Proceedings of the Workshop - United Nations Office for Outer ...

MAINTAINING THE SPACE ENVIRONMENT 205The accumulation of space debris has become anirreversible process. Limiting the amount of spacedebris by all possible means is not only a must; it is aduty.Among the valuable initiatives being takennationally, regionally and world-wide, I would like tomention in particular the IADC work and of course thestudies conducted by the COPUOS Scientific andTechnical Subcommittee, which recently produced itsbasic technical report. This means we have all we needto start giving this matter political and legalconsideration. There is now no justification fordelaying matters further and wasting yet more time.Again, it is a question of political will!Of course, with any complex and changingtechnical issue, there is always scope for more andmore study. But there comes a point at which we haveto stop using that argument particularly when webring the real economic and commercial concerns tothe fore. The stakes are higher than the mere technicaldetail. Clearly technical investigations have tocontinue, within the context of a set plan of actionpermanently under review.Is there really a legal vacuum?I do not believe so. Identifying possible improvementsin the situation, including what legal form(s) theymight take, is another matter. But we cannot forgetthat time is moving on and that several parties areinvolved at various levels. Any solution will require acombination o f good will and technical plus legalsolutions, by definition to be kept under permanentreview. We are all concerned and we should not giveundue priority to any single approach: devising thetechnical solution first or the complete bindingagreement first.As I have already stated, I am convinced wealready have the necessary basic provisions in existinginternational space law (liability, consultation, etc.),particularly in the Outer Space Treaty and LiabilityConvention8. Clearly, as Professor Kopal has pointedout, the Outer Space Treaty at present is too general(failing to provide definitions, for instance).Nevertheless, these space treaties do provide us with aframework and some basic starting points. Obviouslywe need clearer answers and we also need to recognisethat a specific situation calls for a specific legalregime. Special rules appear necessary, for examplewith regard to liability.While the COPUOS Legal Subcommittee has beenhitherto convening, the doctrine has continued to beactive and propose worthwhile ideas as it often has inthe past. For instance, action has been taken towardsstates for becoming parties to these treaties.(Note 3: Working paper submitted by France at thelast COPUOS meeting-Vienna, July 1999,14-16 July:concerning space debris and proposing a plan ofaction. COPUOS decided to send question ofgraveyard orbit to Scientific technical Subcommittee.)I should mention here the work of the InternationalInstitute o f Space Law (IISL) and its variouscolloquia, a joint IISL/ECSL session, the InternationalLaw Association (ILA) o f course and its draftInternational Instrument adopted at its Buenos AiresAssembly in August 1994, etc. This means that wehave enough material, very well prepared by experts,so we should not spend too much time reinventing thewheel (for instance, the legal definition o f spacedebris) but rather build on these ideas and structurethem.ProposalAssuming general recognition o f the space debrisphenomenon as an inevitable by-product of spaceactivities; considering, for the time being, theunavoidable growth of space debris and the dangers itis creating for the exploration and use o f outer space,particularly for astronauts; and considering that thebasic tenets of international space law are applicable8 See Kopal article, IISL colloquium (1996), reviewing thecurrent regulatory structure; see alsoarticle I, articles VI-VII-IX-I+ NPS Principles.