Emergence of Environmental Protection Clauses in Outer Space Treaty: A Lesson from the Rio Principles

Chung, Gordon

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70434-0_1

Emergence of Environmental Protection Clauses in Outer Space Treaty: A Lesson from the Rio Principles

Gordon Chung¹⁴

Chapter
First Online: 22 December 2017

1171 Accesses

Part of the book series: Studies in Space Policy ((STUDSPACE,volume 13))

Abstract

Today, the virtually unrestricted exploration and use of outer space gives birth to the increasingly severe problem of extra-terrestrial pollution that merits special attention. Under the present Outer Space Treaty (OST) regime, while Article IX calls for the avoidance of harmful contamination in space and the need for international consultations, it is ineffective as an environmental protection provision, primarily due to the absence of more rigorous environmental standards governing space activities and the inherent uncertainties associated with its applicability. Notably, for reformatory purpose, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development has significant referential value for formulating environmental regulations in space law as it embodies various fundamental principles of environmental law and represents the first international document of ‘constitutional dimension’ to read those environmental principles through the lens of sustainable development. Accordingly, to facilitate the sustainable, progressive development of the outer space, this article proposes that the existing OST regime should be reformed along two major lines: (1) the incorporation of the ‘environmental consultation’ clauses under Principles 18 and 19 of the Rio Declaration into the Treaty and (2) the application of the precautionary principle enshrined in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration to the outer space context.

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

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 99.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
I.H.Ph. Diederiks-Verschoor, ‘Environmental Protection in Outer Space’ (1987) 30 German Y.B. Int’l L. 144, 144.
2.
Stephen Gorove, ‘Pollution and Outer Space: A Legal Analysis and Appraisal’ (1972) 5 New York Journal of International Law and Policy, 55.
3.
Saara Reiman, ‘Is Space an Environment?’ (2009) Space Policy 25, 81–87.
4.
Paul B Larsen, ‘Application of the Precautionary Principle to the Moon’ (2006) 71 J. Air L. & Com. 295, 298.
5.
Lotta Viikari, The Environmental Element in Space Law: Assessing the Present and Charting the Future (Brill/Nijhoff 2008) 147.
6.
Ibid. 147.
7.
Sergio Marchisio, ‘Article IX’ in Stephan Hobe and others (eds.), I Cologne Commentary On Space Law (Carl Heymanns 2009) 176.
8.
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies 1967, art IX.
9.
Michael C Mineiro, ‘FY-1C and USA-193 ASAT intercepts: An Assessment of Legal Obligations Under Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty’ (2008) 34 J. Space L. 321, 333.
10.
Ibid. 332–333.
11.
OST, art IX.
12.
Philippe Sands and others, Principles of International Environmental Law (3rd edn., Cambridge University Press 2012) 300.
13.
Ruwantissa IR Abeyratne, Frontiers of Aerospace Law (Routledge 2002).
14.
See Lawrence D Roberts, ‘Addressing the Problem of Orbital Space Debris: Combining International Regulatory and Liability Regimes’ (1992) 15 B.C. Int’l & Comp. L.Rev. 51, 61; Bin Cheng, Studies in International Space Law (Clarendon Press 1997).
15.
OST, art XI.
16.
George T Hacket, Space Debris and the Corpus Iuris Spatialis (Gif-sur-Yvette 1992) 104.
17.
Delbert D Smith, ‘The Technical, Legal and Business Risks of Orbital Debris’ (1997) 6 N.Y.U. Envt’l. L.J. 50, 56.
18.
Ibid.; Maureen Williams, ‘Dispute Resolution Regarding Space Activities’ in Frans von der Dunk (ed), Handbook of Space Law (Edward Elgar 2015) 1001.
19.
Mineiro (n 9) 340.
20.
Ibid. 339.
21.
YM Kolossov, ‘Legal Aspects of Outer Space Environmental Protection’ (1980) 23 I.I.S.L. PROC. 103, 103.
22.
Howard A Baker, Debris and Policy Implications (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1989) 103.
23.
OST, art IX.
24.
Mineiro (n 9) 340.
25.
OST, art IX.
26.
Jerzy Sztucki, ‘International Consultations and Space Treaties’ (1974) 17 Colloquium L Outer Space 147, 157.
27.
Hacket (n 16) 122.
28.
Lotta Viikari, ‘Environmental Aspects of Space Activities’ in (n 18) 730.
29.
Sztucki (n 26) 157; Mineiro (n 9).
30.
Mineiro (n 9) 337.
31.
Viikari (n 5) 176.
32.
Sztucki (n 26) 164; Hacket (n 16) 124.
33.
Ibid.; Mineiro (n 9) 338.
34.
OST, art IX.
35.
I.H.Ph. Diederiks-Verschoor and Vladimír Kopal, An Introduction To Space Law (3rd ed., Kluwer Law International 2008) 125.
36.
Shawkat Alam and others (eds.), Routledge Handbook of International Environmental Law (Routledge 2013) 390.
37.
See Abeyratne (n 13).
38.
Owen McIntyre and Thomas Mosedale, ‘The Precautionary Principle as a Norm of Customary International Law’ (1997) 9 J. Envtl. L. 221, 221.
39.
Jorge E Viñuales, ‘Preliminary Study’ in Jorge E Viñuales (ed.), The Rio Declaration On Environment And Development: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2015) 1, 60 (emphasis added).
40.
See Viikari (n 5) 128; Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses 1997 (U.N. Watercourses Convention), Preamble.
41.
Sumudu Atapattu, ‘International Environmental Law and Soft Law: A New Direction or A Contradiction?’ in Cecilia M. Bailliet (ed), Non-State Actors, Soft Law and Protective Regimes: From the Margins (Cambridge University Press 2012) 209.
42.
Viikari (n 5) 128.
43.
Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (Taylor & Francis 2002) 251; L Boisson De Chazournes and K Sangbana, ‘Principle 19’ in (n 39) 502; Phoebe Okowa, ‘Principle 18’ in (n 39) 479–80; Philippe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law (Manchester University Press 1995) 606–607.
44.
Rainbow Warrior (New Zealand v France) (1990) 82 ILR 499, 573, para 114.
45.
Rio Declaration, Principle 19.
46.
Corfu Channel (UK v Albania) (Judgment) [1949] ICJ Rep 4. See also ILC Prevention articles with Commentaries, [2001] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 148, U.N. Doc. A/C.N.4/SER.A/2001/Add.1 (Part 2), art 8, 159, para 3.
47.
See Land Reclamation by in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v Singapore) (Provisional Measures) [2003] ITLOS Reports, 10, para 106; MOX Plant (Ireland v UK) (Provisional Measures) [2001] ITLOS Reports, 95, para 89.
48.
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic 1993, art 21(1); Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution 1979, art 5.
49.
RD Munro and JG Lammers, Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development: Legal Principles and Recommendations (Springer 1987) 104–105.
50.
ILC Prevention articles with Commentaries (n 46), art 2(c).
51.
OST, art VIII.
52.
Chazournes and Sangbana (n 43) 496.
53.
Ibid.
54.
ILC Prevention articles with Commentaries (n 46) art 2, 152, para 4 (emphasis added).
55.
R Lefeber, Transboundary Environmental Interference and the Origin of State Liability (Kluwer Law International 1996) 24.
56.
John G Lammers, ‘Prevention of Transboundary Harm From Hazardous Activities The ILC Draft Articles’ in AC Kiss and Johan G Lammers (eds.), Hague Yearbook of International Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2002) 7.
57.
Kevin R Gray, Cinnamon Piñon Carlarne and Richard Tarasofsky, The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016) 473.
58.
Lammers (n 56) 7.
59.
Gray, Carlarne and Tarasofsky (n 57) 473.
60.
Chazournes and Sangbana (n 43) 502.
61.
Draft Articles on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses and Commentaries [1994] 2 Y.B. Int’L. Comm’n 89, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.493 (Part 2), art 12, para 4.
62.
Chazournes and Sangbana (n 43) 500.
63.
Rio Declaration, Principle 18.
64.
See Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern African Development Community 2000, art 4(5); U.N. Watercourses Convention, art 28.
65.
Christina Leb, Cooperation in the Law of Transboundary Water Resources (Cambridge University Press 2013) 126.
66.
Okowa (n 43) 474.
67.
Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Natural Disasters 2016, art 3(a).
68.
Ibid.
69.
U.N. Watercourses Convention, art 28(1).
70.
Rio Declaration, Principle 18.
71.
Okowa (n 43) 475.
72.
Ibid.
73.
Diederiks-Verschoor (n 35) 14.
74.
Okowa (n 43) 478.
75.
Ibid. 476.
76.
Ibid. 477.
77.
Ibid.
78.
See Stockholm Declaration on the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment 1973, Principle 21; U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, art 3(3).
79.
Pulp Mills (Argentina v Uruguay) (Judgment) [2010] ICJ Rep 14, para 205.
80.
Rio Declaration, Principle 15.
81.
Sands (n 43) 211–213; McIntyre and Mosedale (n 38) 224.
82.
Rainbow Warrior (n 44).
83.
Rio Declaration, Principle 15.
84.
Arie Trouwborst, Evolution and Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law (Kluwer Law International 2002) 15.
85.
Sonia Boutillon, ‘The Precautionary Principle: Development of an International Standard’ (2002) 23 Mich. J. Int’l. L 429, 432.
86.
U.N. General Assembly Resolution on the World Charter for Nature 1982, para 11(b).
87.
See Viikari (n 5) 176; Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v France) (Order) [1995] ICJ 288, 348 (per Judge Weeramantry); Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan) (Order) [1999] ITLOS Reports, para 14 (per Judge Laing); MOX Plant (n 47) (per Judge Wolfum).
88.
Ibid. 175.
89.
Maurice Sunkin, Sourcebook on Environmental Law (2nd edn., Cavendish Publishing 2002) 50.
90.
Annecoos Wiersema, ‘The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Governance’ in Douglas Fisher (ed.), Research Handbook on Fundamental Concepts of Environmental Law (Edward Elgar Pub 2016) 459.
91.
André Nollkaemper, ‘“What you risk reveals what you value”, and Other Dilemmas Encountered in the Legal Assaults on Risks’ in David Freestone and Ellen Hey (eds.), The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The Challenge of Implementation (Kluwer Law International 1996) 86.
92.
Viikari (n 5) 176.
93.
JF Mayence and Thomas Reuter, ‘Article XI’ in (n 7) 189, 197; Cheng (n 14) 403–404.
94.
André Nollkaemper (n 91) 86.
95.
Ellen Hey, ‘The Precautionary Concept in Environmental Policy and Law: Institutionalizing Caution’ (1992) 4 Gielr 303, 311; Boutillon (n 85) 448. See also Rio Declaration, Principle 17.
96.
Pulp Mills (n 79), para 204.
97.
Lotta Viikari, ‘Environmental Impact Assessment in the Space Sector’ in CJ Bastmeijer, Timo Koivurova (eds.), Theory and Practice of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (Brill/Nijhoff 2007) 285; D Owen Harrop and J Ashley Nixon, Environment Assessment in Practice (Routledge 1999) 9.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Gordon Chung

Authors

Gordon Chung
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gordon Chung .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

European Space Policy Institute, Vienna, Austria
Annette Froehlich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chung, G. (2018). Emergence of Environmental Protection Clauses in Outer Space Treaty: A Lesson from the Rio Principles. In: Froehlich, A. (eds) A Fresh View on the Outer Space Treaty. Studies in Space Policy, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70434-0_1

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70434-0_1
Published: 22 December 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70433-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70434-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics