Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Space Treaties at Crossroads pp 79–95Cite as

Using Space Objects in Orbit as Transaction Objects: Issues of Liability and Registration de lege lata and de lege ferenda

  • Conference paper

  • 796 Accesses

Abstract

Using space objects in orbit in commercial transactions may entail serious practical difficulties under the current regime of international space law. This paper analyses such problems and proposes solutions at the example of air law, adjusted to the particularities of space operations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 6 June 1975, 28 UST 695, 1023 UNTS 15 (entered into force 15 September 1976) [Registration Convention].

  2. 2.

    Resolution 1721B (XVI) International Co-operation in the peaceful use of outer space, 1085th plenary meeting, 20 December 1961, online: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/resolutions/res_16_1721.html (last visited on 25 Nov. 2018).

  3. 3.

    Thus, the Resolution has practical importance for States not having ratified the RC.

  4. 4.

    Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 27 January 1967, 610 UNTS 205, 18 UST 2410, TIAS No 6347, 6 ILM 386 (entered into force on 10 October 1967) [Outer Space Treaty].

  5. 5.

    Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 29 March 1972, 961 UNTS 187, 24 UST 2389, 10 ILM 965 (1971) (entered into force 1 September 1972) [Liability Convention].

  6. 6.

    Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 6 June 1975, 28 UST 695, 1023 UNTS 15 (entered into force 15 September 1976) [Registration Convention].

  7. 7.

    Bittlinger, Horst, Hoheitsgewalt und Kontrolle im Weltraum, Cologne et al. 1988, pp. 24–25.

  8. 8.

    Vereshchetin, Vladlen, Legal status of international space crews, AASL 1978, 545 (547); Bordunov, V.D., Rights of States as regards outer space objects, 24 IISL-Proc. 1981, p. 89 (90).

  9. 9.

    Vereshchetin, ibid., p. 548; Bordunov, ibid., p. 91.

  10. 10.

    Lafferranderie, Gabriel, Jurisdiction and control of space objects and the case of an international intergovernmental organization (ESA), Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 2005, p. 228 (231).

  11. 11.

    Schmidt-Tedd, Bernhard/Mick, Stephen Art. VIII OST, para. 59, in: Hobe/Schmidt-Tedd/Schrogl (eds), Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL), Cologne 2009.

  12. 12.

    Gorove, Stephan, Criminal jurisdiction in Outer Space, Int’l Lawyer 1972, p. 313 (316–317); Jenks, C. Wilfred, Space Law, London 1965, p. 294.

  13. 13.

    See details in Chatzipanagiotis, Michael, The legal status of space tourists in the framework of commercial suborbital flights, Cologne 2011, pp. 50–51.

  14. 14.

    For a comprehensive analysis of these issues, see as to criminal law Chatzipanagiotis, ibid., p. 39 et seq. and as to IPR Bohlmann, Ulricke, Kommerzielle Weltraumaktivitäten und die technischen gewerblichen Schutzrechte, Aachen 2002, p. 54 et seq.

  15. 15.

    Convention on the International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, adapted on 29 November 1971 by UN General Assembly Resolution 2777 (XXVI), in force since 1 September 1972.

  16. 16.

    In 1996 the ILC decided to divide the topic into Prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities and International liability in case of loss from transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities – see details at http://legal.un.org/ilc/summaries/9.shtml (last visited on 25 Nov. 2018).

  17. 17.

    Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, adopted on 19 December 1967 by UN GA Resolution 2345 (XXII), in force since 3 December 1968.

  18. 18.

    Cheng, Bin, Article VI of the 1967 Space Treaty revisited: ‘international responsibility’, ‘national activities’ and ‘the appropriate State’, Journal of Space Law 1998, p. 7 (24–25); Bittlinger, Horst, Hoheitsgewalt und Kontrolle im Weltraum, Cologne 1988, p. 40; von der Dunk, Frans, Private enterprise and public interest in the european ‘spacescape’, Leiden 1998, p. 19; Wassenbergh. Henri, Principles of outer space law in hindsight, Dordrecht 1991, pp. 23, 27–28.

  19. 19.

    Cheng, supra note 18, pp. 24–25; von der Dunk, supra note 18, p. 30.

  20. 20.

    For a brief summary of the various views expressed on the interpretation of the term, see Chatzipanagiotis, supra note 13, pp. 133–135.

  21. 21.

    Gorove, Stephan, Liability in space law: an overview, Annals of Air and Space Law 1983, 373 (374); Kerrest, Armel/Smith, Lesly Jane Art. VII OST, para. 4, in: Hobe, Stephan/ von Rucketschell, Nikolai (eds) Cologne Commentary on Space Law, Vol I, Cologne 2009.

  22. 22.

    See International Law Commission, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts (2001), adopted by UN GA Resolution 56/83 on 12 December 2001, which reflect mostly international customary law, especially Arts 2, 12, 31, 35 and 36.

  23. 23.

    Cheng, supra note 18, p. 14; Kerrest, Armel, Remarks on the Responsibility and Liability for Damages caused by Private Activity in Outer Space, 40 IISL-Proc. 1997, p. 134 (139).

  24. 24.

    Cheng, supra note 18, p. 15.

  25. 25.

    See details in Cheng, supra note 18, 23, p. 8; Gorove, supra note 21, p.374.

  26. 26.

    See examples of such cases in Aoki, Setsuko, in search of the current legal status of the registration of space objects, 53 IISL-Proc. 2010, p. 254 et seq.

  27. 27.

    See details in Ravillon, Laurence, Les télécommunications par satellite, Bourgogne 1997, p. 139 et seq.

  28. 28.

    In practice, however, leasing of a satellite as such is not very often. Leasing of transponder capacity is preferred instead.

  29. 29.

    Cheng, Bin, Space objects and their connecting factors, in: Laferranderie G./Crowther Daphne (eds), Outlook on space law over the next 30 years, The Netherlands 1997, p. 203 (213).

  30. 30.

    See, e.g. Gerhard, Michael, Transfer of operation and control with respect to space objects – Problems of responsibility and liability of States, Zeitschrift für Luft und Weltraumrecht 2002, p. 571 (577 et seq.); Mick, Stephan, Registrierungskonvention und Registrierungspraxis, Cologne 2007, p. 144 et seq.

  31. 31.

    Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed at Chicago on 7 December 1944, in force since 4 April 1947.

  32. 32.

    Judgment of 6 April 1955 (Liechtenstein vs Guatemala), ICJ Reports 1955, p. 4.

  33. 33.

    See on the content of such agreements Manual on the Regulation of International Air Transport, ICAO Doc 9626, 2nd ed., 2004, paras 4.1–8, 4.7–5 and 5.1–1.

  34. 34.

    Protocol relating to an amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed at Montreal on 6 October 1980 [Article 83bis], in force since 20 June 1997.

  35. 35.

    ICAO Cir. 295, para. 2.2.2.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., para. 2.2.3.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., paras 3.1, 3.3.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., para. 3.6.

  39. 39.

    See Art. 83bis (2) CC combined with Art. 14 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980) [Vienna Convention].

  40. 40.

    Art. 83bis (1)(b) CC.

  41. 41.

    ICAO Cir. 295 (supra note 35), para. 2.3.1.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., para 2.4.2.

  43. 43.

    See, Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, e.g. Annex 1 Personnel Licensing, Annex 6 Operation of Aircraft, Annex 8 Airworthiness of Aircraft and Annex 19 Safety Management.

  44. 44.

    Cheng, Bin, Space objects and their connecting factors, in: Laferranderie G./Crowther Daphne (eds), Outlook on space law over the next 30 years, The Netherlands 1997, p. 203 (208).

  45. 45.

    Schmidt-Tedd/Mick Art. VIII OST, para. 58, in: Cologne Commentary on Space Law, supra note 11; Bittlinger, Horst, supra note. 7, p. 76.

  46. 46.

    Bin Cheng, Spacecraft, satellites and space objects in: Bernhardt, Rudolf (ed.) Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. IV, Amsterdam et al. 2000, p. 557 (560).

  47. 47.

    See Art. II of the Liability Convention.

  48. 48.

    See Hughes, Nick, ‘UNIDROIT Draft space protocol’, online: http://www.hfw.com/UNIDROIT-Draft-Space-Assets-Protocol (last visited on 25 Nov. 2018).

  49. 49.

    This is also the reason why the space industry opposes the introduction of the Space Protocol to the Cape Town Convention, which aims at strengthening asset-based financing of space objects operators. See Hughes, supra fn. 48.

  50. 50.

    For example, the Dragon vehicle of Space Exploration Technologies Inc. – see online: http://www.spacex.com/dragon (last visited on 25 Nov. 2018).

  51. 51.

    For example, online: http://www.virgingalactic.com/human-spaceflight/; https://www.blueorigin.com/astronaut-experience (last visited on 25 Nov. 2018).

  52. 52.

    For example, https://www.space.com/41854-spacex-unveils-1st-private-moon-flight-passenger.html (last visited on 25 Nov. 2018).

  53. 53.

    See online: http://www.mars-one.com/ (last visited on 25 Nov. 2018), http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/martian-colony-spacex/ (last visited on 25 Nov. 2018).

  54. 54.

    See, e.g. online: http://www.planetaryresources.com/ (last visited on 25 Nov. 2018).

  55. 55.

    See, e.g. Keck Institute for space studies, ‘Asteroid retrieval feasibility study’ (2 April 2012) p. 12, online: http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf (last visited on 25 Nov. 2018).

  56. 56.

    In this vein also Lee, Ricky J., Transferring registration of space objects: The interpretative solution, IISL-Proc. 2000, p. 148 (153), who suggests that liability for space objects should be distinguished into three phases: launch, operation and retirement; in each phase the State that has operation and control over the space object should be liable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Michael Chatzipanagiotis

Authors
  1. Michael Chatzipanagiotis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Chatzipanagiotis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    George D. Kyriakopoulos

  2. Institute of Air and Space Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada

    Maria Manoli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Chatzipanagiotis, M. (2019). Using Space Objects in Orbit as Transaction Objects: Issues of Liability and Registration de lege lata and de lege ferenda. In: Kyriakopoulos, G.D., Manoli, M. (eds) The Space Treaties at Crossroads. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01479-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation