space Treaty, as well as any other potential claims based on the general public international law principles of State responsibility.
- 11.
The identity of the relevant launching State(s) is determined at the time of launch, with article I(c) of the Liability Convention defining a launching State as:
-
(i)
“A State which launches or procures the launching of a space object;
-
(ii)
A State from whose territory or facility a space object is launched”
-
(i)
- 12.
Article I(a) of the Liability Convention defines “damage” as:
“… loss of life, personal injury or other impairment of health; or loss of or damage to property of States or of persons, natural or juridical, or property of international intergovernmental organizations.”
- 13.
As noted, it would be difficult to argue that an operating small satellite was not a space object for the purposes of the Liability Convention, even if it is not maneuverable while in operation.
- 14.
See Steven Freeland, “There’s a Satellite in my Backyard! – Mir and the Convention on International Liability For Damage Caused by Space Objects,” (2001) 24:2 University of New South Wales Law Journal 462.
- 15.
On this point, there may be an argument that, where the only possible relevant mode by which a State could be a launching State in a specific case is by “procuring” the launch, there is a minimum “threshold” test to demonstrate such procuring, at least based on knowledge of the particular activity. However, it is unclear whether such an argument reflects the correct legal position.
- 16.
Australian Space Activities Act, section 3(b).
- 17.
The Australian Space Activities Act envisages that, in certain circumstances, rather than procure insurance, an applicant could instead demonstrate “direct financial responsibility” as an alternative (section 47).
- 18.
Registration Convention, article II(1).
- 19.
Ibid, article IV(1).
- 20.
Outer Space Treaty, article VIII.
- 21.
See Australian Space Activities Act, Part 5.
- 22.
Registration Convention, article I(c).
- 23.
See, for example, Ulrike M Bohlmann and Steven Freeland, “The Regulation of Space Activities and the Space Environment” in Shawkat Alam, Md Jahid Hossain Bhuiyan, Tareq M.R. Chowdhury and Erika J. Techera (eds), Routledge Handbook of International Environmental Law (2013), 375.
- 24.
See IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines prepared by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee in 2007 (IADC Debris Mitigation Guidelines) http://www.iadc-online.org/index.cgi?item=docs_pub: and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62/217, which (in paragraph 26) endorsed the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines agreed by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) (UN Guidelines).
- 25.
The UN Guidelines recognize two broad categories of space debris mitigation measures: those that curtail the generation of potentially harmful space debris in the near term – minimization of the production of mission-related space debris and the avoidance of break-ups; and those that limit their generation over the longer term - end-of-life procedures that remove decommissioned spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stages from regions populated by operational spacecraft.
- 26.
See, for example, United Nations Information Service, Press Release, “Long-term sustainability of outer space activities among the key topics of Scientific and Technical Subcommittee at its 51st Session,” UNIS/OS/432, 7 February 2014 http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2014/unisos432.html.
- 27.
See, for example, Ellie Zolfagharifard and Sarah Griffiths, “Elon Musk’s new mission revealed: SpaceX founder confirms plans for tiny satellites that will provide cheap internet worldwide” Daily Mail Online, 12 November 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2830263/Elon-Musk-s-new-mission-revealed-SpaceX-founder-confirms-plans-tiny-satellites-provide-cheap-internet-worldwide.html. This article reports that SpaceX plans to launch 700 satellites (each weighing 113 kg) and Google 180 satellites, both in an effort to provide internet services for the 4.8 billion people of the world who are still without online access.
- 28.
See, for example, Andrea Peterson, “Manned commercial spaceflight: The final unregulated frontier” The Washington Post, 6 November 2014 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/06/manned-commercial-space-flight-the-final-unregulated-frontier/. For a discussion of the relevant legal issues related to the proposals to establish a commercial human spaceflight industry, see Steven Freeland, “Fly Me to the Moon: How Will International Law Cope with Commercial Space Tourism?” (2010) 11:1 Melbourne Journal of International Law 90.
- 29.
For example, from 18–20 March 2015, the United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) jointly sponsored an “AeroSPACE” symposium where some of these issues were discussed.
- 30.
See UNOOSA, “Basic Space Technology Initiative (BSTI)” http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/SAP/bsti/index.html.
- 31.
See, for example, Space Industry Association of Australia, “Discussion paper on the Regulatory Requirements for Launches of Small Satellites for Scientific and Educational Purposes”, February 2015 (copy with author).
- 32.
See, for example, Irmgard Marboe and Karin Traunmuller, “Small Satellites and Small States: New Incentives for National Space Legislation” (2012) Journal of Space Law 289, where the authors describe how the national laws of Austria, Belgium and The Netherlands have been structured to deal with the possibility of future small satellite programs involving those countries.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Freeland, S. (2019). From Little Things, Big Things Grow: How Should We Regulate the Commercial Utilization of Small Satellite Technology?. In: Kyriakopoulos, G.D., Manoli, M. (eds) The Space Treaties at Crossroads. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01479-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01479-7_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01478-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01479-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)