Proposals

de Oliveira Bittencourt Neto, Olavo

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16685-8_4

Proposals

Olavo de Oliveira Bittencourt Neto³

Chapter

678 Accesses

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Space Development ((BRIEFSSPACE))

Abstract

Below are presented the proposals for solution of the long standing debate regarding the vertical limit of State sovereignty, summarized in categories for a better understanding of their main features. Each alternative can be considered as pertaining to the spatialist approach, since they are all based on the premise that the delimitation of the air space/outer space boundary is necessary. The international law scholars that backed them, as well as the States that argued in their favor before the UNCOPUS, shall be properly referred to in the course fo this chapter. The order of presentation of the suggested proposals follows, as much as possible, a chronological order, although some of the older proposal were many times reassessed years later by different parties, with minor adaptations, to address new political concerns.

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

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 39.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 54.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Bin Cheng. Studies on International Space Law. Oxford, England: Clarendon Pr., 1998. p. 453.
2.
A/AC.98/C.2/SR.1.
3.
A/C.1/SR.986. At the same 1959 session, were favourable to the English position the delegations of Austria, Italy, the Netherlands and Peru.
4.
Haroldo Valladão. “The Law of Interplanetary Space”. Proceedings of the Second Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space. IISL, London, 1958. p. 157/159.
5.
Loftus Becker. “Major Aspects of the Problem of Outer Space”. Bulletin of the Department of State. Washington, USA, 1958.
6.
Pitman B. Potter. “International Law of Outer Space”. American Journal of International Law. Washington, USA, 1958. p. 304.
7.
Michael Aaronson. “Space Law”. International Relations, vol. I, n^o. 9. New York, USA, April/1959. p. 420.
8.
Alex Meyer. “Die Staatshoheit im Luftraum und die Entwicklungen im Weltraum”. ZLRW, Cologne, Germany, 1965. p. 27.
9.
In another passage of his paper, Welf Heinrich presented support to the “von karman line”, position that he would eventually defend throughout his life. “Problems in Establishing a Legal Boundary between Air Space and Outer Space”. Proceedings of the First Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space. IISL, The Hague, 1957. p. 29.
10.
Gyúla Gál. Space Law. Leiden, the Netherlands: A. W. Sijthoff, 1969. p. 74/75.
11.
In the official commentaries to the proposals, it was clarified: “at the present time the lower effective limit of perigee is in the region of the altitude of 100 miles, since below that the life of the satellite is too short to be useful, and it is possible that an altitude of about 70 miles would be the limit for effective orbiting, since below that friction would become too great. The notion of effectiveness here is to be understood in terms of scientific uses of spacecraft. (…) Any particular altitude chosen as the limit of sovereignty over the airspace may appear arbitrary and be controversial, but, for the avoidance of excessive claims and by the other foregoing considerations, the relatively low altitude of about 50 miles is suggested here as the limit of sovereignty and the beginning of outer space.” The David Davies Memorial Institute of International Studies was integrally included as annex X to C. Wilfred Jenks: Space Law. New York, USA: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965. p. 419/439.
12.
“C. Wilfred Jenks. Space Law. New York, USA: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965. p. 191”.
13.
Arthur C. Clarke. A Exploração do Espaço. São Paulo, Brazil: Melhoramentos, 1959. p. 26.
14.
In 1976, the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) of the International Council of Scientific Unions presented study to COPUOS where it was identified the considerable diminishing of atmospheric density between 90 and 150 km of altitude above sea level, from 3.4 mg/m³ to 0.002 mg/m³. A/AC.105/164, Annex 1.
15.
