State Responsibility and Liability for Compliance with International Space Law

Lee, Ricky J.

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2039-8_3

Ricky J. Lee²

Part of the book series: Space Regulations Library ((SPRL,volume 7))

2458 Accesses

Abstract

Chapter 3 outlines the general principles in the existing body of international space law as applicable to all space activities, particularly on issues of state responsibility and international liability. Despite the legal issues already encountered in the launch and transit segments of a commercial asteroid space mining venture, it is the exploration and extraction segments of the mining operation that would encounter most of the legal obstacles. In the exploration segment, ore samples are either robotically analysed in situ or are returned to the surface of the Earth for further and more detailed analysis. While this exercise of gathering samples may arguably be no different to the collection of lunar rocks during the Apollo Program missions of the United States, the crucial distinction is that in the case of mineral prospecting, the samples are collected for ultimate private commercial rather than public scientific gain. Accordingly, this raises issues on the lawfulness of such activities in outer space.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 189.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 249.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 249.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
The first published monograph on space law was published in 1932. See Vladimír Mandl, Das Weltraumrecht: Ein Problem der Raumfahrt (1932). See also Vladímir Kopal, Vladimír Mandl – Founder of Space Law (1968) 11 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 357; and Gerhard Reintanz, Vladimír Mandl – The Father of Space Law (1968) 11 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 362.
2.
For example, Iridium LLC expended over U.S. $6.5 billion in contracts for satellite design, launch, operations and maintenance: Sydney Finkelstein and Shade H. Sanford, Learning from Corporate Mistakes: The Rise and Fall of Iridium (2000) 29 Organisational Dynamics 138 and Martin Collins, One World … One Telephone: Iridium, One Look at the Making of a Global Age (2005) 21 Hist. & Tech. 301.
3.
Jeffrey S. Kargel, Market Value of Asteroidal Precious Metals in an Age of Diminishing Terrestrial Resources, in Stewart W. Johnson (ed.), Engineering, Construction and Operations in Space V: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Space (1996). The value conversion was done based on the annual gross domestic product of the United States as determined by the USA Bureau of Economic Analysis, as this would be the more appropriate indicator than using the official annual consumer price index as calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as the latter would consider only consumer goods and, accordingly, is somewhat inappropriate for determining the cost of space missions. For reference, the latter would calculate U.S. $100 billion in 1996 to be U.S. $120 billion in 2005 values.
4.
See Collins, supra note 2.
5.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, at <http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/apollo_program.pdf>, last accessed on 25 July 2007.
6.
General Assembly Resolution 1962 (XVIII).
7.
The commercial partners of the Sea Launch project are Boeing Commercial Space (USA) (40%), RSC-Energia (Russia) (25%), Akec Kvaerner (Norway) (20%) and SDO Yuzhnoye / PO Yuzhmash (Ukraine) (15%); the governmental partners of the International Space Station are Canada, Japan, Russia, the United States of America and the European Space Agency, of which the Member States are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom: European Space Agency, All About E.S.A. (2008), at <http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/About_ESA/SEMW16ARR1F_0.html>, 12 September 2008, last accessed on 1 November 2008.
8.
The 1998 International Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement is an example of a treaty governing an intergovernmental activity; and the 2001 bilateral agreement between Australia and the Russian Federation is an example of a bilateral agreement providing for cooperation between the two States for the regulation of private space launch activities: the Agreement Among the Government of Canada, Governments of the Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the United States of America Concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station, opened for signature on 29 January 1998, Temp. State Dep’t No. 01-52, CTIA No. 10073.000 (entered into force on 27 March 2001) and the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Russian Federation on Cooperation in the Field of Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes, opened for signature on 23 May 2001, [2004] A.T.S. 17 (entered into force on 12 July 2004).
9.
Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (the “Nuclear Test Ban Treaty”), opened for signature on 5 August 1963, 480 U.N.T.S. 43; 14 U.S.T. 1313 (entered into force on 10 October 1963).
10.
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies (the “Outer Space Treaty”), opened for signature on 27 January 1967, 610 U.N.T.S. 205; 18 U.S.T. 2410; T.I.A.S. 6347; 6 I.L.M. 386 (entered into force on 10 October 1967).
11.
Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (the “Rescue Agreement”), opened for signature on 22 April 1968, 672 U.N.T.S. 119; T.I.A.S. 6599; 19 U.S.T. 7570; 1986 A.T.S. 8 (entered into force on 3 December 1968).
12.
Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (the “Liability Convention”), opened for signature on 29 March 1972, 961 U.N.T.S. 187, 24 U.S.T. 2389, T.I.A.S. 7762; 1975 A.T.S. 5 (entered into force on 1 September 1972).
13.
Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (the “Registration Convention”), opened for signature on 14 January 1975, 1023 U.N.T.S. 15; T.I.A.S. 8480; 28 U.S.T. 695, (entered into force on 15 September 1976).
14.
Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the “Moon Agreement”), opened for signature on 18 December 1979, 1363 U.N.T.S. 3; 18 I.L.M. 1434, (entered into force on 11 July 1984).
15.
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Article I.
16.
Article IV(1) of the Outer Space Treaty prohibits only the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in space. Article IV(2) of the Outer Space Treaty provides for a complete demilitarisation of celestial bodies and thus effectively prevents the testing of nuclear weapons on celestial bodies.
17.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature on 10 December 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3; 21 I.L.M. 1261 (entered into force on 16 November 1994). To some extent, this debate continues today with the issue being one of four discussion topics of the 2004 Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space in Vancouver, Canada. See Natalia R. Malysheva, General Convention on Space Law: Some Arguments for Elaboration (2004) 47 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 254; Mimi Lytje, Obstacles on the Way to a General Convention (2004) 47 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 267; and Lotta Viikari, Problems Related to Time in the Development of International Space Law (2004) 47 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 259.
18.
Dean Rusk, “Letter of Submittal from Secretary Rusk to President Johnson”, 27 January 1967, in Hearings on Treaty on Outer Space Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (1967), 90th Cong., 1st Sess., at 112.
19.
Since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1950, there has been a significant number of international legal instruments dealing with various issues of human rights, such as colonialism, racial discrimination, children, education, religious tolerance, women and slavery: see United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, International Human Rights Instruments (2007), at <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/intlinst.htm>, last accessed on 28 January 2007.
20.
Nandasiri Jasentuliyana and Roy S. Lee, Manual on Space Law (1979), vol. III, at xxiv–xxvi.
21.
Outer Space Treaty, Article XIV. Similar provisions can be found in the Rescue Agreement, Article 7; Liability Convention, Article XXIV, Registration Convention, Article VIII and Moon Agreement, Article 19. To some extent, this assertion is difficult to sustain, with Switzerland’s accession to the Statute of the International Court of Justice without being a full member of the United Nations.
22.
Outer Space Treaty, Article XIII. See also Rescue Agreement, Article 6; Liability Convention, Article VII; Registration Convention, Article VII; and Moon Agreement, Article 16.
23.
Registration Convention, Article X and Moon Agreement, Article 18.
24.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/L.2.
25.
U.N.Doc. A/C.1/879.
26.
U.N.Doc. A/C.1/881.
27.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/6.
28.
General Assembly Resolution 1962 (XVIII).
29.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.13.
30.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.12.
31.
General Assembly Resolution 2222 (XXI).
32.
Outer Space Treaty, Article I.
33.
Ibid., Article II.
34.
Ibid., Article III.
35.
Ibid., Article IV.
36.
Ibid., Article V.
37.
Ibid., Articles VI and VII.
38.
Ibid., Article VIII.
39.
Ibid., Article IX.
40.
Ibid., Article IX.
41.
United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs, Status of International Agreements Relating to Activities in Outer Space as at 1 January 2010, 1 January 2010, at <http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/ST_SPACE_11_Rev2_Add3E.pdf>, last accessed on 22 April 2010.
42.
Bin Cheng, The 1967 Outer Space Treaty: Thirtieth Anniversary (1998) 23 Air & Sp. L. 156.
43.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.2.
44.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.9.
45.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.2.
46.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.21.
47.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.23.
48.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.28.
49.
General Assembly Resolution 2345 (XXII).
50.
Outer Space Treaty, Article V. It is curious to note that such an obligation is not repeated in the provisions of the Rescue Agreement.
51.
Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 98.
52.
Rescue Agreement, Article 1.
53.
Ibid., Articles 2 and 4.
54.
Ibid., Articles 3 and 4.
55.
Ibid., Article 6. In the event of the launch being conducted by an international organisation that has not accepted the provisions of the Rescue Agreement, its Member States would presumably be regarded as the “launching authorities” for the purposes of the Rescue Agreement.
56.
Ibid., Article 5(1).
57.
Ibid., Article 5(2) and (3).
58.
Ibid., Article 5(3).
59.
Ibid., Article 5(4).
60.
The Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space (the “Nuclear Power Sources Principles”) establishes a contrary position; see the Nuclear Power Sources Principles, Principle 9(3).
61.
United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs, supra note 41.
62.
Vladlen S. Vereshchetin and Gennady M. Danilenko, Custom as a Source of International Law of Outer Space (1985) 13 J. Sp. L. 22 and Gennady M. Danilenko, Outer Space and the Multilateral Treaty-Making Process (1989) 4 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 217.
63.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.8.
64.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.7.
65.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.10.
66.
General Assembly Resolution 2777 (XXVI).
67.
Liability Convention, Article I.
68.
Ibid., Article V.
69.
Ibid., Article VII.
70.
Ibid., Article II.
71.
Ibid., Articles II and VI.
72.
Ibid., Article III.
73.
Ibid., Article IV.
74.
This position should be contrasted with those found in maritime law in the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, opened for signature on 19 November 1976, 1456 U.N.T.S. 221 (entered into force on 1 December 1986); and in international air law in the 1929 Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, opened for signature on 12 October 1929, 137 L.N.T.S. 11; 1933 U.K.T.S. 11 (entered into force on 13 February 1933), Chapter III.
75.
Liability Convention, Articles IX, X and XI.
76.
Ibid., Article XIV.
77.
Ibid., Article XIX(2).
78.
United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs, supra note 41.
79.
See Australia: Space Activities Act 1998 (Cth.) and Space Activities Regulations 2001 (Cth.); Belgium: Law on the Activities of Launching, Flight Operations and Guidance of Space Objects 2005; Brazil: Resolution on Commercial Launching Activities from Brazilian Territory (Res. No. 51 of 26 January 2001) and Regulation on Procedures and on Definition of Necessary Requirements for the Request, Evaluation, Issuance, Follow-up and Supervision of Licences for Carrying out Launching Space Activities on Brazilian Territory (No. 27); France: Space Operations Act (No. 2008-518 of 3 June 2008) and Decree on the Authorisations Issued in Accordance with French Act No. 2008-518 of 3 June 2008 Relating to Space Operations (No. 2009-643); Hong Kong: Outer Space Ordinance 1997 (No. 65 of 1997); Japan: Basic Space Law (No. 43 of 28 May 2008); the Netherlands: Space Activities Act (13 June 2006); Norway: Act on Launching Objects from Norwegian Territory into Outer Space (No. 38 of 13 June 1969); Republic of Korea: Space Liability Act (No. 8852 of 21 December 2007); Russia: Law on Space Activities 1993 (Decree 5663-1) and Statute on Licensing Space Operations (No. 104); South Africa: Space Affairs Act 1993; Sweden: Act on Space Activities (1982:963) and Decree on Space Activities (1982:1069); Ukraine: Ordinance of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine on Space Activity (15 November 1996); United Kingdom: Outer Space Act 1986; and United States: Commercial Space Launch Act 1994 (49 U.S.C. 701) and Commercial Space Transportation Regulations (14 C.F.R. chap. III).
80.
See, for example, Space Activities Act 1998 (Australia), Part 4.
81.
Registration Convention, Article VI.
82.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.45.
83.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/58.
84.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.82.
85.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.83.
86.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/85.
87.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/13.
88.
General Assembly Resolution 3235 (XXIX).
89.
Registration Convention, Article I.
90.
Ibid., Articles II(1) and IV. The basic orbital parameters required under the Registration Convention include the nodal period, inclination, apogee and perigee: Article IV.
91.
Ibid., Article II(2) and (3).
92.
The Registration Convention does not provide for the possibility of transfers of registrations, so the ability of non-launching States to exercise jurisdiction and control over a space object that has been sold or otherwise transferred remains difficult; see generally Marietta Benkö and Kai-Uwe Schrogl, The 1998 European Initiative in the UNCOPUOS Legal Sub-Committee to Improve the Registration Convention (1998) 41 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 58; Gabriel Lafferranderie, L’application par l’Agence Spatial Européenne de la Convention sur l’immatriculation des objets lancés dans l’espace extra-atmospherique (1986) 11 Ann. Air & Sp. L. 229; and Ricky J. Lee, Transferring Registration of Space Objects: The Interpretative Solution, paper presented at the 47th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, 4–8 October 2004, in Vancouver, Canada.
93.
United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs, supra note 41.
94.
See, for example, United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs, Proceedings of the IISL / ECSL Symposium: Reinforcing the Registration Convention (2003), passim.
95.
General Assembly Resolution A/16/1721B (1961). Paragraph 1 of the Resolution “Calls upon States launching objects into orbit or beyond to furnish information promptly to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, through the Secretary-General, for the registration of launchings”.
96.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.12.
97.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.53.
98.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.54.
99.
General Assembly Resolution A/34/68 (1979).
100.
Moon Agreement, Article 1.
101.
Ibid., Article 3.
102.
Ibid., Article 4.
103.
Ibid., Article 7.
104.
Ibid., Article 11.
105.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 136.
106.
Moon Agreement, Article 11(7).
107.
Ibid., Article 11(5).
108.
The 13 States that have ratified the Moon Agreement are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines and Uruguay with France, Guatemala, India and Romania having signed but not ratified the Moon Agreement: United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs, supra note 41.
109.
Vladímir Kopal, The Role of United Nations Declarations of Principles in the Progressive Development of Space Law (1988) 16 J. Sp. L. 5 at 6.
110.
United Nations, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to the United Nations General Assembly (1959) U.N.Doc. A/4141, Part III.
111.
Eugene Jericho and David G. McCracken, Space Law: Is it the Last Legal Frontier? (1985) 51 J. Air L. & Com. 791 at 799–800.
112.
See Manfred Lachs, The Law of Outer Space: An Experience in Contemporary Law Making (1972) at 27–41.
113.
General Assembly Resolution 1962 (XVIII).
114.
Principles Declaration, Paragraph 1.
115.
Ibid., Paragraph 4
116.
Ibid.
117.
See, for example, Bin Cheng, Studies in International Space Law (1998), ch. 7, passim.
118.
Ibid.
119.
Ibid.
120.
See Stephen Gorove, Interpreting Salient Provisions of the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1968) 11 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 93; Vladímir Kopal, Problems Arising from the Interpretation of Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, Return of Astronauts and Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1968) 11 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 98; Maurice N. Andem, The 1968 Rescue Agreement and the Commercialisation of Outer Space Activities During the 21st Century – Some Reflections (1998) 41 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 75; and Robert C. Beckman, 1968 Rescue Agreement – An Overview, in United Nations, Proceedings of the United Nations / Republic of Korea Workshop on Space Law (2003), 370–378.
121.
Recent examples of this include the discoveries of a U.S. launch vehicle component in Japan (U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/735), a component of the French Ariane rocket in Texas (U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/737), components of a U.S. launch vehicle in South Africa (U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/740) and remnants of a U.S. satellite in Saudi Arabia (U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/762) as referred to in Kenneth Hodgkins, Procedures for Return of Space Objects under the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, in United Nations, Proceedings of the United Nations/International Institute of Air and Space Law Workshop on Capacity Building in Space Law (2002), at 39.
122.
See Petr Lála, The United Nations Register of Objects Launched into Outer Space, in United Nations, Proceedings of the United Nations / International Institute of Air and Space Law Workshop on Capacity Building in Space Law (2002), at 36.
123.
Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (5th ed., 1998), at 14.
124.
Michael Akehurst, Custom as a Source of International Law (1974–1975) 47 Brit. Y. B. Int’l. L. 1 at 53.
125.
Stephen Schwebel, Letter of U.S. State Department Deputy Legal Adviser Stephen Schwebel of 25 April 1975 [1975] U.S.D.I.L. 85.
126.
South West Africa Case (Ethiopia and Liberia v. South Africa) [1966] I.C.J. Rep. at 292.
127.
Louis B. Sohn, The Development of the Charter of the United Nations: The Present State, in Marteen Bos (ed.), The Present State of International Law and Other Essays (1973), 39–60 at 52–53.
128.
Blain Sloan, General Assembly Resolutions Revisited (1987) 58 Brit. Y. B. Int’l. L. 39.
129.
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Merits) (Nicaragua v. United States) [1986] I.C.J. Rep. at para. 188. See also Hilary C. M. Charlesworth, Customary International Law and the Nicaragua Case (1988) 11 Aust. Y. B. Int’l. L. 1; and Jonathan I. Charney, Customary International Law in the Nicaragua Case Judgment on the Merits (1988) 1 Hague Y. B. Int’l. L. 16.
130.
[1996] I.C.J. Rep. 226 at 254–255, para. 70.
131.
Lachs, supra note 112, at 58.
132.
C. Wilfred Jenks, Space Law (1965) at 185.
133.
James E. S. Fawcett, International Law and the Uses of Outer Space (1968) at 15–16.
134.
See generally the travaux préparatoire of the Broadcasting Principles as reproduced in Nandasiri Jasentuliyana and Roy S. Lee, Manual on Space Law (1979), vol. III.
135.
Moon Agreement, Article 11(7).
136.
Report of the Chairman of the Working Group on Remote Sensing, U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/271.
137.
Article IV(2) of the Registration Convention allows States to provide “additional” information concerning a space object, although it does not impose a mandatory obligation.
138.
Outer Space Treaty, Article IX.
139.
Ibid., Article X.
140.
Ibid., Article XI.
141.
(1969) 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
142.
Nicholas G. Onuf and Richard K. Birney, Peremptory Norms of International Law: Their Source, Function and Future (1974) 4 Denver J. Int’l. L. & Pol’y. 187 at 195.
143.
José Joaquin Caicedo Perdomo, La Teoría del Jus Cogens en Derecho Internacional a la Luz de la Convención de Viena Sobre el Derecho de los Tratados (1975) 206–207 Rev. Aca. Colom. Juris. 259. at 265.
144.
Gennady M. Danilenko, International Jus Cogens: Issues of Law-Making (1991) 2 Eur. J. Int’l. L. 42 at 55.
145.
See discussion in Danilenko, supra note 144, at 62–63.
146.
See, for example, the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970.
147.
Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite, opened for signature on 21 May 1974, 1144 U.N.T.S. 3; 13 I.L.M. 1444 (entered into force on 25 August 1979).
148.
See, for example, the Convention for the Establishment of a European Space Agency, opened for signature on 30 May 1975, 14 I.L.M. 864 (entered into force on 30 October 1980); the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT) Agreement Between the United States of American and Other Governments and Operating Agreement, opened for signature on 20 August 1971, 23 U.S.T. 3813; T.I.A.S. 7532 (entered into force on 12 February 1973); and the Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organisation (INMARSAT), opened for signature on 3 September 1976; 31 U.S.T. 1; T.I.A.S. 9605 (entered into force on 16 July 1979).
149.
Bilateral Agreement, supra note 8.
150.
International Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement, supra note 8.
151.
“In the whole of law, special takes precedence over genus, and anything that relates species is regarded as most important”: Papinian, The Digest of Justinian, vol. IV (1985).
152.
Hugo Grotius, De Jure belli ac pacis. Libri Tres (1646), Book II, Ch. XVI, Sec. XXIX, at 428 and Emmerich de Vattel, Le droit des gens ou principes de la Loi Naturelle, appliques a la conduite et aux Affaires des nations et des Souverains (1758), Vol. 1, Book II, Ch. XVII, at 511.
153.
See, for example, Hamilton DeSaussure and Peter P. C. Haanappel, A Unified Multinational Approach to the Application of Tort and Contract Principles to Outer Space (1978) 6 Syracuse J. Int’l. L. 1 at 10; Venkateswara S. Mani, Development of Effective Mechanism(s) for Settlement of Disputes Arising in Relation to Space Commercialisation (2001) 5 Sing. J. Int’l. & Comp. L. 191 at 211; and Ricky J. Lee. Reconciling Space Law and the Commercial Realities of the Twenty-First Century (2000) 4 Sing. J. Int’l. & Comp. L. 194.
154.
See, for example, Ian Awford, Commercial Space Activities: Legal Liability Issues, in V. S. Mani, S. Bhatt and V. B. Reddy (eds.), Recent Trends in International Space Law and Policy (1997) at 388.
155.
Article XVII of the Outer Space Treaty provides that the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic. For example of recent commentaries that have made this observation, see Armel Kerrest, Remarks on the Responsibility and Liability for Damage other than Those Caused by the Fall of a Space Object (1997) 40 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 134.
156.
Some commentators have also noted that the travaux préparatoires and many domestic laws in civil law jurisdictions do not draw a distinction between “responsibility” and “liability”. See, for example, Bin Cheng, Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty Revisited: “International Responsibility”, “National Activities” and “The Appropriate State” (1998) 26 J. Sp. L. 10 and Motoko Uchitomi, State Responsibility / Liability for “National” Space Activities: Towards Safe and Fair Competition in Private Space Activities (2001) 44 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 51.
157.
Article 33(4) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties further provides that, where there is a difference in meaning across different texts, the meaning that best reconciles the texts is to be adopted: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature on 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force on 27 January 1980).
158.
Chorzów Factory (Indemnity) (Merits) (1928) P.C.I.J. Rep., Ser. A, No. 17, at 29.
159.
International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Articles 5–7. See also Massey (United States v. Mexico) (1927) 4 R.I.A.A. 155.
160.
Chorzów Factory, supra note 158, at 46–48.
161.
International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Article 11.
162.
Foremost Tehran Inc. v. Iran (1986) 10 Iran-U.S.C.T.R. 228.
163.
Flexi-Van Leasing Inc. v. Iran (1986) 12 Iran-U.S.C.T.R. 335. In that case, a private Iranian company under the control of the Iranian Government committed acts of expropriation, but the Tribunal held that they were not imputable to the State as it could not be demonstrated that the acts themselves were under the direction or influence of the State.
164.
See, for example, Elisabeth Back-Impallomeni, The Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, in United Nations, Proceedings of the United Nations/Republic of Korea Workshop on Space Law (2003), 348–351 and Ricky J. Lee, Liability Arising from Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty: States, Domestic Law and Private Operators (2005) 48 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 216.
165.
International Law Commission (“ILC”) Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Articles 5 and 7. See, for example, Hyatt International Corporation v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1985) 9 Iran-U.S.C.T.R. 72 at 88–94.
166.
Ibid., Article 8. See Prosecutor v. Tadic (1999) 38 I.L.M. 1518 and Military and Paramilitary Activities, supra note 129, at 14.
167.
Ibid., Article 11. See U.S. Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran [1980] I.C.J. Rep. 3 and Lighthouses (1956) 12 R.I.A.A. 155.
168.
See Tadic, supra note 166; and Military and Paramilitary Activities, supra note 129.
169.
Liability Convention, Article I.
170.
Armel Kerrest, Commercial Use of Space, Including Launching (2004), in China Institute of Space Law, 2004 Space Law Conference: Paper Assemble 199.
171.
S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey) (1927) P.C.I.J. Rep., Ser. A, No. 10.
172.
Ibid., at 20.
173.
Edwin D. Dickinson, Introductory Comment to the Harvard Research Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime (1935) 29 Am. J. Int’l. L. Supp. 443 at 519 et seq.
174.
James L. Brierly, The Lotus Case (1928) 44 L. Q. Rev. 154 at 155.
175.
Lotus, supra note 171, at 20.
176.
U.N. Doc. A/C1/881 (14 October 1962).
177.
See, for example, Istvan Herczeg, Interpretation of the Space Treaty of 1967 (Introductory Report) (1967) 10 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 105 at 107; Stephen Gorove, Liability in Space Law: An Overview (1983) 8 Ann. Air & Sp. L. 373 at 377; and Michel Bourély, Rules of International Law Governing the Commercialisation of Space Activities (1986) 29 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 157 at 159.
178.
See also Kenneth Hodgkins, International Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Remarks on Agenda Item 75 in the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, 9 October 2002, at <http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/2002/14362.htm>, last accessed on 9 April 2004.
179.
See, for example, Peter H. van Fenema, The Registration Convention (2002) in United Nations, Proceedings of the United Nations Workshop on Capacity Building in Space Law 33 and Kai-Uwe Hörl and Julian Hermida, Change of Ownership, Change of Registry? Which Objects to Register, What Data to be Furnished, When, and Until When? (2003) in United Nations, Proceedings of the I.I.S.L. / E.C.S.L. Symposium: Reinforcing the Registration Convention 15 at 18.
180.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/806 (22 August 2003) for the purchase of satellites by NewSkies Satellites, a Dutch company; and U.N. Doc. ST/SG/Ser.E/417 (25 September 2002) for the registration of satellites of the privatised Inmarsat Limited, now a British company.
181.
U.N.Doc. A/AC.105/806 (22 August 2003).
182.
(1967) 610 U.N.T.S. 205; 6 I.L.M. 386.
183.
(1972) 961 U.N.T.S. 187; 10 I.L.M. 965.
184.
See generally Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Settlement of Disputes Regarding Space Activities (1993) 21 J. Sp. L. 1; Philip D. Bostwick, Going Private with the Judicial System: Making Creative Use of ADR Procedures to Resolve Commercial Space Disputes (1995) 23 J. Sp. L. 1; Alexis Goh, Coping with the Lack of a Mechanism for the Settlement of Disputes Arising in Relation to Space Commercialisation (2001) 5 Singapore J. Int’l. & Comp. L. 180; Patricia M. Sterns and Leslie I. Tennen, Resolution of Disputes in the Corpus Juris Spatialis: Domestic Law Considerations (1993) 36 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 172; and Hennake L. van Traa-Engelman, Settlement of Space Law Disputes (1990) 3 Leiden J. Int’l. L. 139.
185.
See Ricky J. Lee, The Liability Convention and Private Space Launch Services – Domestic Regulatory Responses (2006) 31 Ann. Air & Sp. L. 351.
186.
Isabella H. Ph. Rode-Verschoor, The Responsibility of States for the Damage Caused by Launched Space-Bodies (1958) 1 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 103.
187.
U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.4.
188.
U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.4.
189.
General Assembly Resolution 1962 (XVIII).
190.
See, for example, the discussion in Vladlen S. Vereshchetin and Gennady M. Danilenko, Custom as a Source of International Law of Outer Space (1985) 13 J. Sp. L. 22; D. Krstic, Customary Law Rules in Regulating Outer Space Activities (1977) 20 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 320; and Lee and Freeland (2003, 127).
191.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Merits) (Nicaragua v. United States) [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 14 at 94 and North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Germany v. Denmark; Germany v. the Netherlands) [1969] I.C.J. Rep. 3. See, for example, Brownlie, supra note 123, at 4–11.
192.
U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.8.
193.
Herbert Reis, Some Reflections on the Liability Convention for Outer Space (1978) 6 J. Sp. L. 161.
194.
U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.7.
195.
Reis, supra note 193, at 126.
196.
U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.10/Rev.1, Article II.
197.
Ibid., Article V.
198.
Reis, supra note 193, at 128.
199.
Liability Convention, Article V.
200.
Ibid., Article VI.
201.
See, for example, Ronald E. Alexander, Measuring Damages under the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1978) 6 J. Sp. L. 151; Carl Q. Christol, International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1980) 74 Am. J. Int’l. L. 346; and Marc S. Firestone, Problems in the Resolution of Disputes Concerning Damage Caused in Outer Space (1985) 59 Tul. L. Rev. 747.
202.
Ian Awford, Legal Liability Arising from Commercial Activities in Outer Space, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Bar Association, December 1990, in Paris, France.
203.
Liability Convention, Article IV (2).
204.
Ibid., Article VII.
205.
Armel Kerrest, Launching Spacecraft from the Sea and the Outer Space Treaty: The Sea Launch Project (1997) 40 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 264.
206.
Kai-Uwe Schrogl and Charles Davies, A New Look at the “Launching State”: The Results of the UNCOPUOS Legal Subcommittee Working Group “Review of the Concept of the ‘Launching State’” 2000–2002 (2002) 45 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 286.
207.
William B. Wirin, Practical Implications of Launching State – Appropriate State Definitions (1994) 37 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 109 at 112.
208.
Awford, supra note 202, at 5–6. To this list one may add the State that leases the territory on which the launch facility is built; the State that financed the construction of the launch facility; the State that financed the manufacturing of the satellite; the State that financed the launch and the State that financed the construction of the launch vehicle.
209.
Liability Convention, Article V.
210.
Gyula Gál, Space Treaties and Space Technology: Questions of Interpretation (1972) 15 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 105 at 106.
211.
Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, The Term “Launching State” in International Space Law (1994) 37 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 80 at 81.
212.
Stephen Gorove, Space Transportation Systems: Some International Legal Considerations (1981) 24 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 117 at 118.
213.
See Reis, supra note 193.
214.
Böckstiegel, supra note 211, at 81.
215.
Peter D. Nesgos, International and Domestic Law Applicable to Commercial Launch Vehicle Transportation (1984) 27 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 98 at 102.
216.
This is partly suggested in Gorove, supra note 212, at 120.
217.
Wirin, supra note 207, at 113.
218.
See, for example, Stephen Gorove, Definitional Issues Pertaining to “Space Object” (1994) 37 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 87 at 88.
219.
Bin Cheng, “Space Objects”, “Astronauts” and Related Expressions (1991) 34 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 17.
220.
Vladimír Kopal, Some Remarks on Issues Relating to Legal Definitions of “Space Object”, “Space Debris” and “Astronaut” (1994) 37 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 99 at 101.
221.
Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, The Terms “Appropriate State” and “Launching State” in the Space Treaties: Indications of State Responsibility and Liability for State and Private Space Activities (1992) 35 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 15.
222.
Gorove, supra note 218, at 91.
223.
Stephen Gorove, Toward a Clarification of the Term “Space Object”: An International Legal and Policy Imperative? (1993) 21 J. Sp. L. 11 at 13–14.
224.
William B. Wirin, Space Debris and Space Objects (1991) 34 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 45. This was a view supported in He Qizhi, Review of Definitional Issues in Space Law in the Light of Development of Space Activities (1991) 34 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 32.
225.
Gorove, supra note 223, at 15.
226.
Cheng, supra note 219, at 24.
227.
Edward A. Frankle, International Regulation of Orbital Debris (2000) 43 Proc. Coll. L. Outer Sp. 369.
228.
Nuclear Power Sources Principles, Principle 9(1).
229.
Ibid., Principle 9(2).
230.
Rescue Agreement, Article 5(5).
231.
Nuclear Power Sources Principles, Principle 9(3).
232.
See Christol, supra note 201.
233.
Christol, supra note 201, at 359.
234.
W. F. Foster, The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1972) 10 Can. Y. B. Int’l. L. 137 at 155 and Carl Q. Christol, Protection of Space from Environmental Harms (1979) 4 Ann. Air & Sp. L. 433.
235.
Paul G. Dembling, Cosmos 954 and the Space Treaties (1978) 6 J. Sp. L. 129 at 133.
236.
Christol, supra note 201, at 359.
237.
Ibid.
238.
Foster, supra note 234, at 158. It should be noted that the same view can be found in Nicholas Mateesco Matte, Aerospace Law (1977) at 157.
239.
Christol, supra note 201, at 362.
240.
Peter P. C. Haanappel, Some Observations on the Crash of the Cosmos 954 (1978) 6 J. Sp. L. 147 at 148.
241.
Alexander, supra note 201.
242.
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1972) S. Exec. Rep. 92–38, 92nd Cong., 2nd Sess. 9 at 7 and S. Neil Hosenball, Space Law, Liability and Insurable Risks (1976) 12 The Forum 141 at 151.
243.
See, for example, Christol, supra note 201, at 365–366.
244.
Some States have already legislated to require private launch operators to indemnify and/or insure the State for any international liability incurred from the launch activity. See, for example, the Space Activities Act 1998 (Cth) of Australia; the Outer Space Act 1986 of the United Kingdom; and the Commercial Space Launch Act 1984 of the United States. See Lee, supra note 185.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Sydney, Australia
Dr. Ricky J. Lee

Authors

Dr. Ricky J. Lee
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricky J. Lee .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lee, R.J. (2012). State Responsibility and Liability for Compliance with International Space Law. In: Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space. Space Regulations Library, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2039-8_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2039-8_3
Published: 05 December 2011
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2038-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2039-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics