Michael T. Kezirian, Ph.D. Joseph Pelton, Ph.D. Tommaso Sgobba

Editors:Michael T. Kezirian, Ph.D.Joseph Pelton, Ph.D.Tommaso Sgobba

VOL. 1 NO. 2 - DECEMBER 2014

Publication information: The Journal of Space Safety Engineering (ISSN Pending) is a quarterly publication of the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety (IAASS). You can read about IAASS mission, goals, organization, membership and activities at: http://iaass.space-safety.org/. The JSSE is published using an open access publication model, meaning that all interested readers are able to freely access the journal online without the need for a subscription, and authors are not charged.

Authors inquiries: For inquiries relating to the submission of articles please contact the Editor-in-Chief at: [email protected]. For all information about the journal, please visit the journal web page http://iaass.space-safety.org/publications/journal/. Authors instructions on preparation and submittal at: http://iaass.space-safety.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2013/07/JSSE-authors_instructions.pdf.

Advertising information: if you are interested in advertising or other commercial opportunities please e-mail [email protected] and your inquiry will be passed to the correct person who will respond to you within 48 hours.

Copyright and photocopying: Authors retain the copyright of their work. The IAASS maintains the copyright of the Journal as a whole. Single photocopies or electronic scans of single articles may be made for personal use as allowed by national copyright laws. Authors or IAASS permission and the payment of a fee is required for all other photocopying, including multiple or systematic copying, copying for advertising purposes, resale, and all forms of document delivery. For information on how to seek permission please contact the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected].

Notice: No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher IAASS and by Editors and Editorial Board for any injury and/or damage to persons or property from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the journal. Although all advertising material is expected to conform to ethical professional conduct of IAASS, inclusion in this publication does not represent an endorsement of the quality or value of such product or service.

Credits: Kristhian Mason, IAASS graphic designer, for cover image, graphic work, layout and paginations.

Michael T. Kezirian, Ph.D.The Boeing CompanyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaEditor-in-Chief

Tommaso SgobbaEuropean Space Agency (ret.)Managing Editor

Joseph Pelton, Ph.D.George Washington University (ret.)Assistant Editor-in-Chief

EDITORS

George W. S. AbbeyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration (ret.)

Sayavur Bakhtiyarov, Ph.D.University of New Mexico

Kenneth CameronScience Applications International Corporation

Luigi De Luca, Ph.D.Politecnico di Milano

Joe H. EngleMaj Gen. USAF (ret.)National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Herve GilibertAirbus Space & Defense

Jeffrey A. Hoffman, Ph.D.Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Ernst Messerschmid, Ph.D.University of Stuttgart (ret.)

Isabelle RongierCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales

Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Ph.D.European Space Agency

EDITORIAL BOARD

William Ailor, Ph.D.The Aerospace Corporation

Jonathan B. Clark, M.D., M.P.HBaylor College of Medicine

Paul J. Coleman, Jr., Ph.D.University of California at Los Angeles (Emeritus)

Natalie CostedoatCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales

Gary JohnsonScience Application International Corporation

Barbara KankiNational Aeronautics and Space Administration

Bruno LazareCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales

Carine LeveauCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales

Tobias LipsHypersonic Technology Goettingen

Michael LutomskiSpace Exploration Technologies

Uwe WirtGerman Aerospace Center (DLR)

Erwin Mooij, Ph.D.Delft University of Technology

Nobuo TakeuchiJapan Aerospace Exploration Agency

Brian WeedenSecure World Foundation

Paul D. Wilde, Ph.D., P.E.Federal Aviation Administration

FIELD EDITORS

• Safety by design• Safety on long duration missions• Launch and re-entry safety• Space hazards (debris, NEO objects)• Space weather and radiation• Environmental impacts• Nuclear safety for space systems

• Human factors and performance• Safety critical software design• Safety risk assessment• Safety risk management• Organizational culture and safety• Regulations and standards for safety• Space-based safety critical systems

• Space Situational Awareness• Space traffic control• Space traffic and air traffic interfaces• Space materials safety• Safe & Rescue• Safety lessons learned

MAIN JSSE TOPICS

The Journal of Space Safety Engineering (JSSE) provides an authoritative source of information in the field of space safety design, research and develop-ment. It serves applied scientists, engineers, policy makers and safety advocates with a platform to develop, promote and coordinate the science, technol-ogy and practice of space safety. JSSE seeks to establish channels of communication between industry, academy and government in the field of space safety and sustainability.

AIMS and SCOPE

Volume 1 No. 2 – December 2014

JOURNAL ofSPACE SAFETY ENGINEERING

Journal of Space Safety Engineering – Vol. 1 No. 2 - December 2014

International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety

NATIONAL LEGISLATION GOVERNING COMMERCIAL SPACE ACTIVITIES

Paul Stephen Dempsey(*)

(*) Tomlinson Professor of Global Governance in Air & Space Law, and Director of the Institute of Air & Space Law, McGill University. A.B.J., J.D., University of Georgia; LL.M., George Washington University; D.C.L., McGill University.

Admitted to the practice of law in Colorado, Georgia, and the District of Columbia. The author would like to thank Professor Caixia Yang of Beihang University for her assistance on interpretation and understanding of Chinese space laws.

1. INTRODUCTION

Through much of the 20th century, space exploration and development was dominated by governments. Increas-ingly, however, private for-profit firms began investing in commercial space development. In its early years, com-mercial activities in outer space were dominated by sat-ellite communications, particularly telephone and televi-sion communications. More recent commercial activities have focused on remote sensing and global positioning. The mining of asteroids and other near- Earth celestial bodies has not yet begun. Space tourism and the transpor-tation of passengers in space are but embryonic.

Global space activity of governments and private com-panies grew to $314 billion in 2013.1 Private-sector com-mercial space activity is growing at a brisk pace, while governmental activity is declining. Between 2012-2013, commercial space products and services revenue grew 7%; commercial infrastructure and support industries grew by nearly 5%; while government spending de-creased by almost 2%.2 Space investment is a major part of the infrastructure of communications – both telecom-munications and broadcast – of weather and geological monitoring, and of defense.3 Thus, commercial develop-ment of outer space is outpacing governmental activi-ties in space. As private firms launch commercial space activities, the legal obligations and liability exposure of space-faring States proliferate as well.

A growing number of States are becoming space-faring nations. Many are enacting national space legislation, establishing governmental space regulatory institutions and giving them jurisdiction to license private actors and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.4 They promulgate laws regulating space activities in order to fulfill their international obligations, to protect their citi-zens from harm, to protect their treasuries from liability, and to encourage and foster the development of commer-cial space activities.5 Further, with the absence of an in-ternational regulatory regime addressing safety and navi-gation of aerospace vehicles, a growing number of space-faring States see the need to fill that regulatory void with domestic legislation.6 Though a number of commentators

have urged the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] to regulate the safety and navigation of aerospace vehicles, to date, it has declined.7 Moreover, the world community has failed to draft a single multilateral treaty addressing space issues since 1979. That abstinence too inspires the promulgation of domestic space legislation.

The U.N. General Assembly has encouraged States to “consider enacting and implementing national laws au-thorizing and providing for continuing supervision of the activities in outer space of non- governmental enti-ties under their jurisdiction.”8 The rapid emergence of national space legislation is the fastest growing area of Space Law.

2. INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

Space Law consists of a growing number of international multilateral and bilateral agreements and conventions, U.N. resolutions, decrees by international organizations, national legislation and regulations, and court decisions.9 Five multilateral conventions, drafted in a dozen years, place numerous obligations upon States.10 They require States to adhere to principles of international law, as-sume responsibility and liability for activities in space (whether governmental or non-governmental), authorize and supervise the activities of their nationals in space, and notify and register their space objects.

Among requirements imposed by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 are the following:

• States must carry on space activities in accordance with principles of international law;11

• States bear international responsibility for national activities in space and on the moon and celestial bod-ies, including activities of both governmental and non-governmental entities;

• States must authorize and supervise the activities of its nationals in space;12

• States that (a) launch, (b) procure the launch, or (c) from whose territory or facility an object is launched, are internationally liable for damage to another State

or its national or juridical persons by such object in the air or in space;13

• States on whose registry an object is launched must retain jurisdiction and control over the object and any personnel thereon;14

• States must avoid harmful contamination and adverse environmental consequences from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter; if it believes an activity or ex-periment by it or its nationals in space would poten-tially harm or interfere with activities of other States in space, it must consult with such States before pro-ceeding;15 and

• States must inform the UN Secretary General of the “nature, conduct, locations and results” of its activi-ties in space.16

Several of these provisions also are elaborated upon by the Liability Convention of 1972.17 Building on Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty, the Liability Convention imposes liability upon a launching State (i.e., the State that launches, procures the launch, or from whos territory or facility a space object is launched)18 to pay compensa-tion for personal injury and property damage caused by its space objects on the surface of the Earth, or to aircraft.19 The Convention establishes a two-tier liability regime,20 providing that the “launching State” is absolutely liable for damage caused by its space objects on the surface of the Earth or to an aircraft in flight,21 and liable in negli-gence22 for damage23 caused to a space object of another State or to persons or property on board.24 Where there is more than one launching State, they shall be jointly and severally liable for the damage they cause.25

Hence, by ratifying or acceding to either the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, or the Liability Convention of 1972, the launching or launch-procuring State becomes potential-ly liable for damages caused by itself and its commer-cial launch sector.26 A ratifying State accepts absolute liability for damage on the ground or to aircraft in flight outside its territory when a launch takes place from its territory or facilities, or when it procures a launch from another State.27 A State incurs fault-based liability for damage caused in outer space.28 In addition to these multilateral conventions, additional legal obligations are imposed upon States through customary international law,29 an array of United Nations Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions,30 and a growing body of “soft law.”31

Further, the Chicago Convention of 1944 – which estab-lished the International Civil Aviation Administration to harmonize State regulation of aircraft safety and naviga-tion in – may apply to vehicles transporting space objects through air space.32 But to date, ICAO has promulgated

no Standards and Recommended Practices governing aerospace vehicles or rockets, though in time, it may.33

3. STATE REGULATION OF SPACE ACTIVITIES

As a consequence of the aforementioned international ob-ligations and the liability exposure created thereby, as well as a desire to protect the health and safety of their citizens, their property and the environment, a growing number of States have promulgated national legislation to regulate commercial space activities. As one source notes, “Since a government can only act on the basis of laws or respec-tive regulations, the establishment of national space laws is the most effective way of providing the State with the means to authorize and supervise non-governmental space activities.”34 At least twenty-six States – about 14% of the members of the United Nations - regulate space activities. Among the States that have enacted national space legisla-tion are Algeria,35 Argentina,36 Australia,37 Austria,38 Bel-gium,39 Brazil,40 Canada,41 Chile,42 the People’s Republic of China [PRC],43 Colombia,44 France,45 Germany,46 Italy,47 Japan,48 Kazakhstan,49 Netherlands,50 Nigeria,51 Norway,52 Russian Federation,53 South Africa,54 the Republic of Ko-rea [South Korea],55 Spain,56 Sweden,57 Ukraine,58 United Kingdom,59 United States,60 and Venezuela.61 Hong Kong also regulates space activities.62

The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space [COPUOS] recommends that, “Space ac-tivities should require authorization by a competent na-tional authority; the authorities and procedures, as well as the conditions for granting, modifying, suspending and revoking the authorization should be set out clearly to establish a predictable and reliable regulatory framework ...The conditions for authorization should be consistent with the international obligations and commitments of States, in particular under the United Nations treaties on outer space...”63

Governmental oversight of space activities is essential to protect public safety, property, and the environment, and to fulfill State obligations under international law. Li-censing becomes the bedrock of governmental regulation of commercial space activities.

4. THE LICENSE AS A PREREQUISITE TO SPACE OPERATIONS

A growing number of States require a license as a prereq-uisite to space activity. Many require a permit for each individual launch of a space object, while some require separate licenses for an overseas launch or re-entry. Most


44


NATIONAL LEGISLATION GOVERNING COMMERCIAL SPACE ACTIVITIES

Paul Stephen Dempsey(*)

(*) Tomlinson Professor of Global Governance in Air & Space Law, and Director of the Institute of Air & Space Law, McGill University. A.B.J., J.D., University of Georgia; LL.M., George Washington University; D.C.L., McGill University.

Admitted to the practice of law in Colorado, Georgia, and the District of Columbia. The author would like to thank Professor Caixia Yang of Beihang University for her assistance on interpretation and understanding of Chinese space laws.

1. INTRODUCTION

Through much of the 20th century, space exploration and development was dominated by governments. Increas-ingly, however, private for-profit firms began investing in commercial space development. In its early years, com-mercial activities in outer space were dominated by sat-ellite communications, particularly telephone and televi-sion communications. More recent commercial activities have focused on remote sensing and global positioning. The mining of asteroids and other near- Earth celestial bodies has not yet begun. Space tourism and the transpor-tation of passengers in space are but embryonic.

Global space activity of governments and private com-panies grew to $314 billion in 2013.1 Private-sector com-mercial space activity is growing at a brisk pace, while governmental activity is declining. Between 2012-2013, commercial space products and services revenue grew 7%; commercial infrastructure and support industries grew by nearly 5%; while government spending de-creased by almost 2%.2 Space investment is a major part of the infrastructure of communications – both telecom-munications and broadcast – of weather and geological monitoring, and of defense.3 Thus, commercial develop-ment of outer space is outpacing governmental activi-ties in space. As private firms launch commercial space activities, the legal obligations and liability exposure of space-faring States proliferate as well.

A growing number of States are becoming space-faring nations. Many are enacting national space legislation, establishing governmental space regulatory institutions and giving them jurisdiction to license private actors and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.4 They promulgate laws regulating space activities in order to fulfill their international obligations, to protect their citi-zens from harm, to protect their treasuries from liability, and to encourage and foster the development of commer-cial space activities.5 Further, with the absence of an in-ternational regulatory regime addressing safety and navi-gation of aerospace vehicles, a growing number of space-faring States see the need to fill that regulatory void with domestic legislation.6 Though a number of commentators

have urged the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] to regulate the safety and navigation of aerospace vehicles, to date, it has declined.7 Moreover, the world community has failed to draft a single multilateral treaty addressing space issues since 1979. That abstinence too inspires the promulgation of domestic space legislation.

The U.N. General Assembly has encouraged States to “consider enacting and implementing national laws au-thorizing and providing for continuing supervision of the activities in outer space of non- governmental enti-ties under their jurisdiction.”8 The rapid emergence of national space legislation is the fastest growing area of Space Law.

2. INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

Space Law consists of a growing number of international multilateral and bilateral agreements and conventions, U.N. resolutions, decrees by international organizations, national legislation and regulations, and court decisions.9 Five multilateral conventions, drafted in a dozen years, place numerous obligations upon States.10 They require States to adhere to principles of international law, as-sume responsibility and liability for activities in space (whether governmental or non-governmental), authorize and supervise the activities of their nationals in space, and notify and register their space objects.

Among requirements imposed by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 are the following:

• States must carry on space activities in accordance with principles of international law;11

• States bear international responsibility for national activities in space and on the moon and celestial bod-ies, including activities of both governmental and non-governmental entities;

• States must authorize and supervise the activities of its nationals in space;12

• States that (a) launch, (b) procure the launch, or (c) from whose territory or facility an object is launched, are internationally liable for damage to another State

or its national or juridical persons by such object in the air or in space;13

• States on whose registry an object is launched must retain jurisdiction and control over the object and any personnel thereon;14

• States must avoid harmful contamination and adverse environmental consequences from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter; if it believes an activity or ex-periment by it or its nationals in space would poten-tially harm or interfere with activities of other States in space, it must consult with such States before pro-ceeding;15 and

• States must inform the UN Secretary General of the “nature, conduct, locations and results” of its activi-ties in space.16

Several of these provisions also are elaborated upon by the Liability Convention of 1972.17 Building on Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty, the Liability Convention imposes liability upon a launching State (i.e., the State that launches, procures the launch, or from whos territory or facility a space object is launched)18 to pay compensa-tion for personal injury and property damage caused by its space objects on the surface of the Earth, or to aircraft.19 The Convention establishes a two-tier liability regime,20 providing that the “launching State” is absolutely liable for damage caused by its space objects on the surface of the Earth or to an aircraft in flight,21 and liable in negli-gence22 for damage23 caused to a space object of another State or to persons or property on board.24 Where there is more than one launching State, they shall be jointly and severally liable for the damage they cause.25

Hence, by ratifying or acceding to either the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, or the Liability Convention of 1972, the launching or launch-procuring State becomes potential-ly liable for damages caused by itself and its commer-cial launch sector.26 A ratifying State accepts absolute liability for damage on the ground or to aircraft in flight outside its territory when a launch takes place from its territory or facilities, or when it procures a launch from another State.27 A State incurs fault-based liability for damage caused in outer space.28 In addition to these multilateral conventions, additional legal obligations are imposed upon States through customary international law,29 an array of United Nations Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions,30 and a growing body of “soft law.”31

Further, the Chicago Convention of 1944 – which estab-lished the International Civil Aviation Administration to harmonize State regulation of aircraft safety and naviga-tion in – may apply to vehicles transporting space objects through air space.32 But to date, ICAO has promulgated

no Standards and Recommended Practices governing aerospace vehicles or rockets, though in time, it may.33

3. STATE REGULATION OF SPACE ACTIVITIES

As a consequence of the aforementioned international ob-ligations and the liability exposure created thereby, as well as a desire to protect the health and safety of their citizens, their property and the environment, a growing number of States have promulgated national legislation to regulate commercial space activities. As one source notes, “Since a government can only act on the basis of laws or respec-tive regulations, the establishment of national space laws is the most effective way of providing the State with the means to authorize and supervise non-governmental space activities.”34 At least twenty-six States – about 14% of the members of the United Nations - regulate space activities. Among the States that have enacted national space legisla-tion are Algeria,35 Argentina,36 Australia,37 Austria,38 Bel-gium,39 Brazil,40 Canada,41 Chile,42 the People’s Republic of China [PRC],43 Colombia,44 France,45 Germany,46 Italy,47 Japan,48 Kazakhstan,49 Netherlands,50 Nigeria,51 Norway,52 Russian Federation,53 South Africa,54 the Republic of Ko-rea [South Korea],55 Spain,56 Sweden,57 Ukraine,58 United Kingdom,59 United States,60 and Venezuela.61 Hong Kong also regulates space activities.62

The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space [COPUOS] recommends that, “Space ac-tivities should require authorization by a competent na-tional authority; the authorities and procedures, as well as the conditions for granting, modifying, suspending and revoking the authorization should be set out clearly to establish a predictable and reliable regulatory framework ...The conditions for authorization should be consistent with the international obligations and commitments of States, in particular under the United Nations treaties on outer space...”63

Governmental oversight of space activities is essential to protect public safety, property, and the environment, and to fulfill State obligations under international law. Li-censing becomes the bedrock of governmental regulation of commercial space activities.

4. THE LICENSE AS A PREREQUISITE TO SPACE OPERATIONS

A growing number of States require a license as a prereq-uisite to space activity. Many require a permit for each individual launch of a space object, while some require separate licenses for an overseas launch or re-entry. Most


45


States that have enacted national Space Law legislation require a license for a launch from their territory, or by their citizens from any location. Some States also regu-late launch facilities (a/k/a spaceports).64 Several exam-ples follow.

Brazil regulates launches from its territory.65 Kazakhstan also requires a license prior to carrying out space activi-ties.66 Australia imposes a requirement that an applicant procure a space license, launch permit or overseas launch certificate prior to operations.67 France requires a license of a French national or juridical persons headquartered in France who intend to launch or procure a launch of a space object from French territory.68

In Belgium a natural or legal person must obtain prior authorization to engage in space activities in zones under the jurisdiction or control of the State, or using installa-tions or property of the State, or from an area under the jurisdiction or control of Belgium.69 The Netherlands re-quires licensing for launching, flight operations or guid-ance of space objects performed in or from Dutch soil or a Dutch ship.70

In Korea, a person who seeks to launch a space vehicle must first obtain a license from the Ministry of Science and Technology.71 In issuing the license, the Minister must consider the purpose of the launch, the safety management of the vehicles, and the existence of liability insurance.72

Hong Kong requires a license for an entity seeking to launch, procure a launch, to operate a space object, or engage in any activity in space. The operations must not jeopardize public health or safety of persons or property. Activities must be conducted consistently with interna-tional obligations, and not impair national security.73

Norway promulgated a succinct piece of space legisla-tion.74 No Norwegian citizen or resident may launch a space object without permission, whether the launch takes place from Norway, from Norwegian territory, ves-sels or aircraft, or in areas not subject to sovereignty.75

South Africa requires a license for a launch from South African territory, or on behalf of South African incor-porated or registered company, or for the operation of a launch facility.76 The legislation imposes safety stan-dards, and requires compliance with international obliga-tions and responsibilities.77

In Sweden, no space activity is permitted on Swedish territory or by a Swedish person without a license.78 An application in writing must be submitted to the National Board for Space Activities (now the Swedish National Space Board). The license may be restricted in a manner

deemed appropriate.79 However, the legislation does not specify the formal procedures, nor does it explain how the public interest, security, public health or environment are to be protected.80

In the United Kingdom, a launch, operation of a space activity, or any activity in outer space (other than leasing a space segment satellite capacity, transponders) requires a license. Such activity may not jeopardize public health or safety of persons or property, and must be conducted in a manner consistent with international obligations. It may not impair national security. 81

In the United States, the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 [CSLA]82 authorized the Federal Aviation Ad-ministration [FAA] to license the launch of launch vehi-cles, reentry of reentry vehicles, as well as the operation of a launch or reentry site.83 The U.S. licenses launches for commercial space flights, without safety certifications of vehicles.84 A U.S. citizen must obtain FAA authoriza-tion to launch, reenter or operate a launch or reentry site anywhere in the world.85 Any person seeking to conduct commercial space transportation in the U.S. must also obtain FAA authorization.86 Such licenses are issued by the FAA‟s Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation [AST], who prescribes the terms and conditions for conducting authorized activity by the vehicle or site operator.87 Regulatory review of a launch application focuses on public health and safety, safety of property, and U.S. national security and foreign policy concerns and obligations.88 Unless the launch and reentry is exempt from regulation,89 the applicant may apply for: (1) a launch- or reentry-specific license; or (2) a launch or reentry operator license.90 The FAA has 180 days to process a license application.91 The licensing process consists of several steps:

• Pre-application consultation;• Policy review and approval;• Safety review and approval;• Payload review and determination;• Financial responsibility determination;• Environmental review; and• Compliance monitoring.92

In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration [NOAA] issues regulations for the licensing, monitoring and compliance of operators of pri-vate Earth remote sensing space systems.93 Similarly, Ger-many requires licensing of high-grade Earth remote sens-ing systems, and providers of such remote sensing data.94

Some States impose de minimus requirements. For ex-ample, Argentina requires that those engaging in space activities register with the government.95

5. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS OF APPLICANTS

Many States that license space activities evaluate the technical and financial fitness of the applicant and its fa-cilities to ensure that they do not endanger public health, safety and property or impose economic burdens on the national treasury. These requirements are similar to the managerial and financial fitness certification require-ments imposed upon airlines.96 Several examples follow.

Australia has promulgated an elaborate and detailed licensing statute.97 It requires that the launch facility, launch vehicle, and flight path be effective and safe. Ap-plicants must submit design and engineering plans of the launch vehicle. Applicants must identify their organiza-tional structure and financial fitness, their program man-agement plan, their technology security plan, and their emergency plan.

Brazil requires a license to engage in commercial Space Launching Activities from Brazilian territory.98 The li-cense may contain restrictive or conditioning clauses. Activities of the licensee are controlled, monitored and supervised by the Brazilian Space Agency [AEB]. Tech-nical, economic and financial qualifications are imposed upon licensees.99 In Brazil, “A license will only be grant-ed to legal persons, associated or affiliated with business or legal representation in the country, with express pow-ers to respond administratively or judicially and consid-ered technically and administratively qualified to perform launching activities. Granting, monitoring, and control of the permit for a commercial space launch from Brazilian territory is performed by the Brazilian Space Agency.100

In Korea, an applicant may be disqualified if he is deemed incompetent or quasi-incompetent, bankrupt, if he served a prison sentence in the prior two years, or been on probation for violating the Act.101 France assesses the applicant‟s technical, moral, financial and professional capabilities before issuing a license.102

In the Netherlands, eligibility for a license depends on the applicant‟s knowledge and experience, and his au-thorization for the use of radio frequency.103 An appli-cant must submit detailed information identifying the space activities planned, a financial risk analysis, li-ability insurance, authorization of radio frequency, and the applicant‟s knowledge and experience with regard to performance of space activities.104 An application for a license must be denied if necessary for protection of safety of persons or property, protection of the environ-ment, protection of public order, security of the State, or fulfillment of international obligations of the State.105 An application may be denied if a previously issued license

has been revoked, the applicant has not discharged his obligations under a license, if he fails to comply with the rules established governing space activities, or there is good reason to suspect that the applicant will not follow those rules.106

In The Russian Federation, the Russian Space Agency is-sues licenses for space operations.107 To obtain a license, the applicant must submit an application indicating the applicant‟s name, organizational and legal form, address, and banking information, the type of activity proposed, the duration of the license, a copy of constitutive docu-ments, the state registration of the legal entity, tax agency certification, payment of filing fees, a license for using radio frequencies, registration of the satellite, safety of space operations and reliability of space equipment, and a State Secrecy license.108 A decision to grant or deny a license must be made within 30 days of receipt of the application and supporting documentation.109 An applica-tion may be denied for false information or misrepresen-tation in documents filed by the applicant, or an adverse decision by the “expert commission.”110 This expert eval-uation is conducted by science organizations or indepen-dent experts on a contractual basis.111

6. LIABILITY, INSURANCE & INDEMNIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Professor Steven Freeland notes that the imposition of joint and several liability is among the reasons that many States have enacted national space laws to allow them to reduce their liability by imposing financial responsi-bility to private launching companies.112 Typically, stat-utes require that the licensee carry adequate insurance to cover death, injury or property damage, and indemnify the State should it have to pay damages. In order to pro-mote commercial development of space, some States cap liability, in effect backing such development with the fi-nancial resources of the national treasury.113

For example, in Korea, A person who launches is liable for any damages caused, and must carry sufficient insur-ance to cover that liability as prescribed by the Ministry of Science and Technology. 114 The launching party must pay compensation for damage caused by launch activi-ties, except in case of armed conflict, hostile activity, civil war or rebellion, in which case he shall only be li-able for damage caused by his willful misconduct or neg-ligence.115 One who procures a launch permit must insure against third party liability.116 However, the amount of liability is limited to 200 billion won.117 Austria is more generous still. In Austria, insurance requirements may be waived if the space activity is deemed to be in the public interest (i.e., if it advances the interests of science, educa-tion or research).118


46


States that have enacted national Space Law legislation require a license for a launch from their territory, or by their citizens from any location. Some States also regu-late launch facilities (a/k/a spaceports).64 Several exam-ples follow.

Brazil regulates launches from its territory.65 Kazakhstan also requires a license prior to carrying out space activi-ties.66 Australia imposes a requirement that an applicant procure a space license, launch permit or overseas launch certificate prior to operations.67 France requires a license of a French national or juridical persons headquartered in France who intend to launch or procure a launch of a space object from French territory.68

In Belgium a natural or legal person must obtain prior authorization to engage in space activities in zones under the jurisdiction or control of the State, or using installa-tions or property of the State, or from an area under the jurisdiction or control of Belgium.69 The Netherlands re-quires licensing for launching, flight operations or guid-ance of space objects performed in or from Dutch soil or a Dutch ship.70

In Korea, a person who seeks to launch a space vehicle must first obtain a license from the Ministry of Science and Technology.71 In issuing the license, the Minister must consider the purpose of the launch, the safety management of the vehicles, and the existence of liability insurance.72

Hong Kong requires a license for an entity seeking to launch, procure a launch, to operate a space object, or engage in any activity in space. The operations must not jeopardize public health or safety of persons or property. Activities must be conducted consistently with interna-tional obligations, and not impair national security.73

Norway promulgated a succinct piece of space legisla-tion.74 No Norwegian citizen or resident may launch a space object without permission, whether the launch takes place from Norway, from Norwegian territory, ves-sels or aircraft, or in areas not subject to sovereignty.75

South Africa requires a license for a launch from South African territory, or on behalf of South African incor-porated or registered company, or for the operation of a launch facility.76 The legislation imposes safety stan-dards, and requires compliance with international obliga-tions and responsibilities.77

In Sweden, no space activity is permitted on Swedish territory or by a Swedish person without a license.78 An application in writing must be submitted to the National Board for Space Activities (now the Swedish National Space Board). The license may be restricted in a manner

deemed appropriate.79 However, the legislation does not specify the formal procedures, nor does it explain how the public interest, security, public health or environment are to be protected.80

In the United Kingdom, a launch, operation of a space activity, or any activity in outer space (other than leasing a space segment satellite capacity, transponders) requires a license. Such activity may not jeopardize public health or safety of persons or property, and must be conducted in a manner consistent with international obligations. It may not impair national security. 81

In the United States, the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 [CSLA]82 authorized the Federal Aviation Ad-ministration [FAA] to license the launch of launch vehi-cles, reentry of reentry vehicles, as well as the operation of a launch or reentry site.83 The U.S. licenses launches for commercial space flights, without safety certifications of vehicles.84 A U.S. citizen must obtain FAA authoriza-tion to launch, reenter or operate a launch or reentry site anywhere in the world.85 Any person seeking to conduct commercial space transportation in the U.S. must also obtain FAA authorization.86 Such licenses are issued by the FAA‟s Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation [AST], who prescribes the terms and conditions for conducting authorized activity by the vehicle or site operator.87 Regulatory review of a launch application focuses on public health and safety, safety of property, and U.S. national security and foreign policy concerns and obligations.88 Unless the launch and reentry is exempt from regulation,89 the applicant may apply for: (1) a launch- or reentry-specific license; or (2) a launch or reentry operator license.90 The FAA has 180 days to process a license application.91 The licensing process consists of several steps:

• Pre-application consultation;• Policy review and approval;• Safety review and approval;• Payload review and determination;• Financial responsibility determination;• Environmental review; and• Compliance monitoring.92

In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration [NOAA] issues regulations for the licensing, monitoring and compliance of operators of pri-vate Earth remote sensing space systems.93 Similarly, Ger-many requires licensing of high-grade Earth remote sens-ing systems, and providers of such remote sensing data.94

Some States impose de minimus requirements. For ex-ample, Argentina requires that those engaging in space activities register with the government.95

5. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS OF APPLICANTS

Many States that license space activities evaluate the technical and financial fitness of the applicant and its fa-cilities to ensure that they do not endanger public health, safety and property or impose economic burdens on the national treasury. These requirements are similar to the managerial and financial fitness certification require-ments imposed upon airlines.96 Several examples follow.

Australia has promulgated an elaborate and detailed licensing statute.97 It requires that the launch facility, launch vehicle, and flight path be effective and safe. Ap-plicants must submit design and engineering plans of the launch vehicle. Applicants must identify their organiza-tional structure and financial fitness, their program man-agement plan, their technology security plan, and their emergency plan.

Brazil requires a license to engage in commercial Space Launching Activities from Brazilian territory.98 The li-cense may contain restrictive or conditioning clauses. Activities of the licensee are controlled, monitored and supervised by the Brazilian Space Agency [AEB]. Tech-nical, economic and financial qualifications are imposed upon licensees.99 In Brazil, “A license will only be grant-ed to legal persons, associated or affiliated with business or legal representation in the country, with express pow-ers to respond administratively or judicially and consid-ered technically and administratively qualified to perform launching activities. Granting, monitoring, and control of the permit for a commercial space launch from Brazilian territory is performed by the Brazilian Space Agency.100

In Korea, an applicant may be disqualified if he is deemed incompetent or quasi-incompetent, bankrupt, if he served a prison sentence in the prior two years, or been on probation for violating the Act.101 France assesses the applicant‟s technical, moral, financial and professional capabilities before issuing a license.102

In the Netherlands, eligibility for a license depends on the applicant‟s knowledge and experience, and his au-thorization for the use of radio frequency.103 An appli-cant must submit detailed information identifying the space activities planned, a financial risk analysis, li-ability insurance, authorization of radio frequency, and the applicant‟s knowledge and experience with regard to performance of space activities.104 An application for a license must be denied if necessary for protection of safety of persons or property, protection of the environ-ment, protection of public order, security of the State, or fulfillment of international obligations of the State.105 An application may be denied if a previously issued license

has been revoked, the applicant has not discharged his obligations under a license, if he fails to comply with the rules established governing space activities, or there is good reason to suspect that the applicant will not follow those rules.106

In The Russian Federation, the Russian Space Agency is-sues licenses for space operations.107 To obtain a license, the applicant must submit an application indicating the applicant‟s name, organizational and legal form, address, and banking information, the type of activity proposed, the duration of the license, a copy of constitutive docu-ments, the state registration of the legal entity, tax agency certification, payment of filing fees, a license for using radio frequencies, registration of the satellite, safety of space operations and reliability of space equipment, and a State Secrecy license.108 A decision to grant or deny a license must be made within 30 days of receipt of the application and supporting documentation.109 An applica-tion may be denied for false information or misrepresen-tation in documents filed by the applicant, or an adverse decision by the “expert commission.”110 This expert eval-uation is conducted by science organizations or indepen-dent experts on a contractual basis.111

6. LIABILITY, INSURANCE & INDEMNIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Professor Steven Freeland notes that the imposition of joint and several liability is among the reasons that many States have enacted national space laws to allow them to reduce their liability by imposing financial responsi-bility to private launching companies.112 Typically, stat-utes require that the licensee carry adequate insurance to cover death, injury or property damage, and indemnify the State should it have to pay damages. In order to pro-mote commercial development of space, some States cap liability, in effect backing such development with the fi-nancial resources of the national treasury.113

For example, in Korea, A person who launches is liable for any damages caused, and must carry sufficient insur-ance to cover that liability as prescribed by the Ministry of Science and Technology. 114 The launching party must pay compensation for damage caused by launch activi-ties, except in case of armed conflict, hostile activity, civil war or rebellion, in which case he shall only be li-able for damage caused by his willful misconduct or neg-ligence.115 One who procures a launch permit must insure against third party liability.116 However, the amount of liability is limited to 200 billion won.117 Austria is more generous still. In Austria, insurance requirements may be waived if the space activity is deemed to be in the public interest (i.e., if it advances the interests of science, educa-tion or research).118


47


Australia also imposes insurance and financial require-ments upon licensees.119 In China, a licensee must carry insurance against liability.120 Similarly, Hong Kong re-quires that the licensee insure himself against liability,121 and indemnify the Hong Kong and PRC governments against claims bought either.122

In the Netherlands, the licensee must maintain “the max-imum possible cover for the liability arising from the space activities for which a license is requested”, with account taken of what can reasonably covered by insur-ance.123 Some States, such as Kazakhstan, impose gen-eral indemnification requirements for damage caused by space activities.124

7. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Several States use the licensing process to address con-cerns about environmental contamination of outer space or the Earth. Austria places particular emphasis on space debris mitigation in its licensing process. It insists upon compliance with the “state of the art” and “internation-ally recognized guidelines for the mitigation of space debris”.125 Similarly, the Government of Hong Kong requires that licensees prevent contamination of outer space, and avoid interference with others in the peace-ful use of space.126 In Belgium, environmental studies are required as a prerequisite to licensing.127

8. OTHER CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON LICENSES

Several States authorize their regulatory agencies to im-pose restrictions upon licenses. For example, in the Neth-erlands, regulations and restrictions may be imposed for the following purposes:

a. the safety of persons and goods;b. protection of the environment in outer space;c. financial security;d. protection of public order;e. security of the State;f. fulfillment of the international obligations of the

State.128

In the Peoples Republic of China, an applicant for a li-cense for the launch of civil space objects is required to abide by its laws, to not endanger public health or safety,129 to not endanger national security, damage the national interests, or violate the national diplomatic poli-cies or the international conventions which China has ratified.130

In France, restrictions on the license may be imposed to protect the safety of people and property, as well as the protection of public health and the environment.131 In the United Kingdom, the license may include conditions permitting inspection by the regulator.132 In Australia, nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction are prohibited, and no fissionable material may be launched without prior approval.133

9. LICENSE DURATION

Most States that regulate commercial space activities re-quire a license for each individual launch.However, several issue licenses for longer periods of time.

For example, in Australia, one may receive a launch per-mit or exemption certificate for launch and return, and a space license for up to 20 years. 134 In Russia, licenses are valid for not less than three years.135 They are valid only for the type of space operations specified, and may not be transferred to another.136 In the Netherlands, a time limit may be imposed within which the licensee must begin the proposed space activities.137

10. PRE-LAUNCH REQUIREMENTS

Several States impose additional obligations upon licens-ees prior to launch. For example, in Australia, licensees must receive approval from local ambulance, fire, and police authorities prior to launching. Environmental ap-provals also are required. Launches must not be conduct-ed in a way likely to cause harm to public health or safety or damage to property. 138

In China, nine months prior to the scheduled launch, the applicant must submit relevant legal and technical docu-ments to the Commission of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense [COSTIND],139 including proof that the project complies with national environmen-tal laws and regulations, the safety design report relevant to the project and information related to public safety, supplementary information concerning the reliability of Safety Critical Systems, and the prevention from pollu-tion and space debris.140

11. OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS

In order to reduce the likelihood of personal, property or environmental damage, a number of States impose op-erational restrictions on the launch of space objects. For example:

In Australia, no launch is allowed that might create a haz-ard to aircraft, person or property; no launch is permitted into a prohibited area or restricted area; no launch is al-lowed higher than 400 feet in controlled airspace except in an approved area or in accordance with air traffic con-trol clearance; and no launch is permitted within three nautical miles of an aerodrome.141 The operator must demonstrate that the launch will impose the lowest prac-ticable risk within the bounds of reasonable cost.142

In Hong Kong, no contamination of space is permitted, nor is interference with others; and the disposal of pay-load on termination of activities is required.143

Ireland has promulgated legislation providing that a rocket may not be operated without a license.144 Seven days prior to launch, the Operating Standards Depart-ment of the Irish Aviation Authority must be informed of the identity of the persons responsible for the operation, the number, size and weight of each rocket, the altitude at which it will be operated, the location, date and time of the operation.145 In Ireland, rocket launches are pro-hibited if they create a potential collision hazard with an aircraft, operation in controlled space, within eight kilo-meters of an airport, at an altitude where horizontal vis-ibility is less than eight kilometers, into a cloud, within 300 meters of any person or property not involved in the operation of the rocket, or at night.146

12. REGISTRATION

So as to comply with their international obligations under the Registration Convention, several States require that all space objects launched by its corporate or individual citizens be registered.Argentina, Australia, Belgium, the Peoples Republic of China, France, Japan, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Spain, Swe-den, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States are among them.147

For example Belgium created a National Register in ac-cordance with the Registration Convention.148 Argentina enacted a novel provision requiring that the operator pro-vide information on environmental precautions taken, in-cluding mechanisms for placement of the space object in a transfer orbit at the end of its useful life, the anticipated date of its recovery, disintegration or loss of contact.149

13. ENFORCEMENT & SANCTIONS

To give their regulatory oversight teeth, many States impose enforcement mechanisms in their national space

legislation. License suspension or revocation, as well as fines and imprisonment, are important regulatory means to ensure compliance.

Suspension & Revocation

In Australia, a licensee may have its license suspended or revoked if it contravenes a license condition, endan-gers national security, or violates foreign policy or in-ternational obligations.150 In Belgium, a license may be suspended or revoked for failure to respect the conditions imposed upon the license, or an infringement of law, of public order, or the safety of people or property by the licensee.151

In China, The COSTIND may revoke the license in a se-rious situation if the licensee:

(a) violates the relevant national laws or regulations or the agreement between China and other states on maintaining confidentiality during execution of the project;

(b) conducts any actions endangering national secu-rity, damaging national interests or violating na-tional diplomatic policies during execution of the project;

(c) carries out the launch activities beyond the limit approved by the license; or

(d) conducts other actions in violation of the present measures.152

Also in China, the licensee may also be subject to admin-istrative penalties if he conceals the truth, practices fraud or injures the national interest in its application or during the execution of the project.153

In Korea, a license may be suspended on grounds that the licensee is incompetent, in bankruptcy or in violation of legislation, has delayed a launch for more than a year without cause, has obtained a license by false means, has caused threats to national security, or has jeopardized safety.154 A launch license may be revoked for delaying the launch more than a year, obtaining the license via false means, a threat to national security, safety deficien-cies (e.g., “fuel leakage or defects in the communication systems”), or failing to secure license amendment for changes in the launch.155

In the Netherlands, license revocation is required if re-quested by the license-holder, it is necessary to comply with an international obligation, or there is good reason to believe the licensee will jeopardize safety, environ-mental protection or the maintenance of public order and national security. The license may be revoked if the rules


48


Australia also imposes insurance and financial require-ments upon licensees.119 In China, a licensee must carry insurance against liability.120 Similarly, Hong Kong re-quires that the licensee insure himself against liability,121 and indemnify the Hong Kong and PRC governments against claims bought either.122

In the Netherlands, the licensee must maintain “the max-imum possible cover for the liability arising from the space activities for which a license is requested”, with account taken of what can reasonably covered by insur-ance.123 Some States, such as Kazakhstan, impose gen-eral indemnification requirements for damage caused by space activities.124

7. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Several States use the licensing process to address con-cerns about environmental contamination of outer space or the Earth. Austria places particular emphasis on space debris mitigation in its licensing process. It insists upon compliance with the “state of the art” and “internation-ally recognized guidelines for the mitigation of space debris”.125 Similarly, the Government of Hong Kong requires that licensees prevent contamination of outer space, and avoid interference with others in the peace-ful use of space.126 In Belgium, environmental studies are required as a prerequisite to licensing.127

8. OTHER CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON LICENSES

Several States authorize their regulatory agencies to im-pose restrictions upon licenses. For example, in the Neth-erlands, regulations and restrictions may be imposed for the following purposes:

a. the safety of persons and goods;b. protection of the environment in outer space;c. financial security;d. protection of public order;e. security of the State;f. fulfillment of the international obligations of the

State.128

In the Peoples Republic of China, an applicant for a li-cense for the launch of civil space objects is required to abide by its laws, to not endanger public health or safety,129 to not endanger national security, damage the national interests, or violate the national diplomatic poli-cies or the international conventions which China has ratified.130

In France, restrictions on the license may be imposed to protect the safety of people and property, as well as the protection of public health and the environment.131 In the United Kingdom, the license may include conditions permitting inspection by the regulator.132 In Australia, nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction are prohibited, and no fissionable material may be launched without prior approval.133

9. LICENSE DURATION

Most States that regulate commercial space activities re-quire a license for each individual launch.However, several issue licenses for longer periods of time.

For example, in Australia, one may receive a launch per-mit or exemption certificate for launch and return, and a space license for up to 20 years. 134 In Russia, licenses are valid for not less than three years.135 They are valid only for the type of space operations specified, and may not be transferred to another.136 In the Netherlands, a time limit may be imposed within which the licensee must begin the proposed space activities.137

10. PRE-LAUNCH REQUIREMENTS

Several States impose additional obligations upon licens-ees prior to launch. For example, in Australia, licensees must receive approval from local ambulance, fire, and police authorities prior to launching. Environmental ap-provals also are required. Launches must not be conduct-ed in a way likely to cause harm to public health or safety or damage to property. 138

In China, nine months prior to the scheduled launch, the applicant must submit relevant legal and technical docu-ments to the Commission of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense [COSTIND],139 including proof that the project complies with national environmen-tal laws and regulations, the safety design report relevant to the project and information related to public safety, supplementary information concerning the reliability of Safety Critical Systems, and the prevention from pollu-tion and space debris.140

11. OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS

In order to reduce the likelihood of personal, property or environmental damage, a number of States impose op-erational restrictions on the launch of space objects. For example:

In Australia, no launch is allowed that might create a haz-ard to aircraft, person or property; no launch is permitted into a prohibited area or restricted area; no launch is al-lowed higher than 400 feet in controlled airspace except in an approved area or in accordance with air traffic con-trol clearance; and no launch is permitted within three nautical miles of an aerodrome.141 The operator must demonstrate that the launch will impose the lowest prac-ticable risk within the bounds of reasonable cost.142

In Hong Kong, no contamination of space is permitted, nor is interference with others; and the disposal of pay-load on termination of activities is required.143

Ireland has promulgated legislation providing that a rocket may not be operated without a license.144 Seven days prior to launch, the Operating Standards Depart-ment of the Irish Aviation Authority must be informed of the identity of the persons responsible for the operation, the number, size and weight of each rocket, the altitude at which it will be operated, the location, date and time of the operation.145 In Ireland, rocket launches are pro-hibited if they create a potential collision hazard with an aircraft, operation in controlled space, within eight kilo-meters of an airport, at an altitude where horizontal vis-ibility is less than eight kilometers, into a cloud, within 300 meters of any person or property not involved in the operation of the rocket, or at night.146

12. REGISTRATION

So as to comply with their international obligations under the Registration Convention, several States require that all space objects launched by its corporate or individual citizens be registered.Argentina, Australia, Belgium, the Peoples Republic of China, France, Japan, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Spain, Swe-den, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States are among them.147

For example Belgium created a National Register in ac-cordance with the Registration Convention.148 Argentina enacted a novel provision requiring that the operator pro-vide information on environmental precautions taken, in-cluding mechanisms for placement of the space object in a transfer orbit at the end of its useful life, the anticipated date of its recovery, disintegration or loss of contact.149

13. ENFORCEMENT & SANCTIONS

To give their regulatory oversight teeth, many States impose enforcement mechanisms in their national space

legislation. License suspension or revocation, as well as fines and imprisonment, are important regulatory means to ensure compliance.

Suspension & Revocation

In Australia, a licensee may have its license suspended or revoked if it contravenes a license condition, endan-gers national security, or violates foreign policy or in-ternational obligations.150 In Belgium, a license may be suspended or revoked for failure to respect the conditions imposed upon the license, or an infringement of law, of public order, or the safety of people or property by the licensee.151

In China, The COSTIND may revoke the license in a se-rious situation if the licensee:

(a) violates the relevant national laws or regulations or the agreement between China and other states on maintaining confidentiality during execution of the project;

(b) conducts any actions endangering national secu-rity, damaging national interests or violating na-tional diplomatic policies during execution of the project;

(c) carries out the launch activities beyond the limit approved by the license; or

(d) conducts other actions in violation of the present measures.152

Also in China, the licensee may also be subject to admin-istrative penalties if he conceals the truth, practices fraud or injures the national interest in its application or during the execution of the project.153

In Korea, a license may be suspended on grounds that the licensee is incompetent, in bankruptcy or in violation of legislation, has delayed a launch for more than a year without cause, has obtained a license by false means, has caused threats to national security, or has jeopardized safety.154 A launch license may be revoked for delaying the launch more than a year, obtaining the license via false means, a threat to national security, safety deficien-cies (e.g., “fuel leakage or defects in the communication systems”), or failing to secure license amendment for changes in the launch.155

In the Netherlands, license revocation is required if re-quested by the license-holder, it is necessary to comply with an international obligation, or there is good reason to believe the licensee will jeopardize safety, environ-mental protection or the maintenance of public order and national security. The license may be revoked if the rules


49


of the Act or conditions imposed upon the license have been or are being violated, the space activities have not been commenced within the prescribed time period, the purpose of the space activities for which the license was issued have significantly changed, the technical or finan-cial capabilities of the licensee has changed, the informa-tion or documents provided with the application are so incorrect or incomplete that a different decision would have been made if the facts had been known at the time of license issuance, or it is necessary to protect safety, the environment, financial security, public order, State secu-rity or fulfillment of international obligations.156

In Russia, a failure to comply with instructions or orders, the discovery of the filing of false data, the dissolution of the legal entity of the licensee, or the violation of license conditions may result in license suspension or revoca-tion.157 Such suspension or annulment may be imposed on a three day notice.158 Decisions of the Russian Space Agency are subject to appeal.159

South Africa may amend, suspend or revoke a license if any condition was violated, or if the operations pose an unacceptable safety risk.160 In Sweden, the license may be withdrawn if license conditions are disregarded.161 In the United Kingdom, a license may be suspended or revoked if a condition imposed thereon is not complied with, or such action is required for public health, or na-tional security, or in order to comply with international obligations. 162

Fines and Imprisonment

In Korea, one who launches without a license may be sentenced to up to five years imprisonment, and face fines up to 50 million won. One who fails to comply with an interruption order may serve up to three years in prison and be fined up to 30 million won.163 Fines of up to 10 million won may be imposed for failure to reg-ister the space object, or failure to report changes in the launch different from the license. Fines of up to 5 million won may be imposed on the license for failure to report information different than that in the license application, one who “denies, interferes or evades investigation of an accident.164 One who objects to the imposition of a fine upon him may appeal within 30 days, and the penalty will be reviewed by a court.165

Japan may impose a fine not to exceed ¥200,000 for fail-ing to file a report or filing a false report,166 failure to ob-tain required authorization or approval from the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, failure to register, conducting unauthorized activities, or launching satellites without required insurance.167

In France, the administrative authority may at any time give instructions or require any measures deemed neces-sary to protect the safety of persons or property, or to protect the public health or the environment. Fines of up to €200,000 may be imposed for launching a space object without authorization.168

In the Netherlands, administrative penalties for failure to possess a license and launch a space object or endanger-ment of safety or the environment may be imposed of up to €450,000, or 10% of the relevant annual sales in the Netherlands. Failure to register a space object or fol-low rules related thereto may result in an administrative penalty of up to €100,000. In Sweden, violations of the national Space Laws may result in imprisonment of up to one year.169

14. CONCLUSION

Cognizant of their international legal obligations and li-ability exposure, and mindful of the need to protect life, property and the environment, at least 26 States have promulgated national space legislation and imposed reg-ulatory requirements upon commercial space activities. Professor Stephan Hobe observes, “By virtue of Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, states are obligated to au-thorize and to continuously supervise their national space activities. This obligation can best be complied with by enacting national space legislation, preferably with a li-censing regime for private activities in outer space, in-cluding certification of space vehicles.”170 At the same time, many States are promulgating regulations to facili-tate and incentivize commercial use of space, including requiring State payloads to be placed in orbit by com-mercial rockets, and imposing limits on liability of non-governmental organizations.171

As we have seen, to enhance safety, many national space laws focus on common issues through the vehicle of li-censing – the technical and financial qualifications of ap-plicants, liability and indemnification, environmental is-sues, operational restrictions, sanctions and enforcement. Although a growing number of States are promulgating national Space Law legislation, and although, many such laws focus on common issues, there is little harmoniza-tion between the approaches taken to licensing and regu-lation. Some States (e.g., Australia and the United States) have enacted comprehensive and elaborate regulatory statutes, while others (e.g., Ireland and Norway) have promulgated rather terse laws. Many more (e.g., India and Switzerland) have yet to enact any legislation at all on the subject.

Three and a half decades have elapsed since the last inter-national multilateral Space Law convention was drafted. Given the dearth of international regulation of aerospace safety and navigation,172 States would be well advised to establish regulatory institutions to oversee space activi-ties in order to protect their environment, ensure safety, protect their citizens and persons and their territory and property from environmental damage or injury, and cov-er the costs of catastrophic loss when it occurs. National space laws are an important means of achieving those public policies. At minimum, States should promulgate domestic space laws establishing a regulatory agency with jurisdiction over licensing and enforcement, as well as addressing liability insurance and damage reimburse-ment. Further, so as to encourage commercial develop-ment of space, the regulatory burden and liability risk exposure should not be onerous. During the embryonic and developmental period of commercial space activity, liability should be capped.173 Moreover, States should at-tempt to harmonize their laws with other States, so that global uniformity might be enhanced, and flag-of-con-venience type forum shopping discouraged. It would be shameful if commercial space activities were attracted to the jurisdictions with the lowest taxes, and lowest cost regulatory structure, at the expense of safety and envi-ronmental harm.174

Eventually, one would hope, the growth in domestic reg-ulation might influence development of international law, and motivate the international community to come to-gether and establish harmonized regulatory standards,175 as it has done in the field of aviation safety and naviga-tion with the promulgation of the Chicago Convention of 1944.176

15. REFERENCES

[1] Space Foundation, The Space Report 2014: The Authoritative Guide to Global Space Activity (2014).

[2] Id. http://www.spacefoundation.org/media/press-releases/space-foundations-2014-report-reveals-continued-growth-global-space-economy

[3] In its early years, commercial development of space was dominated by satellite communications, particularly telephone and television communi-cations. More recent commercial activities have focused on satellite imaging, global positioning, and radio communications. Mining of asteroids and other near-Earth celestial bodies has not yet begun. The transportation of passengers in space is but embryonic.

[4] See e.g., Michael Gerhard, National Space Legis-lation--Perspectives for Regulating Private Space

Activities, in ESSENTIAL AIR AND SPACE LAW 75-76 (Marietta Benko & Kai-Uwe Schro-gl eds., 2005); and Major Ronald L. Spencer, Jr., State Supervision of Space Activity, 63 A.F. L. REV. 75 (2009).

[5] “In view of the growing commercial activity, leg-islators have sought the need to establish govern-mental control over commercial operators in or-der to ensure compliance with their international obligations and their own security and safety concerns.” European Space Policy Institute, Eco-nomic and Policy Aspects of Space Regulations in Europe, Part I 5 (Sept. 2009).

[6] Paul Fitzgerald notes, “while it is true that do-mestic law is probably sufficient to cover “up and down” SATV [suborbital aerospace transpor-tation vehicle] flights, international carriage by SATV will require legal infrastructure, and such a requirement will likely be necessary within the next decade. Unless states begin to consider this issue, it is not inconceivable that such a lack of action could become an impediment to interconti-nental flights by SATVs.” P. Paul Fitzgerald, Inner Space: ICAO’s New Frontier, 79 J. Air L. & Com. 3 (2014).

[7] See e.g., See THE NEED FOR AN INTEGRAT-ED REGULATORY REGIME FOR AVIATION AND SPACE: ICAO FOR SPACE? (R. Jakhu, T. Sgobba & P. Dempsey ed., Springer 2011); Paul Stephen Dempsey & Michael C. Mineiro, ICAO’s Legal Authority to Regulate Aerospace Vehicles, In Space Safety Regulations and Standards 245, 251 (Joseph N. Pelton & Ram S. Jakhu eds., 2011); see Paul S. Dempsey and Michael C. Mineiro, The Intersection of Air and Space Law: ICAO’s Role in Regulating Safety and Navigation in Suborbital Aerospace Transportation (unpublished manu-script but scheduled to be presented and published to the IAASS in Rome October 21-23, 2008); Ru-wantissa Abeyratne, ICAO’s Involvement in Outer Space Affairs - A Need for Closer Scrutiny?, 30 J. SPACE L. 185, 185-86 (2004); Peter van Fen-ema, Suborbital Flights and ICAO, 30 AIR AND SPACE L. 396, 399-403 (2005); Dean N. Rein-hardt, The Vertical Limit of State Sovereignty, 72 J. AIR L. & COM. 65 (2007).

[8] Application of the Concept of the Launching State, G.A. Res. 59/115, UN GAOR, 59th Sess., UN Doc. A/RES/59/11 (2004).

[9] For a dozen years commencing in 1967, the world community drafted five major multilateral conven-tions establishing the basic principles of Space Law:• The “Outer Space Treaty” of 1967; Treaty on

Principles Governing the Activities of States


50


of the Act or conditions imposed upon the license have been or are being violated, the space activities have not been commenced within the prescribed time period, the purpose of the space activities for which the license was issued have significantly changed, the technical or finan-cial capabilities of the licensee has changed, the informa-tion or documents provided with the application are so incorrect or incomplete that a different decision would have been made if the facts had been known at the time of license issuance, or it is necessary to protect safety, the environment, financial security, public order, State secu-rity or fulfillment of international obligations.156

In Russia, a failure to comply with instructions or orders, the discovery of the filing of false data, the dissolution of the legal entity of the licensee, or the violation of license conditions may result in license suspension or revoca-tion.157 Such suspension or annulment may be imposed on a three day notice.158 Decisions of the Russian Space Agency are subject to appeal.159

South Africa may amend, suspend or revoke a license if any condition was violated, or if the operations pose an unacceptable safety risk.160 In Sweden, the license may be withdrawn if license conditions are disregarded.161 In the United Kingdom, a license may be suspended or revoked if a condition imposed thereon is not complied with, or such action is required for public health, or na-tional security, or in order to comply with international obligations. 162

Fines and Imprisonment

In Korea, one who launches without a license may be sentenced to up to five years imprisonment, and face fines up to 50 million won. One who fails to comply with an interruption order may serve up to three years in prison and be fined up to 30 million won.163 Fines of up to 10 million won may be imposed for failure to reg-ister the space object, or failure to report changes in the launch different from the license. Fines of up to 5 million won may be imposed on the license for failure to report information different than that in the license application, one who “denies, interferes or evades investigation of an accident.164 One who objects to the imposition of a fine upon him may appeal within 30 days, and the penalty will be reviewed by a court.165

Japan may impose a fine not to exceed ¥200,000 for fail-ing to file a report or filing a false report,166 failure to ob-tain required authorization or approval from the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, failure to register, conducting unauthorized activities, or launching satellites without required insurance.167

In France, the administrative authority may at any time give instructions or require any measures deemed neces-sary to protect the safety of persons or property, or to protect the public health or the environment. Fines of up to €200,000 may be imposed for launching a space object without authorization.168

In the Netherlands, administrative penalties for failure to possess a license and launch a space object or endanger-ment of safety or the environment may be imposed of up to €450,000, or 10% of the relevant annual sales in the Netherlands. Failure to register a space object or fol-low rules related thereto may result in an administrative penalty of up to €100,000. In Sweden, violations of the national Space Laws may result in imprisonment of up to one year.169

14. CONCLUSION

Cognizant of their international legal obligations and li-ability exposure, and mindful of the need to protect life, property and the environment, at least 26 States have promulgated national space legislation and imposed reg-ulatory requirements upon commercial space activities. Professor Stephan Hobe observes, “By virtue of Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, states are obligated to au-thorize and to continuously supervise their national space activities. This obligation can best be complied with by enacting national space legislation, preferably with a li-censing regime for private activities in outer space, in-cluding certification of space vehicles.”170 At the same time, many States are promulgating regulations to facili-tate and incentivize commercial use of space, including requiring State payloads to be placed in orbit by com-mercial rockets, and imposing limits on liability of non-governmental organizations.171

As we have seen, to enhance safety, many national space laws focus on common issues through the vehicle of li-censing – the technical and financial qualifications of ap-plicants, liability and indemnification, environmental is-sues, operational restrictions, sanctions and enforcement. Although a growing number of States are promulgating national Space Law legislation, and although, many such laws focus on common issues, there is little harmoniza-tion between the approaches taken to licensing and regu-lation. Some States (e.g., Australia and the United States) have enacted comprehensive and elaborate regulatory statutes, while others (e.g., Ireland and Norway) have promulgated rather terse laws. Many more (e.g., India and Switzerland) have yet to enact any legislation at all on the subject.

Three and a half decades have elapsed since the last inter-national multilateral Space Law convention was drafted. Given the dearth of international regulation of aerospace safety and navigation,172 States would be well advised to establish regulatory institutions to oversee space activi-ties in order to protect their environment, ensure safety, protect their citizens and persons and their territory and property from environmental damage or injury, and cov-er the costs of catastrophic loss when it occurs. National space laws are an important means of achieving those public policies. At minimum, States should promulgate domestic space laws establishing a regulatory agency with jurisdiction over licensing and enforcement, as well as addressing liability insurance and damage reimburse-ment. Further, so as to encourage commercial develop-ment of space, the regulatory burden and liability risk exposure should not be onerous. During the embryonic and developmental period of commercial space activity, liability should be capped.173 Moreover, States should at-tempt to harmonize their laws with other States, so that global uniformity might be enhanced, and flag-of-con-venience type forum shopping discouraged. It would be shameful if commercial space activities were attracted to the jurisdictions with the lowest taxes, and lowest cost regulatory structure, at the expense of safety and envi-ronmental harm.174

Eventually, one would hope, the growth in domestic reg-ulation might influence development of international law, and motivate the international community to come to-gether and establish harmonized regulatory standards,175 as it has done in the field of aviation safety and naviga-tion with the promulgation of the Chicago Convention of 1944.176

15. REFERENCES

[1] Space Foundation, The Space Report 2014: The Authoritative Guide to Global Space Activity (2014).

[2] Id. http://www.spacefoundation.org/media/press-releases/space-foundations-2014-report-reveals-continued-growth-global-space-economy

[3] In its early years, commercial development of space was dominated by satellite communications, particularly telephone and television communi-cations. More recent commercial activities have focused on satellite imaging, global positioning, and radio communications. Mining of asteroids and other near-Earth celestial bodies has not yet begun. The transportation of passengers in space is but embryonic.

[4] See e.g., Michael Gerhard, National Space Legis-lation--Perspectives for Regulating Private Space

Activities, in ESSENTIAL AIR AND SPACE LAW 75-76 (Marietta Benko & Kai-Uwe Schro-gl eds., 2005); and Major Ronald L. Spencer, Jr., State Supervision of Space Activity, 63 A.F. L. REV. 75 (2009).

[5] “In view of the growing commercial activity, leg-islators have sought the need to establish govern-mental control over commercial operators in or-der to ensure compliance with their international obligations and their own security and safety concerns.” European Space Policy Institute, Eco-nomic and Policy Aspects of Space Regulations in Europe, Part I 5 (Sept. 2009).

[6] Paul Fitzgerald notes, “while it is true that do-mestic law is probably sufficient to cover “up and down” SATV [suborbital aerospace transpor-tation vehicle] flights, international carriage by SATV will require legal infrastructure, and such a requirement will likely be necessary within the next decade. Unless states begin to consider this issue, it is not inconceivable that such a lack of action could become an impediment to interconti-nental flights by SATVs.” P. Paul Fitzgerald, Inner Space: ICAO’s New Frontier, 79 J. Air L. & Com. 3 (2014).

[7] See e.g., See THE NEED FOR AN INTEGRAT-ED REGULATORY REGIME FOR AVIATION AND SPACE: ICAO FOR SPACE? (R. Jakhu, T. Sgobba & P. Dempsey ed., Springer 2011); Paul Stephen Dempsey & Michael C. Mineiro, ICAO’s Legal Authority to Regulate Aerospace Vehicles, In Space Safety Regulations and Standards 245, 251 (Joseph N. Pelton & Ram S. Jakhu eds., 2011); see Paul S. Dempsey and Michael C. Mineiro, The Intersection of Air and Space Law: ICAO’s Role in Regulating Safety and Navigation in Suborbital Aerospace Transportation (unpublished manu-script but scheduled to be presented and published to the IAASS in Rome October 21-23, 2008); Ru-wantissa Abeyratne, ICAO’s Involvement in Outer Space Affairs - A Need for Closer Scrutiny?, 30 J. SPACE L. 185, 185-86 (2004); Peter van Fen-ema, Suborbital Flights and ICAO, 30 AIR AND SPACE L. 396, 399-403 (2005); Dean N. Rein-hardt, The Vertical Limit of State Sovereignty, 72 J. AIR L. & COM. 65 (2007).

[8] Application of the Concept of the Launching State, G.A. Res. 59/115, UN GAOR, 59th Sess., UN Doc. A/RES/59/11 (2004).

[9] For a dozen years commencing in 1967, the world community drafted five major multilateral conven-tions establishing the basic principles of Space Law:• The “Outer Space Treaty” of 1967; Treaty on

Principles Governing the Activities of States


51


in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, In-cluding the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, opened for signature Jan. 27, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 2410, T.I.A.S. 6347, 610 U.N.T.S. 205, 6 I.L.M. 386, G.A. Res. 2222 (XXI), opened for signature on 27 January 1967, entered into force on 10 Oc-tober 1967.

• The “Rescue Agreement” of 1968; Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of As-tronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, opened for signature Apr. 22, 1968, 19 U.S.T. 7570, 672 U.N.T.S. 119, G.A. Res. 2345 (XXII), entered into force on 3 De-cember 1968.

• The “Liability Convention” of 1972; Conven-tion on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, opened for signature Mar. 29, 1972, 24 U.S.T. 2389, T.I.A.S. 7762, 961 U.N.T.S. 187, 10 I.L.M. 965, G.A. Res. 2777 (XXVI), opened for signature on 29 March 1972, entered into force on 1 September 1972.

• The “Registration Convention” of 1976; Con-vention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, opened for signature Jan. 14, 1975, 28 U.S.T. 695, T.I.A.S. 8480, 1023 U.N.T.S. 15, G.A. Res. 3235 (XXIX), entered into force on 15 September 1976, and

• The “Moon Agreement” of 1979. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, opened for signature Dec. 18, 1979, 1986 A.T.S. 14, 18 I.L.M. 1434; G.A. Res. 34/68, entered into force on 11 July 1984. Other conventions are also of significance, including the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Inter-national Telecommunications Convention of 1984/1992, and the Convention of the Interna-tional Maritime Satellite Organization of 1979, for example.

[10] See PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, PUBLIC IN-TERNATIONAL AIR LAW 743-45 (McGill 2006).

[11] Outer Space Treaty Art. III.[12] Outer Space Treaty Art. VI. Article VI of the Outer

Space Treaty imposes upon States international responsibility to provide “authorization and con-tinuing supervision” of national activities in space, including the activities of both governmental and non-governmental entities.

[13] Outer Space Treaty Art. VII. Article VII provides that States that (a) launch, (b) procure the launch, or (c) from whose territory an object is launched, are internationally liable for damage caused to an-other State or its national or juridical persons by such object whether in the air or in space.

[14] Outer Space Treaty Art. VIII. See PAUL STE-

PHEN DEMPSEY, AVIATION LIABILITY LAW § 6.64 (Lexis Nexis 2nd ed. 2013). Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty also requires that space ob-jects and component parts found in a State shall be returned to the State of registry. Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty provides that the State of regis-try shall retain jurisdiction and control over a space object and any personnel thereon, whether in space or on a celestial body. But it does not define the “State of registry.” The Registration Convention of 1976 provides elaboration. Convention on Reg-istration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, opened for signature Jan. 14, 1975, 28 U.S.T. 695, T.I.A.S. 8480, 1023 U.N.T.S. 15, G.A. Res. 3235 (XXIX), entered into force on 15 September 1976. The Registration Convention defines the “State of registry” as the launching State (recall the defini-tion above) on whose registry a space object is car-ried. Registration Convention Art. I. The Conven-tion requires that every space object launched be entered in appropriate registry that the launching State shall maintain. Registration Convention Art. II. It defines the information that shall be carried on the registry. The Convention also requires that the State of registry must notify the UN Secretary General of space objects which were, but no longer are, in Earth orbit. Registration Convention Art. IV(3).

[15] Outer Space Treaty Art. IX.[16] Outer Space Treaty Art. XI.[17] Convention on International Liability for Dam-

age Caused by Space Objects, opened for signa-ture Mar. 29, 1972, 24 U.S.T. 2389, T.I.A.S. 7762, 961 U.N.T.S. 187, 10 I.L.M. 965, G.A. Res. 2777 (XXVI), opened for signature on 29 March 1972, entered into force on 1 September 1972.

[18] Liability Convention Art. I.[19] See generally, Marc S. Firestone, Problems in

the Resolution of Disputes Concerning Damage Caused in Outer Space, 59 TUL. L. REV. 747 (1985).

[20] The Liability Convention adopted “a two-tiered tort regime for injury or damage inflicted by a sat-ellite: absolute liability for harm caused on earth or to aircraft, and liability for „fault‟ for injuries to other countries’ space objects.” David A. Koplow, ASAT-Isfaction: Customary International Law and the Regulation of Anti-Satellite Weapons, 30 MICH. J. INT’L L. 1187, 1200 (2009). One source notes:

“The [Liability Convention] estab-lished a basic framework of tort law applicable to space activities. The Li-ability Convention was a response to concerns about the danger that space

objects pose on Earth when they re-en-ter the atmosphere. Damage caused by space objects while they are in space, on the other hand, did not motivate the formation of the Liability Convention, which explains why terrestrial damage has a stricter liability scheme under the Liability Convention than damage that occurs in space. The Liability Conven-tion instituted an absolute liability pol-icy for damage on the Earth’s surface, or in airspace, caused by space objects. However, a state is only liable for dam-age to another state’s space objects if ‘the damage is due to [the state’s] fault or the fault of persons for whom [the state] is responsible.’ An injured party cannot recover compensation under this Convention if another entity of the same state harmed its space object. In that case, the injured party would most likely have a remedy under national tort law...”

Natalie Pusey, The Case for Preserving Nothing: The Need for a Global Response to the Space De-bris Problem, 21 COLO. J. INT’L ENVTL. L. & POL’Y 425, 438-39 (2010) [citations omitted].

[21] Liability Convention Art II.[22] See generally, Ezra J. Reinstein, Owning Outer

Space, 20 NW. J. INT’L L. & BUS. 59, 77 (1999) (criticizing the failure of the treaty to define “fault”).

[23] It is unclear whether recoverable damages include lost wages, lost profits, or non-economic damages such as pain and suffering. Punitive damages are not envisaged. See Joseph J. MacAvoy, Nuclear Space and the Earth Environment: The Benefits, Dangers, and Legality of Nuclear Power and Pro-pulsion in Outer Space, 29 WM. & MARY EN-VTL. L. & POL’Y REV. 191, 226 (2004).

[24] Liability Convention Art. III. The Convention out-lines a limited number of defenses. The launching State may be wholly exonerated from liability if it proves that the damage resulted from the “gross negligence or from an act or omission done with intent to cause damage on the part of a claimant State or of natural or juridical persons it repre-sents”, unless the launch was not in conformity with principles of international law, including in particular, the United Nations Charter or the Outer Space Treaty.

[25] See generally, HOWARD A. BAKER, SPACE DEBRIS: LEGAL AND POLICY IMPLICA-TIONS (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989), and PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, AVIATION LI-

ABILITY LAW § 6.65 (Lexis Nexis 2nd ed. 2013). The Liability Convention also establishes specific procedures for the settlement of damage claims, including a one year statute of limitations and, where necessary, establishment of a Claims Com-mission. Claims must be presented through diplo-matic channels by a State on its behalf, or on be-half of its nationals.

[26] Ronald Spencer Jr., International Space Law: A Basis for National Legislation, in NATIONAL REGULATION OF SPACE ACTIVITIES 1, 9 (Ram Jakhu ed., Springer 2010).

[27] 66 Fed. Reg. 48311-01 (2001), 2001 WL 1089331 (F.R.) US Federal Aviation Administration.

[28] Henry Hertzfeld & Ben Baseley-Walker, A Legal Note on Space Accidents, ZEITSCHRIFT FUR LUFT-UND WELTRAUMRECHT [GERMAN J. OF AIR & SPACE L.] 230, 233 (2010).

[29] The 1978 crash of the Cosmos 954 satellite into Canada, creating damages totaling $14 million, led Canada to file a $6 million claim with the (then) Soviet Union, of which $3 million was eventually paid. Joseph J. MacAvoy, Nuclear Space and the Earth Environment: The Benefits, Dangers, and Legality of Nuclear Power and Propulsion in Out-er Space, 29 WM. & MARY ENVTL. L. & POL’Y REV. 191, 227 (2004). The settlement agreement declared, “The standard of absolute liability for space activities, in particular activities involving the use of nuclear energy, is considered to have become a general principle of international law.” Canada‘s Claim Against the U.S.S.R. Arising Out of the Cosmos 954 Incident and the Claim‘s Settle-ment ¶ 22 in SPACE LAW § IV>B.Canada.1-4 (Paul Stephen Dempsey ed. 2004). See also PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, AVIATION LIABILITY LAW § 6.69 (Lexis Nexis 2nd ed. 2013).

Several sources contend that several core concepts from the international Space Law conventions have evolved into customary international law. For example, “[T]he consensus has developed that a few principles of customary international law apply to space activities. These include the ‘es-sential principles of the Outer Space Treaty...’”, Peter Malanczuk, Space Law as a Branch of In-ternational Law, 1994 NETH. Y.B. INT’L L. 143, 159 (1995); Robert A. Ramey, Armed Conflict on the Final Frontier: The Law of War in Space, 48 A.F. L. REV. 1, 74 (2000). See also, ANTHONY AUST, HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 339 (2nd ed. 2010) (“The [Outer Space] Treaty’s basic principles... can now be regarded as representing customary international law.”). “De-spite the relative youth of space law, several core concepts have crystallized into customary interna-


52


in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, In-cluding the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, opened for signature Jan. 27, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 2410, T.I.A.S. 6347, 610 U.N.T.S. 205, 6 I.L.M. 386, G.A. Res. 2222 (XXI), opened for signature on 27 January 1967, entered into force on 10 Oc-tober 1967.

• The “Rescue Agreement” of 1968; Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of As-tronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, opened for signature Apr. 22, 1968, 19 U.S.T. 7570, 672 U.N.T.S. 119, G.A. Res. 2345 (XXII), entered into force on 3 De-cember 1968.

• The “Liability Convention” of 1972; Conven-tion on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, opened for signature Mar. 29, 1972, 24 U.S.T. 2389, T.I.A.S. 7762, 961 U.N.T.S. 187, 10 I.L.M. 965, G.A. Res. 2777 (XXVI), opened for signature on 29 March 1972, entered into force on 1 September 1972.

• The “Registration Convention” of 1976; Con-vention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, opened for signature Jan. 14, 1975, 28 U.S.T. 695, T.I.A.S. 8480, 1023 U.N.T.S. 15, G.A. Res. 3235 (XXIX), entered into force on 15 September 1976, and

• The “Moon Agreement” of 1979. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, opened for signature Dec. 18, 1979, 1986 A.T.S. 14, 18 I.L.M. 1434; G.A. Res. 34/68, entered into force on 11 July 1984. Other conventions are also of significance, including the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Inter-national Telecommunications Convention of 1984/1992, and the Convention of the Interna-tional Maritime Satellite Organization of 1979, for example.

[10] See PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, PUBLIC IN-TERNATIONAL AIR LAW 743-45 (McGill 2006).

[11] Outer Space Treaty Art. III.[12] Outer Space Treaty Art. VI. Article VI of the Outer

Space Treaty imposes upon States international responsibility to provide “authorization and con-tinuing supervision” of national activities in space, including the activities of both governmental and non-governmental entities.

[13] Outer Space Treaty Art. VII. Article VII provides that States that (a) launch, (b) procure the launch, or (c) from whose territory an object is launched, are internationally liable for damage caused to an-other State or its national or juridical persons by such object whether in the air or in space.

[14] Outer Space Treaty Art. VIII. See PAUL STE-

PHEN DEMPSEY, AVIATION LIABILITY LAW § 6.64 (Lexis Nexis 2nd ed. 2013). Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty also requires that space ob-jects and component parts found in a State shall be returned to the State of registry. Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty provides that the State of regis-try shall retain jurisdiction and control over a space object and any personnel thereon, whether in space or on a celestial body. But it does not define the “State of registry.” The Registration Convention of 1976 provides elaboration. Convention on Reg-istration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, opened for signature Jan. 14, 1975, 28 U.S.T. 695, T.I.A.S. 8480, 1023 U.N.T.S. 15, G.A. Res. 3235 (XXIX), entered into force on 15 September 1976. The Registration Convention defines the “State of registry” as the launching State (recall the defini-tion above) on whose registry a space object is car-ried. Registration Convention Art. I. The Conven-tion requires that every space object launched be entered in appropriate registry that the launching State shall maintain. Registration Convention Art. II. It defines the information that shall be carried on the registry. The Convention also requires that the State of registry must notify the UN Secretary General of space objects which were, but no longer are, in Earth orbit. Registration Convention Art. IV(3).

[15] Outer Space Treaty Art. IX.[16] Outer Space Treaty Art. XI.[17] Convention on International Liability for Dam-

age Caused by Space Objects, opened for signa-ture Mar. 29, 1972, 24 U.S.T. 2389, T.I.A.S. 7762, 961 U.N.T.S. 187, 10 I.L.M. 965, G.A. Res. 2777 (XXVI), opened for signature on 29 March 1972, entered into force on 1 September 1972.

[18] Liability Convention Art. I.[19] See generally, Marc S. Firestone, Problems in

the Resolution of Disputes Concerning Damage Caused in Outer Space, 59 TUL. L. REV. 747 (1985).

[20] The Liability Convention adopted “a two-tiered tort regime for injury or damage inflicted by a sat-ellite: absolute liability for harm caused on earth or to aircraft, and liability for „fault‟ for injuries to other countries’ space objects.” David A. Koplow, ASAT-Isfaction: Customary International Law and the Regulation of Anti-Satellite Weapons, 30 MICH. J. INT’L L. 1187, 1200 (2009). One source notes:

“The [Liability Convention] estab-lished a basic framework of tort law applicable to space activities. The Li-ability Convention was a response to concerns about the danger that space

objects pose on Earth when they re-en-ter the atmosphere. Damage caused by space objects while they are in space, on the other hand, did not motivate the formation of the Liability Convention, which explains why terrestrial damage has a stricter liability scheme under the Liability Convention than damage that occurs in space. The Liability Conven-tion instituted an absolute liability pol-icy for damage on the Earth’s surface, or in airspace, caused by space objects. However, a state is only liable for dam-age to another state’s space objects if ‘the damage is due to [the state’s] fault or the fault of persons for whom [the state] is responsible.’ An injured party cannot recover compensation under this Convention if another entity of the same state harmed its space object. In that case, the injured party would most likely have a remedy under national tort law...”

Natalie Pusey, The Case for Preserving Nothing: The Need for a Global Response to the Space De-bris Problem, 21 COLO. J. INT’L ENVTL. L. & POL’Y 425, 438-39 (2010) [citations omitted].

[21] Liability Convention Art II.[22] See generally, Ezra J. Reinstein, Owning Outer

Space, 20 NW. J. INT’L L. & BUS. 59, 77 (1999) (criticizing the failure of the treaty to define “fault”).

[23] It is unclear whether recoverable damages include lost wages, lost profits, or non-economic damages such as pain and suffering. Punitive damages are not envisaged. See Joseph J. MacAvoy, Nuclear Space and the Earth Environment: The Benefits, Dangers, and Legality of Nuclear Power and Pro-pulsion in Outer Space, 29 WM. & MARY EN-VTL. L. & POL’Y REV. 191, 226 (2004).

[24] Liability Convention Art. III. The Convention out-lines a limited number of defenses. The launching State may be wholly exonerated from liability if it proves that the damage resulted from the “gross negligence or from an act or omission done with intent to cause damage on the part of a claimant State or of natural or juridical persons it repre-sents”, unless the launch was not in conformity with principles of international law, including in particular, the United Nations Charter or the Outer Space Treaty.

[25] See generally, HOWARD A. BAKER, SPACE DEBRIS: LEGAL AND POLICY IMPLICA-TIONS (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989), and PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, AVIATION LI-

ABILITY LAW § 6.65 (Lexis Nexis 2nd ed. 2013). The Liability Convention also establishes specific procedures for the settlement of damage claims, including a one year statute of limitations and, where necessary, establishment of a Claims Com-mission. Claims must be presented through diplo-matic channels by a State on its behalf, or on be-half of its nationals.

[26] Ronald Spencer Jr., International Space Law: A Basis for National Legislation, in NATIONAL REGULATION OF SPACE ACTIVITIES 1, 9 (Ram Jakhu ed., Springer 2010).

[27] 66 Fed. Reg. 48311-01 (2001), 2001 WL 1089331 (F.R.) US Federal Aviation Administration.

[28] Henry Hertzfeld & Ben Baseley-Walker, A Legal Note on Space Accidents, ZEITSCHRIFT FUR LUFT-UND WELTRAUMRECHT [GERMAN J. OF AIR & SPACE L.] 230, 233 (2010).

[29] The 1978 crash of the Cosmos 954 satellite into Canada, creating damages totaling $14 million, led Canada to file a $6 million claim with the (then) Soviet Union, of which $3 million was eventually paid. Joseph J. MacAvoy, Nuclear Space and the Earth Environment: The Benefits, Dangers, and Legality of Nuclear Power and Propulsion in Out-er Space, 29 WM. & MARY ENVTL. L. & POL’Y REV. 191, 227 (2004). The settlement agreement declared, “The standard of absolute liability for space activities, in particular activities involving the use of nuclear energy, is considered to have become a general principle of international law.” Canada‘s Claim Against the U.S.S.R. Arising Out of the Cosmos 954 Incident and the Claim‘s Settle-ment ¶ 22 in SPACE LAW § IV>B.Canada.1-4 (Paul Stephen Dempsey ed. 2004). See also PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, AVIATION LIABILITY LAW § 6.69 (Lexis Nexis 2nd ed. 2013).

Several sources contend that several core concepts from the international Space Law conventions have evolved into customary international law. For example, “[T]he consensus has developed that a few principles of customary international law apply to space activities. These include the ‘es-sential principles of the Outer Space Treaty...’”, Peter Malanczuk, Space Law as a Branch of In-ternational Law, 1994 NETH. Y.B. INT’L L. 143, 159 (1995); Robert A. Ramey, Armed Conflict on the Final Frontier: The Law of War in Space, 48 A.F. L. REV. 1, 74 (2000). See also, ANTHONY AUST, HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 339 (2nd ed. 2010) (“The [Outer Space] Treaty’s basic principles... can now be regarded as representing customary international law.”). “De-spite the relative youth of space law, several core concepts have crystallized into customary interna-


53


tional law through state practice.” Dan St. John, The Trouble with Westphalia in Space: The State-Centric Liability Regime, 40 DENVER J. INT’L L. & POL’Y 686, 690-91 (2012). See also, I.H. PH. DIEDERIKS-VERSCHOOR & V. KOPAL, AN INTRODUCTION TO SPACE LAW 6 (3d ed. 2008); FRANCIS LYALL & PAUL B. LARSEN, SPACE LAW: A TREATISE 11-12, 71, 308-10 (2009).

But this view is not universally shared: “It is not clear, however, that customary international law even exists. At first glance, a lack of space cus-tom undermines the entire concept of a customary international law of space. According to one esti-mate in 2000, only six to ten countries had been sufficiently involved in space relations to consider their actions as contributing to international space law.” Jacob M. Harper, Technology, Politics, and the New Space Race: The Legality and Desirabili-ty of Bush’s National Space Policy Under the Pub-lic and Customary International Laws of Space, 8 CHI. J. INT’L L. 681 n. 42 (2008).

[30] In 1961, the U.N. General Assembly declared that international law applies to outer space and celestial bodies. It also declared outer space and celestial bodies free for exploration and use by all nations, and not subject to national appropriation. U.S. General Ass. Res. 1721 (Dec. 20, 1961). The following year, the General Assembly called upon nations “to co-operate in the further development of law for outer space”. U.S. General Ass. Res. 1802 (Dec. 14, 1962). The U.N. General Assembly has passed numerous resolutions addressing space, of which the most prominent include:• The Declaration of Legal Principles Governing

the Activities of States in the Exploration and Uses of Outer Space (the “Legal Principles Dec-laration”);

• The Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Di-rect Television Broadcasting (the “Direct T.V. Broadcasting Principles”);

• The Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space (the “Remote Sens-ing Principles”);

• The Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space (the “Nuclear Power Principles”); and

• The Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Tak-ing into Particular Account the Needs of Devel-oping Countries (the “International Cooperation Declaration”).

General Assembly Resolutions are not binding

upon U.N. member States, per se, even those that voted in favor of them, unless they reaffirm exist-ing – or eventually evolve into – general principles of customary international law. Nonetheless, they do offer some indication of consensus of where in-ternational law may be headed.

[31] See Steven Freeland, For Better or Worse? The Use of ‘Soft Law’ Within the International Legal Regulation of Outer Space, XXXVI ANNALS OF AIR & SPACE L. 409 (2011).

Gérardine Goh writes: “The complexity of space activities has quickly outrun traditional methods of lawmaking. This has led to the necessitation of action from international organizations, spe-cialized agencies, private bodies and professional associations that do not nicely fit into the State-centric paradigm of international lawmaking.” Gérardine Meishan Goh, Softly, Softly Catchee Monkey: Informalism and the Quiet Develop-ment of International Space Law, 87 NEB. L. REV. 725, 726 (2009). Christine Chinkin writes that, “The complexity of international legal affairs has outpaced traditional methods of law-making, necessitating management through international organizations, specialized agencies, programmes, and private bodies that do not fit the paradigm of Article 38(1) of the Statute of the [International Court of Justice]. Consequently the concept of soft law facilitates international co-operation by acting as a bridge between the formalities of law-making and the needs of international life by legitimating behavior and creating stability.” COMMITMENT AND COMPLIANCE: THE ROLE OF NON-BINDING NORMS IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM (Dinah Shelton, ed., New York: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2000).

But the view that non-binding “soft law” agree-ments such as the Space Mitigation Guidelines have become customary international law is not universally shared. “The final potential source of international space law that must be considered is customary international law. Many commentators argue that the content of the nonbinding agree-ments ...from the Principles through the codes of conduct, could become, or even already have be-come, binding norms of customary international law... However, closer analysis of the requirements for customary international law demonstrates that nonbinding space agreements are unlikely to evolve into binding customary rules. The practices contained in nonbinding international space agree-ments do not meet the requirements of either the traditional or the modern approach to custom for-mation. State practice in outer space is not long-term enough to be the driving force behind the

formation of international custom, especially with regard to the more recent technical agreements, and statements of opinio juris have been far from the strong and nearly unanimous sentiment need-ed for opinio juris to be the leading factor. When considering the legal effects of nonbinding agree-ments for the purposes of rule of law, we must thus acknowledge that they are truly nonbinding and will not likely become otherwise through custom-ary international law.” Brian Wessel, The Rule of Law in Outer Space: The Effects of Treaties and Nonbinding Agreements on International Space Law, 35 HASTINGS INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 289 297-98 (2012) [citations omitted]. Similarly, Professor Freeland notes, “These soft law instru-ments provide guidelines or standards of conduct that may often influence the actions of States..., but they do not in and of themselves have the legal ‘force’ of binding treaties... it is not appropriate to convert in our mind something that is not bind-ing ‘hard’ law, and not intended to be such, into a binding rule or obligation.” Steven Freeland, For Better or Worse? The Use of ‘Soft Law’ Within the International Legal Regulation of Outer Space, XXXVI ANNALS OF AIR & SPACE L. 409, 434, 444 (2011).

[32] See PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, PUBLIC IN-TERNATIONAL AIR LAW (McGill 2008).

[33] See THE NEED FOR AN INTEGRATED REG-ULATORY REGIME FOR AVIATION AND SPACE: ICAO FOR SPACE? (R. Jakhu, T. Sgob-ba & P. Dempsey ed., Springer 2011).

[34] European Space Policy Institute, Economic and Policy Aspects of Space Regulations in Europe, Part I 7 (Sept. 2009).

[35] Presidential Decree No. 02-49 “Creation, Orga-nization and Functioning of the Algerian Space Agency (ASAL)” of 16 January 2002; Presiden-tial Decree No. 06-225 “Ratifying the Conven-tion for Damage Caused by Space Objects” of 24 June 2006; Presidential Decree No. 06-468 “Ratifying the Convention on Registration of Ob-jects Launched into Outer Space” of 11 December 2006.

[36] National Decree No. 995/91 “Creation of the Na-tional Commission on Space Activities” (28 May 1991); National Decree No. 125/95 “Establish-ment of the National Registry of Space Objects Launched into Outer Space” (25 July 1995).

[37] Space Activities Act 1998 (No. 123, 1998); Statu-tory Rules No. 186, containing the Space Activities Regulations 2011.

[38] Austrian Federal Law on the Authorization of Space Activities and the Establishment of a Na-tional Space Registry (Austrian Outer Space Act),

entered into force on 28 December 2011.[39] Law on the Activities of Launching, Flight Opera-

tions or Guidance of Space Objects Of 17 Septem-ber 2005; Royal Decree Implementing Certain Provisions of the Law Of 17 September 2005 on the Activities of Launching, Flight Operations and Guidance of Space Objects from the Legal Basis for the Regulation Of Space Activities.

[40] Law 8.854 of February 10, 1994; Law 9.112 of October 10, 1995; Decree 1.953 of July 10, 1996; Administrative Edict n. 27 of June 20, 2001; Ad-ministrative Edit n.5 of February 21, 2002; Reso-lution No. 51 of 26 January 2001; Administrative Edict n. 96 of 30 November 2011.

[41] Canadian Space Agency Act (1990, c. 13).[42] Supreme Decree No. 338, Establishment of a Pres-

idential Advisory Committee known as Chilean Space Agency, amended by Supreme Decree No. 0144 of December 29, 2008, Being now the Chil-ean Space Agency presided by the Undersecretary of Economy.

[43] Measures for the Administration of Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space of 8 Febru-ary 2001; Interim Measures on the Administration of Permits for Civil Space Launch Projects of 21 December 2002; Interim measures on Administra-tion of Mitigation of and Protection against Space Debris.

[44] Decree 2442, of July 2006 on the creation of the Colombian Commission of Space (CCE).

[45] French Space Operations Act, No. 2008-518 (2008); Decree No. 2009-644 of 9 June 2009, modifying Decree No. 84-510 of 28 June 1984, re-lating to CNES; Decree No. 2009-643 of 9 June 2008; Decree No. 2009-640 of 9 June 2009. See Giugi Carminati, French National Space Legisla-tion: A Brief ―Parcours‖ of a Long History, 36 HOUS. J. INT’L L. 1 (2014).

[46] Act to give Protection against the Security Risk to the Federal Republic of Germany by the Dissemi-nation of High-Grade Earth Remote Sensing Data (Satellite Data Security Act — SatDSiG), 2007.

[47] Law 23, 25 January 1983, Norms for the imple-mentation for the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Official Gazette No.35, 5 February, 1983); Law No. 153, 12 July 2005, Registration of objects launched into outer space. (Official Gazette No. 177, 1 August 2005).

[48] Basic Space Law (Law No.43, 2008 of 28 May 2008); The Law concerning Japan Aerospace Ex-ploration Agency (Law No. 161 of 13th December 2002).

[49] Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Space Ac-tivities, 6 January, 2012, No. 528-IV; available at


54


tional law through state practice.” Dan St. John, The Trouble with Westphalia in Space: The State-Centric Liability Regime, 40 DENVER J. INT’L L. & POL’Y 686, 690-91 (2012). See also, I.H. PH. DIEDERIKS-VERSCHOOR & V. KOPAL, AN INTRODUCTION TO SPACE LAW 6 (3d ed. 2008); FRANCIS LYALL & PAUL B. LARSEN, SPACE LAW: A TREATISE 11-12, 71, 308-10 (2009).

But this view is not universally shared: “It is not clear, however, that customary international law even exists. At first glance, a lack of space cus-tom undermines the entire concept of a customary international law of space. According to one esti-mate in 2000, only six to ten countries had been sufficiently involved in space relations to consider their actions as contributing to international space law.” Jacob M. Harper, Technology, Politics, and the New Space Race: The Legality and Desirabili-ty of Bush’s National Space Policy Under the Pub-lic and Customary International Laws of Space, 8 CHI. J. INT’L L. 681 n. 42 (2008).

[30] In 1961, the U.N. General Assembly declared that international law applies to outer space and celestial bodies. It also declared outer space and celestial bodies free for exploration and use by all nations, and not subject to national appropriation. U.S. General Ass. Res. 1721 (Dec. 20, 1961). The following year, the General Assembly called upon nations “to co-operate in the further development of law for outer space”. U.S. General Ass. Res. 1802 (Dec. 14, 1962). The U.N. General Assembly has passed numerous resolutions addressing space, of which the most prominent include:• The Declaration of Legal Principles Governing

the Activities of States in the Exploration and Uses of Outer Space (the “Legal Principles Dec-laration”);

• The Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Di-rect Television Broadcasting (the “Direct T.V. Broadcasting Principles”);

• The Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space (the “Remote Sens-ing Principles”);

• The Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space (the “Nuclear Power Principles”); and

• The Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Tak-ing into Particular Account the Needs of Devel-oping Countries (the “International Cooperation Declaration”).

General Assembly Resolutions are not binding

upon U.N. member States, per se, even those that voted in favor of them, unless they reaffirm exist-ing – or eventually evolve into – general principles of customary international law. Nonetheless, they do offer some indication of consensus of where in-ternational law may be headed.

[31] See Steven Freeland, For Better or Worse? The Use of ‘Soft Law’ Within the International Legal Regulation of Outer Space, XXXVI ANNALS OF AIR & SPACE L. 409 (2011).

Gérardine Goh writes: “The complexity of space activities has quickly outrun traditional methods of lawmaking. This has led to the necessitation of action from international organizations, spe-cialized agencies, private bodies and professional associations that do not nicely fit into the State-centric paradigm of international lawmaking.” Gérardine Meishan Goh, Softly, Softly Catchee Monkey: Informalism and the Quiet Develop-ment of International Space Law, 87 NEB. L. REV. 725, 726 (2009). Christine Chinkin writes that, “The complexity of international legal affairs has outpaced traditional methods of law-making, necessitating management through international organizations, specialized agencies, programmes, and private bodies that do not fit the paradigm of Article 38(1) of the Statute of the [International Court of Justice]. Consequently the concept of soft law facilitates international co-operation by acting as a bridge between the formalities of law-making and the needs of international life by legitimating behavior and creating stability.” COMMITMENT AND COMPLIANCE: THE ROLE OF NON-BINDING NORMS IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM (Dinah Shelton, ed., New York: Oxford Universtiy Press, 2000).

But the view that non-binding “soft law” agree-ments such as the Space Mitigation Guidelines have become customary international law is not universally shared. “The final potential source of international space law that must be considered is customary international law. Many commentators argue that the content of the nonbinding agree-ments ...from the Principles through the codes of conduct, could become, or even already have be-come, binding norms of customary international law... However, closer analysis of the requirements for customary international law demonstrates that nonbinding space agreements are unlikely to evolve into binding customary rules. The practices contained in nonbinding international space agree-ments do not meet the requirements of either the traditional or the modern approach to custom for-mation. State practice in outer space is not long-term enough to be the driving force behind the

formation of international custom, especially with regard to the more recent technical agreements, and statements of opinio juris have been far from the strong and nearly unanimous sentiment need-ed for opinio juris to be the leading factor. When considering the legal effects of nonbinding agree-ments for the purposes of rule of law, we must thus acknowledge that they are truly nonbinding and will not likely become otherwise through custom-ary international law.” Brian Wessel, The Rule of Law in Outer Space: The Effects of Treaties and Nonbinding Agreements on International Space Law, 35 HASTINGS INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 289 297-98 (2012) [citations omitted]. Similarly, Professor Freeland notes, “These soft law instru-ments provide guidelines or standards of conduct that may often influence the actions of States..., but they do not in and of themselves have the legal ‘force’ of binding treaties... it is not appropriate to convert in our mind something that is not bind-ing ‘hard’ law, and not intended to be such, into a binding rule or obligation.” Steven Freeland, For Better or Worse? The Use of ‘Soft Law’ Within the International Legal Regulation of Outer Space, XXXVI ANNALS OF AIR & SPACE L. 409, 434, 444 (2011).


[33] See THE NEED FOR AN INTEGRATED REG-ULATORY REGIME FOR AVIATION AND SPACE: ICAO FOR SPACE? (R. Jakhu, T. Sgob-ba & P. Dempsey ed., Springer 2011).


[35] Presidential Decree No. 02-49 “Creation, Orga-nization and Functioning of the Algerian Space Agency (ASAL)” of 16 January 2002; Presiden-tial Decree No. 06-225 “Ratifying the Conven-tion for Damage Caused by Space Objects” of 24 June 2006; Presidential Decree No. 06-468 “Ratifying the Convention on Registration of Ob-jects Launched into Outer Space” of 11 December 2006.

[36] National Decree No. 995/91 “Creation of the Na-tional Commission on Space Activities” (28 May 1991); National Decree No. 125/95 “Establish-ment of the National Registry of Space Objects Launched into Outer Space” (25 July 1995).


[38] Austrian Federal Law on the Authorization of Space Activities and the Establishment of a Na-tional Space Registry (Austrian Outer Space Act),

entered into force on 28 December 2011.[39] Law on the Activities of Launching, Flight Opera-


[40] Law 8.854 of February 10, 1994; Law 9.112 of October 10, 1995; Decree 1.953 of July 10, 1996; Administrative Edict n. 27 of June 20, 2001; Ad-ministrative Edit n.5 of February 21, 2002; Reso-lution No. 51 of 26 January 2001; Administrative Edict n. 96 of 30 November 2011.

[41] Canadian Space Agency Act (1990, c. 13).[42] Supreme Decree No. 338, Establishment of a Pres-

idential Advisory Committee known as Chilean Space Agency, amended by Supreme Decree No. 0144 of December 29, 2008, Being now the Chil-ean Space Agency presided by the Undersecretary of Economy.

[43] Measures for the Administration of Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space of 8 Febru-ary 2001; Interim Measures on the Administration of Permits for Civil Space Launch Projects of 21 December 2002; Interim measures on Administra-tion of Mitigation of and Protection against Space Debris.

[44] Decree 2442, of July 2006 on the creation of the Colombian Commission of Space (CCE).

[45] French Space Operations Act, No. 2008-518 (2008); Decree No. 2009-644 of 9 June 2009, modifying Decree No. 84-510 of 28 June 1984, re-lating to CNES; Decree No. 2009-643 of 9 June 2008; Decree No. 2009-640 of 9 June 2009. See Giugi Carminati, French National Space Legisla-tion: A Brief ―Parcours‖ of a Long History, 36 HOUS. J. INT’L L. 1 (2014).

[46] Act to give Protection against the Security Risk to the Federal Republic of Germany by the Dissemi-nation of High-Grade Earth Remote Sensing Data (Satellite Data Security Act — SatDSiG), 2007.

[47] Law 23, 25 January 1983, Norms for the imple-mentation for the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Official Gazette No.35, 5 February, 1983); Law No. 153, 12 July 2005, Registration of objects launched into outer space. (Official Gazette No. 177, 1 August 2005).

[48] Basic Space Law (Law No.43, 2008 of 28 May 2008); The Law concerning Japan Aerospace Ex-ploration Agency (Law No. 161 of 13th December 2002).



55


http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/spacelaw/na-tional/kazakhstan/528-IV_2012-01-06E.pdf.

[50] Rules Concerning Space Activities and the Estab-lishment of a Registry of Space Objects (Space Ac-tivities Act) of 24 January 2007; Decree Contain-ing Rules With Regard to a Registry of Information Concerning Space Objects (Space Objects Reg-istry Decree) of 13 November 2007; Order Con-cerning Licence Applications for the Performance of Space Activities and the Registration of Space Objects of 7 February 2008, as amended by Order of 16 April 2010.

[51] National Space Research and Development Agen-cy (NASDRA) Act 2010.

[52] Act on Launching Objects from Norwegian Terri-tory into Outer Space. (No. 38, 13 June. 1969).

[53] Law on Space Activity, Federal Law No. 5663-1 (1993, as amended); Statute on Licensing Space Operations, Federal Government Decree No. 104 (1996).

[54] Space Affairs Act, No. 84 (1993); Space Affairs Amendment Act, No. 64 (1995); South African Na-tional Space Act 36 of 2008.

[55] Space Development Promotion Act of 1 December 2005; Space Liability Act (Law 8714 of 21 Decem-ber 2007).

[56] Royal Decree 278/1995, dated 24th February 1995, establishing in the Kingdom of Spain the Registry foreseen in the Convention adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 2 November 1974.

[57] Act on Space Activities (1982:963); Decree on Space Activities (1982:1069).

[58] Law of Ukraine on Space Activity, No. 503/96-VR, 1996.

[59] Outer Space Act (1986).[60] Title 51 of the U.S.C.; 14 C.F.R. 400-499; NPR

8715.6A; NASA-STD 8719.14; U.S. Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices; Title 47 of the U.S.C.; 47 C.F.R. Parts 5, 25, and 97; Order, FCC 04-130; 47 C.F.R. 25.160-162.

[61] Law on the Establishment of the Bolivarian Agen-cy for Space Activities (Official Gazette No. 38.796 of 25 October 2007); Decree number 3.389 of De-cember 2004; Decree No. 4.114 of 28 November 2005. These statutes are reproduced in PAUL STE-PHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW (Thomson Re-uters/West 2014).

[62] Hong Kong Outer Space Ordinance, 523 Laws of Hong Kong 1-15 (June 2, 2005), Art. 5(2), avail-able at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 20:1 (Thomson Reuters/West 2012).

[63] COPUOS, Legal Subcomm. 52st Sess. A/AC.105/C.2/2012/LEG/L.1 (Mar. 2012).

[64] Michael C. Mineiro, Law and Regulation Govern-

ing U.S. Commercial Spaceports: Licensing, Lia-bility, and Legal Challenges, 73 J. AIR L. & COM. 759, 760-65 (2008).

[65] Law 8.854 of February 10, 1994; Law 9.112 of October 10, 1995; Decree 1.953 of July 10, 1996. Administrative Edit n. 27 of June 20, 2001; Admin-istrative Edit n.5 of February 21, 2002; Resolution No. 51 of 26 January 2001.

[66] Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Space Activ-ities, Art. 13, 6 January, 2012, No. 528-IV; avail-able at


[67] Space Activities Act 1998 (No. 123, 1998); Statu-tory Rules No. 186 Space Activities Regulations 2001. See European Space Policy Institute, Eco-nomic and Policy Aspects of Space Regulations in Europe, Part I 16 (Sept. 2009).

[68] French Space Operations Act, No. 2008-518 (2008); Decree No. 2009-644 of 9 June 2009, modifying Decree No. 84-510 of 28 June 1984, re-lating to CNES; Decree No. 2009-643 of 9 June 2008; Decree No. 2009-640 of 9 June 2009. See Giugi Carminati, French National Space Legisla-tion: A Brief “Parcours” of a Long History, 36 HOUS. J. INT’L L. 1 (2014).

[69] Law on the Activities of Launching, Flight Opera-tions or Guidance of Space Objects Of 17 Septem-ber 2005; Royal Decree Implementing Certain Provisions of the Law Of 17 September 2005 on the Activities of Launching, Flight Operations and Guidance of Space Objects from the Legal Basis for the Regulation Of Space Activities.


[71] Korea Space Exploitation Promotion Act, Law No. 7583, Art. 11, available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 25:1 (Thomson Re-uters/West 2011).

[72] Id. Art. 11.[73] Hong Kong Outer Space Ordinance, 523 Laws of

Hong Kong 1-15 (June 2, 2005), Art. 5(2), avail-able at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 20:1 (Thomson Reuters/West 2012).


[75] Id.


[77] Union of South Africa, Space Affairs Act (Act No. 84 of 1993), as amended by the Space Affairs Amendment Act (Act No. 64 of 1995).


[79] The statute specifies that receiving signals from space is not considered to be a space activity, nor is a sounding rocket launch. Id.


[81] Outer Space Act (1986). These statutes are repro-duced in PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW (Thomson Reuters/West 2014).

[82] 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, §§ 70101-70119 (2004); 14 CFR Parts 400-450 (2004). See Catherine E. Par-sons, Space Tourism: Regulating Passage to the Happiest Place Off Earth, 9 CHAP. L. REV. 493 (2006), and Major Ronald L. Spencer, Jr., State Supervision of Space Activity, 63 A.F. L. REV. 75 (2009).

[83] See Maria-Vittoria “Giugi” Carminati, Breaking Boundaries By Coming Home: The FAA’s Issu-ance of a “Reentry License” to SpaceX, 24 No. 2 AIR & SPACE LAW. 8 (2011), and Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, One Half Century and Counting: The Evolution of U.S. National Space Law and Three Long-Term Emerging Issues, 4 HARV. L. & POL’Y Rev. 405 (2011); and see Henry R. Hertz-feld, Legal and Policy Considerations for Com-mercial Reusable Launch Vehicles, AIR & SPACE LAW. 1 (Fall 2000).

[84] Claudia Pastorius, Law and Policy in the Global Space Industry’s Lift-Off, 19 BARRY L. REV. 201, 234 (2013).

[85] 49 U.S.C. § 70104(a)(2). Chapter 701 of Title 49 of the United States Code confers upon the U.S. Secretary of Transportation authority to issue launch vehicle and site certificates and permits and regulate their operations. This authority, in turn, has been delegated by the Secretary to the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA].

[86] 49 U.S.C. § 70104(a)(1). However, “amateur rock-et activities” are not licensed by the FAA, although an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate may be required. Such launch activities conducted at pri-vate sites must satisfy the following characteris-tics: -Powered by a motor(s) having a total impulse of 200,000 pound-seconds or less; -Total burning or operating time of less than 15 seconds; and -A ballistic coefficient- i.e., gross weight in pounds divided by frontal area of rocket vehicle-less than

12 pounds per square inch.[87] However, U.S. government space activities (such

as those by NASA and the Defense Department) are not subject to FAA jurisdiction.

[88] 68 Fed. Reg. 59977 (Oct. 20, 2003). The CLSA gave the FAA jurisdiction to regulate commercial space activities, “only to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with international obligations of the United States and to protect the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interest of the United States, ...encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches by the private sector, recommend appropriate changes in Federal statutes, treaties, regulations, policies, plans, and procedures, and facilitate the strengthening and expansion of the United States space transportation infrastructure.”

[89] An exemption applies if the vehicle is launched from a private site and the rocket: (1) has (a) motor(s) with a total impulse of 200,000 pound-seconds or less; (2) and a total burning time of less than 15 seconds; and (3) has a ballistic content of less than 12 pounds per square inch. 14 CFR § 400.2.

[90] http://ast.faa.gov.lrra/about_1rra.htm.[91] 49 U.S.C. § 70105(a).[92] http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/ .[93] Title II of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of

1992.[94] Act to give Protection against the Security Risk to

the Federal Republic of Germany by the Dissemi-nation of High-Grade Earth Remote Sensing Data (Satellite Data Security Act — SatDSiG), 2007, available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 19:2 (Thomson Reuters/West 2012).

[95] Oversight of space activities is provided by the National Commission on Space Activity (CONAE) (Art. 2 Decree No. 995/91); National Decree No. 995/91, Creation of the National Commission on Space Activities (28 May 1991); National Decree No. 125/95, Establishment of the National Regis-try of Space Objects Launched into Outer Space (25 July 1995).

[96] See PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY & LAURENCE E. GESELL, AIRLINE MANAGEMENT: STRATEGIES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 254-57 (Coast-Aire 3rd ed. 2012).


[98] Law 8.854 of February 10, 1994; Law 9.112 of October 10, 1995; Decree 1.953 of July 10, 1996; Administrative Edict n. 27 of June 20, 2001; Ad-


56




[51] National Space Research and Development Agen-cy (NASDRA) Act 2010.


[53] Law on Space Activity, Federal Law No. 5663-1 (1993, as amended); Statute on Licensing Space Operations, Federal Government Decree No. 104 (1996).


[55] Space Development Promotion Act of 1 December 2005; Space Liability Act (Law 8714 of 21 Decem-ber 2007).

[56] Royal Decree 278/1995, dated 24th February 1995, establishing in the Kingdom of Spain the Registry foreseen in the Convention adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 2 November 1974.


[58] Law of Ukraine on Space Activity, No. 503/96-VR, 1996.

[59] Outer Space Act (1986).[60] Title 51 of the U.S.C.; 14 C.F.R. 400-499; NPR

8715.6A; NASA-STD 8719.14; U.S. Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices; Title 47 of the U.S.C.; 47 C.F.R. Parts 5, 25, and 97; Order, FCC 04-130; 47 C.F.R. 25.160-162.

[61] Law on the Establishment of the Bolivarian Agen-cy for Space Activities (Official Gazette No. 38.796 of 25 October 2007); Decree number 3.389 of De-cember 2004; Decree No. 4.114 of 28 November 2005. These statutes are reproduced in PAUL STE-PHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW (Thomson Re-uters/West 2014).


[63] COPUOS, Legal Subcomm. 52st Sess. A/AC.105/C.2/2012/LEG/L.1 (Mar. 2012).

[64] Michael C. Mineiro, Law and Regulation Govern-

ing U.S. Commercial Spaceports: Licensing, Lia-bility, and Legal Challenges, 73 J. AIR L. & COM. 759, 760-65 (2008).

[65] Law 8.854 of February 10, 1994; Law 9.112 of October 10, 1995; Decree 1.953 of July 10, 1996. Administrative Edit n. 27 of June 20, 2001; Admin-istrative Edit n.5 of February 21, 2002; Resolution No. 51 of 26 January 2001.

[66] Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Space Activ-ities, Art. 13, 6 January, 2012, No. 528-IV; avail-able at



[68] French Space Operations Act, No. 2008-518 (2008); Decree No. 2009-644 of 9 June 2009, modifying Decree No. 84-510 of 28 June 1984, re-lating to CNES; Decree No. 2009-643 of 9 June 2008; Decree No. 2009-640 of 9 June 2009. See Giugi Carminati, French National Space Legisla-tion: A Brief “Parcours” of a Long History, 36 HOUS. J. INT’L L. 1 (2014).



[71] Korea Space Exploitation Promotion Act, Law No. 7583, Art. 11, available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 25:1 (Thomson Re-uters/West 2011).

[72] Id. Art. 11.[73] Hong Kong Outer Space Ordinance, 523 Laws of



[75] Id.


[77] Union of South Africa, Space Affairs Act (Act No. 84 of 1993), as amended by the Space Affairs Amendment Act (Act No. 64 of 1995).


[79] The statute specifies that receiving signals from space is not considered to be a space activity, nor is a sounding rocket launch. Id.


[81] Outer Space Act (1986). These statutes are repro-duced in PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW (Thomson Reuters/West 2014).

[82] 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, §§ 70101-70119 (2004); 14 CFR Parts 400-450 (2004). See Catherine E. Par-sons, Space Tourism: Regulating Passage to the Happiest Place Off Earth, 9 CHAP. L. REV. 493 (2006), and Major Ronald L. Spencer, Jr., State Supervision of Space Activity, 63 A.F. L. REV. 75 (2009).

[83] See Maria-Vittoria “Giugi” Carminati, Breaking Boundaries By Coming Home: The FAA’s Issu-ance of a “Reentry License” to SpaceX, 24 No. 2 AIR & SPACE LAW. 8 (2011), and Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, One Half Century and Counting: The Evolution of U.S. National Space Law and Three Long-Term Emerging Issues, 4 HARV. L. & POL’Y Rev. 405 (2011); and see Henry R. Hertz-feld, Legal and Policy Considerations for Com-mercial Reusable Launch Vehicles, AIR & SPACE LAW. 1 (Fall 2000).

[84] Claudia Pastorius, Law and Policy in the Global Space Industry’s Lift-Off, 19 BARRY L. REV. 201, 234 (2013).

[85] 49 U.S.C. § 70104(a)(2). Chapter 701 of Title 49 of the United States Code confers upon the U.S. Secretary of Transportation authority to issue launch vehicle and site certificates and permits and regulate their operations. This authority, in turn, has been delegated by the Secretary to the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA].

[86] 49 U.S.C. § 70104(a)(1). However, “amateur rock-et activities” are not licensed by the FAA, although an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate may be required. Such launch activities conducted at pri-vate sites must satisfy the following characteris-tics: -Powered by a motor(s) having a total impulse of 200,000 pound-seconds or less; -Total burning or operating time of less than 15 seconds; and -A ballistic coefficient- i.e., gross weight in pounds divided by frontal area of rocket vehicle-less than

12 pounds per square inch.[87] However, U.S. government space activities (such

as those by NASA and the Defense Department) are not subject to FAA jurisdiction.

[88] 68 Fed. Reg. 59977 (Oct. 20, 2003). The CLSA gave the FAA jurisdiction to regulate commercial space activities, “only to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with international obligations of the United States and to protect the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interest of the United States, ...encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches by the private sector, recommend appropriate changes in Federal statutes, treaties, regulations, policies, plans, and procedures, and facilitate the strengthening and expansion of the United States space transportation infrastructure.”

[89] An exemption applies if the vehicle is launched from a private site and the rocket: (1) has (a) motor(s) with a total impulse of 200,000 pound-seconds or less; (2) and a total burning time of less than 15 seconds; and (3) has a ballistic content of less than 12 pounds per square inch. 14 CFR § 400.2.

[90] http://ast.faa.gov.lrra/about_1rra.htm.[91] 49 U.S.C. § 70105(a).[92] http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/ .[93] Title II of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of

1992.[94] Act to give Protection against the Security Risk to

the Federal Republic of Germany by the Dissemi-nation of High-Grade Earth Remote Sensing Data (Satellite Data Security Act — SatDSiG), 2007, available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 19:2 (Thomson Reuters/West 2012).

[95] Oversight of space activities is provided by the National Commission on Space Activity (CONAE) (Art. 2 Decree No. 995/91); National Decree No. 995/91, Creation of the National Commission on Space Activities (28 May 1991); National Decree No. 125/95, Establishment of the National Regis-try of Space Objects Launched into Outer Space (25 July 1995).

[96] See PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY & LAURENCE E. GESELL, AIRLINE MANAGEMENT: STRATEGIES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 254-57 (Coast-Aire 3rd ed. 2012).


[98] Law 8.854 of February 10, 1994; Law 9.112 of October 10, 1995; Decree 1.953 of July 10, 1996; Administrative Edict n. 27 of June 20, 2001; Ad-


57


ministrative Edit n.5 of February 21, 2002; Reso-lution No. 51 of 26 January 2001; Administrative Edict n. 96 of 30 November 2011.

[99] Law 8.854 of February 10, 199; Law 9.112 of Oc-tober 10, 1995; Decree 1.953 of July 10, 1996.

[100] COPUOS, Schematic Overview of National Regulatory Frameworks for Space Activities, A/AC.105/C.2/2010/CRP.12 (24 March 2010).

[101] Id. Art. 12.[102] French Space Operations Act, No. 2008-518

(2008); Decree No. 2009-644 of 9 June 2009, modifying Decree No. 84-510 of 28 June 1984, re-lating to CNES; Decree No. 2009-643 of 9 June 2008; Decree No. 2009-640 of 9 June 2009. See Giugi Carminati, French National Space Legisla-tion: A Brief “Parcours” of a Long History, 36 HOUS. J. INT’L L. 1 (2014).

[103] Kingdom of the Netherlands, Rules Concern-ing Space Activities and The Establishment of a Registry of Space Objects (Space Activities Act) § 4 (2006), available at Paul Stephen Dempsey, SPACE LAW § 26:1 (Thomson Reuters/West 2011).

[104] Order of the Minister of Economic Affairs, Con-taining Rules Governing Licence Applications for the Performance of Space Activities and the Reg-istration of Space Objects, no. WJZ 7119929 (Feb. 7, 2008) § 2.

[105] Rules Concerning Space Activities and the Estab-lishment of a Registry of Space Objects (Space Ac-tivities Act) of 2006 § 6; Decree Containing Rules with Regard to a Registry of Information Concern-ing Space Objects (Space Objects Registry De-cree) of 13 November 2007; COPUOS, Schematic Overview of National Regulatory Frameworks For Space Activities, A/AC.105/C.2/2010/CRP.12 (24 March 2010).

[106] Id. § 6.[107] Russian Federation Federal Law on Commer-

cial Space Activity (April 1997), § 10, available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 29:6 (Thomson Reuters/West 2011).

[108] Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Space Activities, Art. 27, 6 January, 2012, No. 528-IV; available at


[109] Id. § 12.[110] Id. § 16.[111] Id. § 19.[112] Steven Freeland, Up, Up and...Back: The Emer-

gence of Space Tourism and Its Impact on the In-ternational Law of Outer Space, 6 CHI. J. INT’L L. 1, 16 (2005).

[113] See Paul Stephen Dempsey, Liability Caused by

Space Objects in International and National Law, XXXVII ANNALS OF AIR & SPACE LAW 333 (2011).

[114] Id. Art. 14, 15.[115] Korea Space Liability Act, Law No. 8852 (Dec,

21m 2007), Art. 4.1, available at Paul Stephen Dempsey, SPACE LAW § 25:2 (Thomson Reuters/West 2011).

[116] Id. Art. 6.[117] Id. Art. 5.[118] Austrian Federal Law on the Authorization of

Space Activities and the Establishment of a Na-tional Space Registry (Austrian Outer Space Act), entered into force on 28 December 2011.


[120] Law 8.854 of February 10, 199; Law 9.112 of Oc-tober 10, 1995; Decree 1.953 of July 10, 1996 Ar-ticle 19.

[121] Id. Art. 6(2)(f).[122] Hong Kong Outer Space Ordinance, 523 Laws of


[123] Kingdom of the Netherlands, Rules Concerning Space Activities and The Establishment of a Reg-istry of Space Objects (Space Activities Act) Ch. 2 § 1(3) (2006), available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 26:1 (Thomson Re-uters/West 2011).



[125] Austrian Federal Law on the Authorization of Space Activities and the Establishment of a Na-tional Space Registry (Austrian Outer Space Act), entered into force on 28 December 2011.

[126] Id. Art. 6(2)(d).[127] Law on the Activities of Launching, Flight Opera-



[129] Article 5 of the License Measures.[130] Article 5 of the License Measures.

[131] French Space Operations Act, No 2008-518 (2008); European Space Policy Institute, Eco-nomic and Policy Aspects of Space Regulations in Europe, Part I 20-21 (Sept. 2009).

[132] Outer Space Act (1986); see also Sa’id Mosteshar, Regulation of Space Activities in the United King-dom, in NATIONAL REGULATION OF SPACE ACTIVITIES 357, 359-62 (Ram S. Jakhu ed., 2010).



[135] Russian Federation, No. 104 – Statute on Licens-ing Space Operations (Feb. 2, 1996) § 13, avail-able at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 29:3 (Thomson Reuters/West 2011).

[136] Id. § 21.[137] Kingdom of the Netherlands, Rules Concerning

Space Activities and The Establishment of a Reg-istry of Space Objects (Space Activities Act) Ch. 2 § 1(3) (2006), available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 26:1 (Thomson Re-uters/West 2011).


[139] The Commission of Science, Technology, and In-dustry for National Defense [COSTIND] of the Peoples Republic of China enacted the Interim Measures on the Administration of License for Civil Space Launch Projects (hereinafter the Li-cense Measures) in 2002, available at PAUL STE-PHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 16.3 (Thom-son Reuters/West 2011). Any launch of a space-craft from the territory of China into outer space for civil purposes, and the overseas launch while the spacecraft is owned by, or the ownership of the spacecraft has been transferred to, the natural or juridical persons or the other organizations of China, are subject to these provisions.

[140] Article 6 of the License Measures.[141] Id.[142] European Space Policy Institute, Economic and

Policy Aspects of Space Regulations in Europe, Part I 23 (Sept. 2009).


[144] Irish Aviation Authority, Order 2000 available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 22:1 (Thomson Reuters/West 2011).

[145] Id. Art. 4(1).[146] Irish Aviation Authority, Order 2000, Art. 4(2),

available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 22:1 (Thomson Reuters/West 2011).

[147] See European Space Policy Institute, Economic and Policy Aspects of Space Regulations in Eu-rope, Part I 5 (Sept. 2009). In 2001, China es-tablished a registry of space objects launched into Earth orbit or beyond. .See UN Doc. ST/SG/SER.E/INF.17. Pursuant to the Measures for the Administration of Registration of Space Objects, the registry is maintained by the CNSA. On June 8th, 2005, China informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the establishment of such a registry. Currently, the Chinese registration mech-anism consists of two stages of registration: the national registration and the international registra-tion.

[148] These statutes are set forth in COPUOS, Schemat-ic Overview of National Regulatory Frameworks For Space Activities, A/AC.105/C.2/2010/CRP.12 (24 March 2010).

[149] National Decree No.995/91, Creation of the Na-tional Commission on Space Activities (28 May 1991); National Decree No. 125/95, Establishment of the National Registry of Space Objects Launched into Outer Space (25 July 1995). COPUOS, Sche-matic Overview of National Regulatory Frame-works For Space Activities, A/AC.105/C.2/2010/CRP.12 (24 March 2010).



[152] Article 16 of the License Measures.[153] Article 24 of the License Measures.[154] Space Development Promotion Act of 1 December

2005; Space Liability Act (Law 8714 of 21 Decem-ber 2007). 155 Korea Space Exploitation Promo-tion Act, Law No. 7583, Art. 11, available at Paul Stephen Dempsey, SPACE LAW § 25:1 (Thomson Reuters/West 2011).

[156] Rules Concerning Space Activities and the Estab-lishment of a Registry of Space Objects (Space Ac-tivities Act) of 24 January 2007; Decree Contain-ing Rules With Regard to a Registry of Information Concerning Space Objects (Space Objects Reg-istry Decree) of 13 November 2007; Order Con-cerning Licence Applications for the Performance


58


ministrative Edit n.5 of February 21, 2002; Reso-lution No. 51 of 26 January 2001; Administrative Edict n. 96 of 30 November 2011.

[99] Law 8.854 of February 10, 199; Law 9.112 of Oc-tober 10, 1995; Decree 1.953 of July 10, 1996.


[101] Id. Art. 12.[102] French Space Operations Act, No. 2008-518

(2008); Decree No. 2009-644 of 9 June 2009, modifying Decree No. 84-510 of 28 June 1984, re-lating to CNES; Decree No. 2009-643 of 9 June 2008; Decree No. 2009-640 of 9 June 2009. See Giugi Carminati, French National Space Legisla-tion: A Brief “Parcours” of a Long History, 36 HOUS. J. INT’L L. 1 (2014).

[103] Kingdom of the Netherlands, Rules Concern-ing Space Activities and The Establishment of a Registry of Space Objects (Space Activities Act) § 4 (2006), available at Paul Stephen Dempsey, SPACE LAW § 26:1 (Thomson Reuters/West 2011).

[104] Order of the Minister of Economic Affairs, Con-taining Rules Governing Licence Applications for the Performance of Space Activities and the Reg-istration of Space Objects, no. WJZ 7119929 (Feb. 7, 2008) § 2.

[105] Rules Concerning Space Activities and the Estab-lishment of a Registry of Space Objects (Space Ac-tivities Act) of 2006 § 6; Decree Containing Rules with Regard to a Registry of Information Concern-ing Space Objects (Space Objects Registry De-cree) of 13 November 2007; COPUOS, Schematic Overview of National Regulatory Frameworks For Space Activities, A/AC.105/C.2/2010/CRP.12 (24 March 2010).

[106] Id. § 6.[107] Russian Federation Federal Law on Commer-

cial Space Activity (April 1997), § 10, available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 29:6 (Thomson Reuters/West 2011).

[108] Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Space Activities, Art. 27, 6 January, 2012, No. 528-IV; available at


[109] Id. § 12.[110] Id. § 16.[111] Id. § 19.[112] Steven Freeland, Up, Up and...Back: The Emer-

gence of Space Tourism and Its Impact on the In-ternational Law of Outer Space, 6 CHI. J. INT’L L. 1, 16 (2005).

[113] See Paul Stephen Dempsey, Liability Caused by

Space Objects in International and National Law, XXXVII ANNALS OF AIR & SPACE LAW 333 (2011).

[114] Id. Art. 14, 15.[115] Korea Space Liability Act, Law No. 8852 (Dec,

21m 2007), Art. 4.1, available at Paul Stephen Dempsey, SPACE LAW § 25:2 (Thomson Reuters/West 2011).

[116] Id. Art. 6.[117] Id. Art. 5.[118] Austrian Federal Law on the Authorization of

Space Activities and the Establishment of a Na-tional Space Registry (Austrian Outer Space Act), entered into force on 28 December 2011.


[120] Law 8.854 of February 10, 199; Law 9.112 of Oc-tober 10, 1995; Decree 1.953 of July 10, 1996 Ar-ticle 19.

[121] Id. Art. 6(2)(f).[122] Hong Kong Outer Space Ordinance, 523 Laws of





[125] Austrian Federal Law on the Authorization of Space Activities and the Establishment of a Na-tional Space Registry (Austrian Outer Space Act), entered into force on 28 December 2011.

[126] Id. Art. 6(2)(d).[127] Law on the Activities of Launching, Flight Opera-



[129] Article 5 of the License Measures.[130] Article 5 of the License Measures.

[131] French Space Operations Act, No 2008-518 (2008); European Space Policy Institute, Eco-nomic and Policy Aspects of Space Regulations in Europe, Part I 20-21 (Sept. 2009).

[132] Outer Space Act (1986); see also Sa’id Mosteshar, Regulation of Space Activities in the United King-dom, in NATIONAL REGULATION OF SPACE ACTIVITIES 357, 359-62 (Ram S. Jakhu ed., 2010).




[136] Id. § 21.[137] Kingdom of the Netherlands, Rules Concerning

Space Activities and The Establishment of a Reg-istry of Space Objects (Space Activities Act) Ch. 2 § 1(3) (2006), available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 26:1 (Thomson Re-uters/West 2011).


[139] The Commission of Science, Technology, and In-dustry for National Defense [COSTIND] of the Peoples Republic of China enacted the Interim Measures on the Administration of License for Civil Space Launch Projects (hereinafter the Li-cense Measures) in 2002, available at PAUL STE-PHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 16.3 (Thom-son Reuters/West 2011). Any launch of a space-craft from the territory of China into outer space for civil purposes, and the overseas launch while the spacecraft is owned by, or the ownership of the spacecraft has been transferred to, the natural or juridical persons or the other organizations of China, are subject to these provisions.

[140] Article 6 of the License Measures.[141] Id.[142] European Space Policy Institute, Economic and

Policy Aspects of Space Regulations in Europe, Part I 23 (Sept. 2009).


[144] Irish Aviation Authority, Order 2000 available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 22:1 (Thomson Reuters/West 2011).

[145] Id. Art. 4(1).[146] Irish Aviation Authority, Order 2000, Art. 4(2),

available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 22:1 (Thomson Reuters/West 2011).

[147] See European Space Policy Institute, Economic and Policy Aspects of Space Regulations in Eu-rope, Part I 5 (Sept. 2009). In 2001, China es-tablished a registry of space objects launched into Earth orbit or beyond. .See UN Doc. ST/SG/SER.E/INF.17. Pursuant to the Measures for the Administration of Registration of Space Objects, the registry is maintained by the CNSA. On June 8th, 2005, China informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the establishment of such a registry. Currently, the Chinese registration mech-anism consists of two stages of registration: the national registration and the international registra-tion.

[148] These statutes are set forth in COPUOS, Schemat-ic Overview of National Regulatory Frameworks For Space Activities, A/AC.105/C.2/2010/CRP.12 (24 March 2010).

[149] National Decree No.995/91, Creation of the Na-tional Commission on Space Activities (28 May 1991); National Decree No. 125/95, Establishment of the National Registry of Space Objects Launched into Outer Space (25 July 1995). COPUOS, Sche-matic Overview of National Regulatory Frame-works For Space Activities, A/AC.105/C.2/2010/CRP.12 (24 March 2010).



[152] Article 16 of the License Measures.[153] Article 24 of the License Measures.[154] Space Development Promotion Act of 1 December

2005; Space Liability Act (Law 8714 of 21 Decem-ber 2007). 155 Korea Space Exploitation Promo-tion Act, Law No. 7583, Art. 11, available at Paul Stephen Dempsey, SPACE LAW § 25:1 (Thomson Reuters/West 2011).

[156] Rules Concerning Space Activities and the Estab-lishment of a Registry of Space Objects (Space Ac-tivities Act) of 24 January 2007; Decree Contain-ing Rules With Regard to a Registry of Information Concerning Space Objects (Space Objects Reg-istry Decree) of 13 November 2007; Order Con-cerning Licence Applications for the Performance


59


of Space Activities and the Registration of Space Objects of 7 February 2008, as amended by Order of 16 April 2010.


[158] Id. § 22.[159] Id. § 35.[160] Space Affairs Act, No. 84 (1993); Space Affairs

Amendment Act, No. 64 (1995); South African Na-tional Space Act 36 of 2008.


[162] Outer Space Act (1986).[163] Id. Art. 27.[164] Id. Art. 29.[165] Id. Art. 29.[166] Law Concerning the National Space Development

Agency of Japan, Law No. 50 of June 23, 1969, as amended, Art. 42, available at PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY, SPACE LAW § 24:1 (Thomson Re-uters/West 2011).

[167] Id at Art. 43. See also Fundamental Act of Out-er Space (Law No.43, 2008 of 27 August 2008); Law Concerning Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (Law No. 161 of 13th December 2002). COPUOS, Schematic Overview of National Regulatory Frameworks for Space Activities, A/AC.105/C.2/2010/CRP.12 (24 March 2010).



[170] Stephan Hobe, Legal Aspects of Space Tourism, 86 NEB. L. REV. 439 (2007).

[171] See e.g., Meredith Blasingame, Nurturing the United States Commercial Space Industry in an International World: Conflicting State, Federal, And International Law, 80 MISS. L.J. 741 (2010).

[172] See THE NEED FOR AN INTEGRATED REG-ULATORY REGIME FOR AVIATION AND SPACE: ICAO FOR SPACE? (R. Jakhu, T. Sgob-ba & P. Dempsey ed., Springer 2011); and An-toine Pitts, Space Tourism Policy: Why the World’s Space-Faring Nations Should Adopt A Code of Conduct to Control Outer Space Activities, 18 SW. J. INT’L L. 687 (2012).

[173] See Justin Silver, Houston, We Have a (Liability) Problem, 112 MICH. L. REV. 833 (2014); Michael R. Laisné, Space Entrepreneurs: Business Strate-gy, Risk, Law, and Policy in the Final Frontier, 46 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 1039 (2013), and Michael C. Mineiro, Assessing the Risks: Tort Liability and

Risk Management in the Event of a Commercial Human Space Flight Vehicle Accident, 74 J. AIR L. & COM. 371, 397-98 (2009).

[174] If States do not believe that the existing Space Law Conventions have “adequate mechanisms to en-force the signed treaties, they may elect to attract space business by maintaining minimal environ-mental and safety regulations.” Adrian Taghdiri, Flags of Convenience and the Commercial Space Flight Industry: The Inadequacy of Current Inter-national Law to Address the Opportune Registra-tion of Space Vehicles in Flag States, 19 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 405 (2014).

[175] “The interplay between domestic legislation and international law will become an increasingly im-portant theme in the development of international space law. This is especially true if the number of commercial actors proliferates as predicted. It should also be noted that as domestic law develops and defines items such as best practices for space flight providers, these developments can have in-fluence at the international level and on the devel-opment of soft law mechanisms.” P.J. Blount, Ren-ovating Space: The Future of International Space Law, 40 DENV. J. INT’L L. & POL’Y 515 (2012).


OPTO- PYRO TRAINS FOR SPACE SYSTEMS - GAINS PROVIDED BY OPTO-PYRO TECHNOLOGY IN TERMS OF SAFETY ON LAUNCHERS

Bernard Chamayou1

1AIRBUS Defence & Space, 66 route de Verneuil, Les Mureaux, [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The Redesign of pyro train seems to be mandatory for next generation of European launchers, in order to be compliant with new requirements coming from:

• European community: health regulations, REACH and RoHs requirements …

• Agencies and customers: Cost reduction, Mass improvement, obsolescence risks reduction, ro-bust design and versatility for any mission…

• Prime contractors: Safety improvements for pyro supply chain and AIT teams, explosive trains monitoring, dual components …

• Pyro Industries: «continuous» manufacturing to guarantee knowledge and competencies for the whole life of launcher manufacturing

Maturation and developments done since 1970 concern-ing Optic, optronique and explosive systems highlighted great opportunities to merge these so matured technolo-gies into opto-pyrotechnic system. But at this moment the energy ratio of such optic emitters was too low, to be applied into a launch vehicle.

Since a decade great effort had been done by industries to provide more and more powerful laser emitters such as laser diodes for main data transmissions applications and strong needs rising from Industries, Aeronautics, Medi-cine, nuclear research

The maturity of powerful and miniaturized optic com-ponents becoming COTS at the beginning of year 2000 accelerate their integration into new field such as air-craft data transmission applications. In addition the very good REX acquired through end users operations (civil and military fields), allow aircraft companies to spread this optic technology into more and more safety functions.

The heritages coming from telecom and aircraft indus-tries allow to set up and spread new type of portative monitoring tools to check any optical harness, detecting in a safe way any failure transmission and localize with a cm class accuracy any weak connection.

The maturity level of optronique and the robustness dem-onstrated within a large range of applications give con-fidence to space engineers for analyzing its implementa-tion into space systems, with a guarantee of long term technologies availability.

The ability of optical fibre to transfer high amount of en-ergy given by a very small laser diode, allow pyro de-signers to implement this technology into the first ele-ment of the pyro train: the initiator.

This main evolution highlights several improvements on launcher pyro trains, increasing mainly their safety levels.

The safety advantages given by Opto-pyro are addressing several fields such as:

• Ground aspect during preparations and operations• Functional aspects• Industrial and Prime concerns

AIRBUS Defence & Space through ASTRIUM-ST and Aerospatiale studies has been actively involved into Op-to-pyro activities for a long time. The amount of Opto-pyro demonstration and justification has been accelerated since 2010 thanks to a special AIRBUS-DS R&T effort, focusing on TRL, IRL and MRL.

Step by step, AIRBUS-DS manage to set up Opto-pyro train maturation from TRL4-IRL1, based on demon-strators and representative demonstrations of launcher configuration.These on going demonstrations will lead to a TRL6-IRL3 level in 2014.

The higher safety level demonstrated by Opto-pyro train compared to the electro-pyro safety trains used on current space systems, allow implementing this new Opto-pyro technology on any new safety systems to be developed.


60


Safety Design for Space SystemsElsevier 2009

Progress in space safety lies in the acceptance of safety design and engineering as an integral part of the design and implementation process for new space systems. Safety must be seen as the principle design driver of utmost importance from the outset of the design process, which is only achieved through a culture change that moves all stakeholders toward front-end loaded safety concepts. Superb quality information for engineers, programme managers, suppliers and aerospace technologists.

Safety Design for Space Systems, Chinese Edition2011

Progress in space safety lies in the acceptance of safety design and engineering as an integral part of the design and implementation process for new space systems. Safety must be seen as the principle design driver of utmost importance from the outset of the design process, which is only achieved through a culture change that moves all stakeholders toward front-end loaded safety concepts. Superb quality information for engineers, programme managers, suppliers and aerospace technologists.

Space Safety Regulations and StandardsElsevier 2011

Space Safety Regulations and Standards is the definitive book on regulatory initiatives involving space safety, new space safety standards, and safety related to new space technologies under development. More than 30 world experts come together in this book to share their detailed knowledge of regulatory and standard making processes in the area, combining otherwise disparate information into one essential reference and providing case studies to illustrate applications throughout space programs internationally.

Safety Design for Space OperationsElsevier 2013

Safety Design for Space Operations provides the practical how-to guidance and knowledge base needed to facilitate effective launch-site and operations safety in line with current regulations. With information on space operations safety design currently disparate and difficult to find in one place, this unique reference brings together essential material on: Best design practices, Advanced analysis methods, Implementation of safe operation procedures, Safety considerations relating to the general public and the environment in addition to personnel and asset protection, in launch operations.

ALSO AVAILABLE IN BOOKSTORES

Documents

Michael T. Kezirian, Ph.D. Joseph Pelton, Ph.D. Tommaso Sgobba