“A atmosfera que cobre a Terra é dividida em quatro regiões principais, com diferentes características entre si. Cada camada forma uma espécie de casca esférica que possui uma espessura distinta, mas não se pode estabelecer limites rígidos de onde começa e termina cada uma delas; pelo contrário, as características de cada camada são transferidas para a próxima. Entretanto, as diferenças entre elas são reais. Pela ordem de distância a partir da superfície temos a troposfera, a estratosfera, a mesosfera e, finalmente, a termosfera. À medida que nos afastamos da superfície, a densidade dos gases em cada camada diminui exponencialmente e, acima dos 1.000km de altitude, praticamente impera o vácuo do espaço”. Emerson Faria Cabral Paubel. Propulsão e Controle de Veículos Aeroespaciais. Florianópolis, Brazil: UFSC, 2002. p. 61.
16.
Kshudiram Saha. The Earth’s Atmosphere: its Physics and Dynamics. New York, USA: Springer, 2008. p. 10.
17.
“The Paris Convention [1919] contained the first generally accepted definition of the term ‘aircraft’, which read as follows: ‘Le mot aéronef désigne tout appareil pouvant se soutenir dans l’atmosphére grâce aux reactions de l’air’. This rather sweeping definition included aircraft, airships, gliders, free balloons, barrage balloons and helicopters. The criterion which should have been given preference is whether the machine has any lift. Having become outdated, the Convention was eventually replaced, in 1944, by the Chicago Convention, but the latter failed to bring about a change in the definition of ‘aircraft’, reading: ‘Aircraft is any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air’. As most other Conventions lacked such a definition altogether the Chicago formula, which had been taken from the Paris Convention, continued to serve as a cornerstone of air law for another few decades, although authoritative opinions were also taken into account on a number of occasions. Eventually, on November 6, 1967, ICAO brought out a new definition reading: ‘Aircraft is any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the earth’s surface’. Its distinctive feature was that the words ‘other than the reactions of the air against the earth’s surface’ had been added. This addition ensured that hovercraft were excluded from the definition of ‘aircraft’.” I. H. Ph. Diederiks-Verschoor. An Introduction to Air Law. 5. ed. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993. p. 5.
18.
Marietta Benkö and Kai-Uwe Schrogl (eds.). International Space Law in the Making: Current Issues in the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Paris, France: Frontières, 1993. p. 113/114.
19.
Oscar Schachter. “Legal Aspects of Space Travel”. J. B. I. P. S.. London, England, 1952. p. 14.
20.
Gerhard Reintanz. “Air Space and Outer Space”. 1961 Symposium, p. 1134.
21.
Robert Jastrow. “Definition of Air Space”. Proceedings of the First Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space. IISL, the Hague, 1957. p. 82.
22.
Willy Ley. Rockets, Missiles and Space Travel. 2. ed. New York, USA: Viking, 1961.
23.
A/C.1/SR.1211.
24.
Luiz de Gonzaga Bevilacqua. “A Contribution to the Problem of Space Law Establishing a Technical and Practical Limit to Political Sovereignty in Space”. Proceedings of the First Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space. IISL, The Hague, 1957. p. 33.
25.
“National sovereignty applies to airspace; no sovereignty applies in outer space. There is no established definition of height at which airspace ends and outer space begins. (…) For practical purposes the limit is considered to be as high as any aircraft can fly”. UKMIL, 70 BYIL, 1999, p. 520/521.
26.
William R. Slomanson. Fundamental Perspectives on International Law. 4. ed. Belmont, USA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2003. p. 286.
27.
J. C. Hogan. “Legal Terminology for the Upper Regions of the Atmosphere and Space Beyond the Atmosphere”. American Journal of International Law, n. 51. New York, USA, 1957. p. 362.
28.
Robert F. A. Goedhart. The Never Ending Dispute: Delimitation of Air Space and Outer Space. Paris, France: Frontières, 1996. p. 61/63.
29.
Andrew G. Haley. Space Law and Government. New York, USA: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963. p. 97.
30.
C. A. Dunshee de Abranches. Espaço Exterior e Responsabilidade Internacional. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Livraria Freitas Bastos, 1964. p. 98.
31.
Elisabeth Back Impallomeni. Spazio Cósmico e Corpi Celesti nell’Ordinamento Internazionale. Padova, Italy: CEDAM, 1983. p. 88.
32.
“The von Karman primary jurisdictional line may eventually remain as presented above [275.000 feet] or, as a result of such developments as improved techniques of cooling and more heat-resistant materials, it may be significantly changed. But these changes will be only in the exact location of the von Karman line, for the existence of the line is certain, and wherever it is finally drawn will be the place where ‘airspace’ terminates.” Andrew G. Haley. Space Law and Government. New York, USA: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963. p. 98/99. In the same way: “Improved techniques of cooling and more heat-resistant materials may eventually change the exact location of the von Kármán line; the existence of the line itself is undisputed.” Robert F. A. Goedhart. The Never Ending Dispute: Delimitation of Air Space and Outer Space. Paris, France: Frontières, 1996. p. 63.
33.
Journal of Geophysical Research. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JA013757.shtml. Published on 04.07.2009. Accessed on 04.20.2010.
34.
Laureline Sangalli and David Knudsen. “Rocket-based Measurements of Ion Velocity, Neutral Wind, and Electric Field in the Collisional Transition Region of the Auroral Ionosphere”. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2009; 114 (a4): A04306.
35.
University of Calgary. “Scientists Pinpoint the ‘Edge of Space’”. ScienceDaily. Published on 04.09.2009. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090409142301.htm, accessed on 04.20.2010.
36.
As a historic reference, one can mention the opinion presented by Marcel Le Goff, pioneer of Air Law, who, before the space age, presented the “biological theory”, stating that national air space would reach only the maximum altitude where a human being can breath. Traité Théorique et Pratique de Droit Aérien. Paris, France: 1958. p. 20. In the same senseo: Hubert Strughold. “Definitions and Subdivisions of Space: Bioastronautical Aspect”. Proceedings of the First Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space. IISL, The Hague, 1957.
37.
As explained by the scientists Camil Gemael and José Bittencourt de Andrade, the air density is an important coefficient for calculation of drag over satellites, which affect their orbits: “hoje sabemos que essa densidade varia em função da atividade solar, por vezes de maneira súbita e rápida, o que traz complicações ao problema quando se buscam soluções rigorosas.” Geodésia Celeste. Curitiba: Ed. UFPR, 2004. p. 99.
38.
Bin Cheng. Studies on International Space Law. Oxford, England: Clarendon Pr, 1998. p. 6/9.
39.
“The extreme end-points of the major axis of an orbit are referred as ‘apses’. The point nearest the prime focus is called ‘periapsis’ (meaning the ‘near apse’) and the point farthest from the prime focus is called ‘apoapsis’ (meaning the ‘far apse’). Depending on what is the central attracting body in an orbital situation these points may also be called ‘perigee’ or ‘apogee’, ‘perihelion’ and ‘aphelion’, ‘periselenium’ e ‘aposelenium’, etc.” Roger R. Bate, Donald D. Mueller and Jerry E. White. Fundamentals of Astrodynamics. New York, USA: Dover, 1971. p. 24.
40.
Peter Malanczuk. Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law. 7. ed. New York, USA: Routledge, 2006. p. 206.
41.
G. P. Zadorozhny. “Iskustvennye Sputniki i Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo”. Sovietskaya Rossiya, Moscow, Russia, October/1957. p. 1/2.
42.
A/C.1/SR.983, 13.11.1958. The Swedish delegation presented itself radically against such position: A/C.1/SR.984.
43.
Report of the 52nd Conference. ILA, Helsinki, 1966. p. 160/185, 191/201.
44.
Gbenga Oduntan. “The Never Ending Dispute: Legal Theories on the Spatial Demarcation Boundary Plane between Airspace and Outer Space”. Hertfordshire Law Journal, 1(2). Hertfordshire, England, 2003. 64/84.
45.
Arnold Duncan McNair. The Law of the Air. 3. ed. London, England: 1964. p. 15.
46.
William J. Hughes. “Aerial Intrusions By Civil Airliner And The Use of Force”. Journal of Air Law and Commerce. Dallas, USA, 1980. p. 595.
47.
Vladimir Kopal. “What is ‘Outer Space’ in Astronautics and Space Law”. Proceedings of the Tenth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space. IISL, Belgrade, 1967. p. 277.
48.
Vladimir Kopal. “Issues Involved in Defining Outer Space, Space Object and Space Debris”. Proceedings of the Thirty-Forth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space. IISL, Montreal, 1991. p. 40.
49.
L. Perek. “Remarks on Scientific Criteria for the Definition of Outer Space”. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space. IISL, Anaheim, 1976. p. 194.
50.
Araújo Bauza. Hacia un Derecho Astronáutico. Montevideu, Uruguay: Roque Desalma, 1957. p. 125.
51.
Pasini Costadoat. El Espacio Aéreo. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Depalma, 1955. p. 132.
52.
Marietta Benkö and Engelbert Plescher. Space Law – Reconsidering the Definition/Delimitation Question and the Passage of Spacecraft Through Foreign Airspace. The Hague, The Netherlands: Eleven, 2013. p. 37.
53.
J. E. S. Fawcett. International Law and the Uses of Outer Space. Manchester, England: University Press, 1969. p. 17 and 18.
54.
Roger R. Bate, Donald D. Mueller and Jerry E. White. Fundamentals of Astrodynamics. New York, USA: Dover, 1971. p. 152/159.
55.
“No desencadeamento da teoria da gravitação, ocorreu um encadeamento de trabalhos que culminarão na obra monumental de Isaac Newton: ‘Princípios matemáticos de filosofia natural’, conhecido vulgarmente pelo seu primeiro nome em latim, Principia. São importantes as discussões feitas por Christopher Wren (1632-1723), Edmond Halley (1656-1742) e Robert Hooke (1635-1702) sobre as leis que governavam as formas precisas das órbitas dos objetos celestes e as suas relações com as leis da mecânica, tais como a lei de inércia e a lei de força central e atrativa (dirigida para o Sol).” Antônio Manuel Alves Morais. Gravitação & Cosmologia: uma Introdução. São Paulo, Brazil: Editora Livraria da Física, 2010. p. 66.
56.
“[Isaac Newton] estabeleceu que a atração gravitacional atua entre todos os corpos do universo e concluiu que o Sol não pode estar em repouso no centro do universo, pois está sujeito às forças dos outros corpos celestes. Determinou as perturbações nas órbitas planetárias devido aos outros planetas, mostrou que a órbita dos cometas não é irregular, estudou a atração gravitacional de um corpo extenso não esférico (elipsóide de revolução), estabeleceu que a Terra deveria ser achatada e determinou esse achatamento, prevendo a variação gravitacional com a latitude. Propôs um método para determinar experimentalmente esse efeito utilizando pêndulo, e explicou ainda a precessão dos equinócios e as marés.” Antônio Manuel Alves Morais. Gravitação & Cosmologia: uma Introdução. São Paulo, Brazil: Editora Livraria da Física, 2010. p. 72.
57.
Isaac Newton. Principia – Princípios Matemáticos de Filosofia Natural (Livro III). São Paulo, Brazil: Folha de São Paulo, Brazil, 2010. p. 20.
58.
“A força que mantém os corpos celestes em suas órbitas tem sido chamada até aqui de força centrípeta, mas tendo ficado evidente que ela não pode ser outra que não uma força gravitacional, vamos chamá-la daqui por diante de gravidade. Pois a causa desta força centrípeta que mantém a lua em sua órbita estende-se a todos os planetas.” Isaac Newton. Principia – Princípios Matemáticos de Filosofia Natural (Livro III). São Paulo, Brazil: Folha de São Paulo, Brazil, 2010. p. 20.
59.
Where “E” means energy; “m”, mass; and “c”, the universal constant, that is, the speed of light in vacuum (299,792,458 m/s).
60.
Albert Einstein. Relativity: the Special and the General Theory. New York, USA: Dover, 2010.
61.
“La seule frontière que les États connaissent, dans le sens vertical est celle que la nature impose à l’homme, c’est-à-dire, une limite physique ou delá de laquelle, toute manifestation de vie est impossible. Pratiquement, la souveraineté de l’État se termine avec cette limite absolue”. Joseph Kroell. Traité de Droit International Public Aérien. Tomo I. Paris, France: Les Éditions Internationales, 1934. p. 81.
62.
Joseph Kroell. “Éléments Créatures d’un Droit Astronautique”. Revue Générale de l’Air, n. 16. Paris, France, 1953. p. 230 e ss.
63.
“Que a soberania do Estado se exerça, em sua plenitude, sobre o espaço aéreo, que recobre seus territórios terrestre ou marítimo, bem como sobre o espaço interplanetário, que se estende entre os aludidos limites, até o ‘PONTO NEUTRO’ ou ‘ZONA NEUTRA’; que o sobrevoo, do Estado, por teleguiados ou não de outra potência só será lícito: a) mediante autorização prévia e inequívoca do Estado a ser sobrevoado; b) ou mediante Acordo Internacional específico, registrado na Secretaria da OACI e na Secretaria Geral da ONU.” José Dalmo Fairbanks Belfort de Mattos. Direito Internacional. São Paulo, Brazil: Saraiva, 1979. p. 116.
64.
“Em ambos os casos, os engenhos interplanetários não mais poderão ‘cair’ para a terra, salvo em torna-viagem.” José Dalmo Fairbanks Belfort de Mattos. Direito Internacional. São Paulo, Brazil: Saraiva, 1979. p. 123.
65.
“Inexistem definições jurídicas do que sejam os espaços aéreos dos Estados, quais seus limites exteriores, mas um critério para delimitá-lo tem sido o espaço onde a força da gravidade da terra se verifica e onde se exerça a aviação civil e militar e as atividades militares relacionadas a balísticos (além dos quais se encontra o espaço exterior, também denominado cósmico ou sideral) (…).” Guido Fernando Silva Soares. Curso de Direito Internacional Público. 2. ed. São Paulo, Brazil: Atlas, 2004. p. 295.
66.
Gerd Rinck. “Recht im Weltraum”. ZLRW, Cologne, Germany, 1960. p. 191-208.
67.
^es. Celso D. de Albuquerque Mello. Curso de Direito Internacional Público. 14. ed. São Paulo, Brazil: Renovar, 2002. p. 1324.
68.
Thomas Gangale. The Development of Outer Space: Sovereignty and Property Rights in International Space Law. Santa Barbara, USA: Praeger, 2009. p. 11.
69.
Gyula Gál. Space Law. Leiden, the Netherlands: A. W. Sijthoff, 1969. p. 72.
70.
Hans Kelsen. Teoria Geral do Direito e do Estado. São Paulo, Brazil: Martins Fontes, 2005. p. 312.
71.
“O espaço aéreo corresponde ao território, até a altura determinada pelas necessidades da polícia e segurança do país.” Clóvis Beviláqua. Direito Público Internacional. Tomo I. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Livraria Francisco Alves, 1911. p. 277.
72.
Emanuel von Ullmann. Völkerrecht. Tubingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1898. p. 180.
73.
H. B. Jacobini. “Effective Control as Related to the Extension of Sovereignty in Space”. Journal of Public Law, n. 7, 1958. p. 97 e ss.
74.
Alfred Verdross. Volkerrecht. 5. ed. Vienna, Austria: Springer Verlag, 1964. p. 274.
75.
Luis Ivani de Amorim Araújo. Curso de Direito Internacional Público. 6. ed. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Forense, 1988. p. 207/208.
76.
Ming Min Peng. “Le Vol à Grande Altitude et l’Article 1er de la Convention de Chicago”. Révue Franceise de Droit Aérien. Paris, France, 1952, n°. 4.
77.
I. H. Ph. Diederiks-Verschoor. An Introduction to Space Law. 2. ed. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. p. 19.
78.
W. W. C. de Vries. “Boundaries in Space? Some Theories and Problems Regarding the Definition, Delimitation and/or Demarcation of Outer Space”. Thesauros Acroasium. Institution of International Public Law and International Relations of Thessaloniki, Vol. XIV. Thessaloniki, Greece, 1985. p. 779.
79.
A. S. Piradov. International Space Law. Honolulu, USA: University Press of the Pacific, 2000. p. 33.
80.
“The application of such a doctrine with respect to any problem of legal order in the contemporary world community would no doubt be highly dangerous; it would be certainly disastrous in the domain of space. If every state were allowed to project its sovereignty upward and sideward in accordance with its effective Power, there would inevitably arise countless conflicting claims with no criteria for their accommodation other than naked power. Moreover, for many underdeveloped states sovereignty would end at the treetops, while for a handful of the most powerful states, not even the sky would be the limit”. Myres S. McDougal, Harold D. Lasswell and Ivan I. Vlasic. Law and Public Order in Space. New Haven, USA: Yale University Press, 1963. p. 342.
81.
Nicolas Mateesco Matte. Aerospace Law. Toronto, Canada: Carswell, 1969. p. 33.
82.
José Monserrat Filho. Direito e Política na Era Espacial. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Vieira & Lent, 2007. p. 93/94.
83.
The Mauritius delegation, in its official answer to the questionary prepared by the UNCOPUOS legal subcommittee regarding national position about definition and delimitation of outer space, presented in 2010, affirmed that the country exercises control over aeronautical activities up to 46,000 feet of altitude (14.2 km): “Mauritius does not carry out any outer space activities. With regard to civil aviation activities, airspace up to the level of 46,000 feet in the Flight Information Region is controlled by the Area Control Centre, while the airspace above 46,000 feet remains uncontrolled.” A/AC.105/889/Add.8.
84.
The Hungarian celebrated publicists collected proposals from 59 authors, generally with different standards, from 12 km (Beresford) to 1,500,000 km (Rinck). The record is comprehensive and deserves a special reference. Gyúla Gál. Space Law. Leiden, The Netherlands: A. W. Sijthoff, 1969. p. 114/116.
85.
A/C.1/PV.984 and A/C1/SR.1079.
86.
A/C.1/PV.992.
87.
A/C.1/PV.982.
88.
A/C.1/SR.1211.
89.
A/AC.105/C.1/WP.V.1.
90.
A/AC.105/C.1/SR.44.
91.
A/AC.105/C.1/SR.45.
92.
A/AC.105/C.2/SR.113.
93.
A/AC.105/C.2/SR.114.
94.
A/10020, paragraph 27. Before, in 1958, the Italian delegation to the United Nations had supported the 100 km vertical limit: A/C.1/PV.982. In 1977, Italy explained that its 1975 proposal was flexible, and could be raised up to 100 km: A/AC.105/C.2/SR.269.
95.
“Natural Boundaries in Space”. A/AC.105/C.1/L.13.
96.
A/AC.105/C.2/SR.298.
97.
A/AC.105/C.2/L.121. The proposal received support from Bulgaria, Belgium and Chile.
98.
A/AC.105/C.2/L.139.
99.
A/AC.105/C.2/SR.392.
100.
Yuri Kolossov and Dmitry V. Gouchar. “Delimitation of Airspace and Outer Space: a Legal View”. Revista Brasileira de Direito Aeronáutico e Espacial - SBDA, n. 89. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, mar.-2006. p. 19.
101.
“Cada Estado tem sobre o espaço aéreo correspondente ao seu território, até a altura de 1.500 metros, os direitos necessários à sua conservação. A zona assim limitada tem o nome de zona de proteção.” Epitácio Pessoa. Projeto de Código de Direito Internacional Público. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Imprensa Nacional, 1911.
102.
“Os Estados têm o direito de regulamentar, em bem da sua segurança ou dos seus interesses aduaneiros e sanitários, a passagem de aeróstatos estrangeiros pela sua zona de proteção, ou mesmo proibi-la nos trechos dessa zona em que o exigirem as necessidades da sua conservação e defesa.” Epitácio Pessoa. Projeto de Código de Direito Internacional Público. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Imprensa Nacional, 1911.
103.
“(…) o ilustre internacionalista brasileiro era da opinião que a soberania do Estado, em sentido vertical, tinha um limite, acima do qual o espaço era completamente livre.” Luis Ivani de Amorim Araújo. Curso de Direito Internacional Público. 6. ed. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Forense, 1988. p. 198.
104.
Marco G. Marcoff. Traité de Droit International Public de l’Espace. Fribourg, Switzerland: Éditions Universitaires Fribourg, 1973. p. 325.
105.
Maurice N. Andem. International Legal Problems in the Peaceful Exploration and Use of Outer Space. Rovaniemi, Finland: University of Lapland, 1992. p. 152.
106.
Albert Moon. “A Look at Airspace Sovereignty”. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, n. 29. Dallas, USA, 1963. p. 328.
107.
“Space tourism and other vehicles capable of operating in the near space area are nearing commercial feasibility. Intercontinental hypersonic vehicles are being planned. A low limit on State sovereignty would allow these vehicles to operate freely without being obstructed by a political veto from the underlying State. Overflight rights would not be required which would save all the time an effort required to negotiate the web of air transit agreements now required to operate an international airline. More and more States are developing their own domestic space launch capability. Few of these new space powers will be able to freely access space, or utilize the most efficient launch azimuths, if neighboring States can claim sovereignty up to even 62 miles (100 km). They will have even more difficulty returning objects to Earth if the boundary is set at that altitude. Even the U.S. and Russia are facing limitations on their ability to freely access space. Setting a low vertical limit on State sovereignty will ensure all States have equal access to space.” Dean Reinhardt. The Vertical Limit of State Sovereignty. Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University. Montreal, Canada: 2005. p. 75.
108.
“Any such arbitrary chosen boundaries must again obviously fail to provide rational accommodation between inclusive and exclusive interests”. Myres S. McDougal, Harold D. Lasswell and Ivan I. Vlasic. Law and Public Order in Space. New Haven, USA: Yale University Press, 1963. p. 349.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Santos, Brazil
Olavo de Oliveira Bittencourt Neto

Authors

Olavo de Oliveira Bittencourt Neto
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

de Oliveira Bittencourt Neto, O. (2015). Proposals. In: Defining the Limits of Outer Space for Regulatory Purposes. SpringerBriefs in Space Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16685-8_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16685-8_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16684-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16685-8
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics