Abstract
The greatest contribution to space law before the Space Treaty has been made by the United Nations Organization. In fact, as of today, the most authoritative body to evolve space law is the United Nations. The Organization’s interest in the peaceful uses of outer space has been expressed since 1958 in a series of resolutions of the General Assembly. The authority for the activities of the un in outer space is Article i (4) of the un Charter which states that the United Nations shall be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of common ends. The activities are related to the General Assembly’s function under Article 13 of the Charter of initiating studies and making recommendations for the purpose of encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Prof. Goedhuis, “Reflections on the Evolution of Space Law” Netherlands International Law Review, 1966, Issue ii, at page 112 et. seq.
Brierly, Law of Nations. Oxford (6th Ed.) page 61 (x963).
Ref. Brierly, op. cit. page 62.
Bing Cheng, “United Nations Resolutions on Outer Space: `Instant’ International Customary Law?” Indian Journal of International Law, vol. 5, Jan. 1965, page 35; Ref. also Prof. Goedhuis’ assertion that a new rule of customary law can come into existence instantly when the requisite consensus or “opinio juris generalis” has been manifested. (Goedhuis “Reflections on the Evolution of Space Law” Netherlands International Law Review of 1966, Issue u, page 109, et seq.
A/AC.1o5/29 (r October 1965).
ux doc. A/PV. 1294, PP. 38–40.
Jessup and Taubenfeld, Control for Outer Space and the Antarctic Analogy, pg. 275
Goedhuis, “Reflections on the Evolution of Space Law”, Netherlands International Law Review. 1966 at pg. 115, 116.
Oscar Schacter, in Cohen (ed) Law and Politics in Space, pg. 96.
McDougal, in Cohen (ed) op. cit. pg. iii.
Jennings, “Recent developments in the International Law Commission”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, April 1964, pg. 39o.
Ref. “Some Suggestions regarding the interpretation and the implementation of the United Nations Outer Space Treaty of 13 December 1966, by Professor Dr. D. Goedhuis.
Professor Cheng, “Le Traité de 1967 sur l’espace” at pg. 564.
Cohen (ed) “Law and Politics in Space” at pg. 158. McGill Univ. Press 1964.
In modern times, weather satellites have been used to take cloud pictures. Acquiescence seems to be the reaction of States to this practice. The question arises whether someone would have complained if the cloud pictures had been taken by an aircraft. In such a situation, the aircraft will probably be shot down or warned against operating without permission in the territorial airspace of another state. On the other hand, how many countries have the capabilities of shooting down or warning a weather satellite?
Cited in McDougall, Lasswell and Vlasic, Law and Public Order in Space, at page 206. E7 UN Doc. A/C. r/PV.085 at pg. 26.
Cited in McDougal, Lasswell, Vlasic, op. cit. pg. 207.
Jessup and Taubenfeld, Controls for Outer Space and the Antarctic Analogy, at pg. 215; See also pg. 207.
Cohen, cited in Goedhuis, “Reflections on the Evolution of Space Law”, pg. 137. Netherlands International Law Review, 1966.
Goedhuis, “Reflections on the Evolution of Space Law”, pg. 138.
McDougal, Lasswell, Vlasic, op. cit. pg. 205.
Lipson and Katzenbach “Report to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on the Law of Outer Space”, American Bar Foundation, 1961, at pg. 20.
Ref. Goedhuis, “Some trends in the political and legal thinking on the conquest of space”, Netherlands International Law Review, 3962, Issue 2 at page 128. Ref. also Dr. Brownlie, The Maintenance of International Peace and Security in Outer Space. 4o B.Y.I.L. pages 15–39 (3964).
Ref. I. C. J. Pleadings, Aerial Incident of Sept. 4, 3954.
Dept. of State Bulletin, 234–36 (3960).
Professor Zhukov, “Space Espionage Plans and International Law”, 6 International Affairs 53 (196o).
Professor Goedhuis, “Some Comments on the United Nations Outer Space Treaty of January 1967” at page 5. Ref. also Goedhuis “An Evaluation of the Leading Principles of the Treaty on Outer Space at 27 January 1967” at page 16.
For more on this point see below (chap. vi) which deals with arms control and the Space Treaty. Note especially Italy’s request for an amendment of Article iv of the Space Treaty.
Ref. Indian delegate’s remarks in A/C. r/PV.1493
A/C. r/PV.1493 at pg. 57.
A/C. r/PV.1492 at page 48. Ref. also the disappointment expressed by the Brazilian delegate at the fact that the Space Treaty, in its Article iv allows “the non-peaceful or military use of outer space” — A/C. r/PV.1492 at pages 64–65.
E. g. use of reconnaissance satellites for military purposes.
Professor Christol, International Law of Outer Space, Naval War College International Law Studies, 1962 at page 271.
Goedhuis “Some suggestions regarding the interpretation and the implementation of the uN Outer Space Treaty of rg December 1966”, page 20.
Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States, Oxford University Press, 367 (1963).
Crane, R., “Soviet attitude towards International Space Law”, A.J.I.L. 1962 at page
Third and Fourth Reports of the ITU on Telecommunication and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, 1964 and 1965.
The new Intelsat has 8o members. It should be pointed out that the above-mentioned agreements have replaced the old 1964 agreements relating to the “Interim Intelsat”. References will therefore be made to “Interim Intelsat” only in so far as they are relevant to the consideration of the new and “definitive” Intelsat.
The old “Interim” Intelsat was criticized because there was no provision for “one nation one vote” formula. This had led to the conclusion that the developing countries and certain European countries had little or no voice in the “Interim” Intelsat.
Plans have been made to hold the first meeting on 4 February 1974. B8 Art. vin (i) of the Intergovernmental Agreement.
Cheng, B., “Communications Satellites”, pg. 228, Current Legal Problems (197r). 70 Art. ix (b) (ii) of the Intergovernmental Agreement.
The role of Comsat under the old “Interim” arrangements was criticized by Dr. Cheprov in his article entitled, “Global or American Space Communications System?”. International Affairs No. 12 (Dec. 1964, Moscow) at pg. 6g. Dr. Cheprov criticized the fact that no role was assigned to the United Nations in Intelsat. He suggested that all questions relating to space communications should be transferred to the United Nations Outer Space Committee and the ITU. It should be pointed out that Intelsat in fact recognized the role of ITU as the most competent organization to regulate the allocation of radio frequency spectrum.
See above for the discussion of this point.
Dr. Jenks, at pp. 20 and 25 of “Current problems in Space Law — A Symposium” B.LI.C.L. 1966.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1975 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ogunbanwo, O.O. (1975). Space Law before the Space Treaty. In: International Law and Outer Space Activities. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9212-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9212-5_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8489-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9212-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive