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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

22 EXISTING UNITED NATIONS TREATIES: STRENGTHS AND NEEDS(because of a lack of financial and technicalopportunities).But for precisely that last reason the absence ofmany states from the latter category is quite surprising.As any effective application of the common heritage ofmankind-principle to the moon would result in arelatively beneficial position for the developing states atlarge, their almost comprehensive absence amongstparties (and signatories) would not seem to make sense.This analysis in any case precludes justification of anyattitude which lays the blame for non-adherence to theMoon Agreement squarely with the industrialised states.Therefore, while I could agree with the author that thesolution of 1979 at that time seemed to provide anadequate compromise, any such adequacy in retrospectmust surely be seen to have evaporated fairly quicklyand comprehensively. The ‘solution’ failed to appeaseeither ‘side’ of the ‘dividing line’, if one wants to phraseit in those terms. To the extent that there is anyelaboration of the principle of the common heritage ofmankind at all - which I find missing, particularly whenone compares again with the Law of the SeaConvention - it has failed to draw more than marginalsupport. I would concur with Professor Böckstiegel’scomment made in 1993 at the IISL Colloquium in Graz,that the Moon Agreement is dead. It certainly has notbeen revived since then.Nevertheless, whether focused on exploitation ofthe moon or seen from a wider perspective - includinge.g. the exploitation of (opportunities in) outer space forsatellite communications or satellite remote sensingpurposes - it might be worthwhile to contemplate towhat extent sector-specific regulations should beallowed to regulate economic activities in the absence ofcoherent and comprehensive economic regulatoryprinciples similar to what space law stricto sensucurrently provides e.g on the military uses of outerspace or on liability issues.7. I respectfully disagree with the author’s evaluationof the remote sensing principles as presenting acompromise, fair or not, between the interests of sensedand sensing states. It may be that the particularResolution has been accepted by consensus, and thatmay be a valuable thing, too. Also, the rights of thesensed state are (indeed) made reference to.Yet, the Resolution itself does not provide any details ofpre-existing rights or even indicate any, let alone furtherelaborate such rights. In view of the fact that at thesame time the freedom of undertaking space activitiesis explicitly reconfirmed in the guise of freedom ofremote sensing, it is obvious that the Resolution leavesno room for prior consent of the sensed state, orexclusive or even preferential access to the data. Allthat remains, is the ‘non-discrimination’ principle - i.e.sensed states can at least assume not to be treatedworse than other states interested in the same data -and this is moreover not an absolute principle, butmerely presented as a basis for data distribution,subject moreover to the ‘reasonable cost terms’-provision. This may be fair or not - largely dependingupon your perspective on the structure of the worldeconomy and society - but it can hardly be called acompromise.8. The author rightly touches again upon the lack ofdefinition o f ‘outer space’, which lies at the basis of thediscussions on any existence of a right of (innocent)passage for a spacecraft through foreign airspace andon the status of the geo-stationary orbit. These issuesalso relate to the functionalism-spatialism dichotomy,and provide proof that discussion thereof is not merelya theoretical exercise, but has some very concrete legalramifications which may shortly take the shape ofpractical disputes.As touched upon in the paper, for example thediscussion as to whether ITU should not be given thelead in providing for and elaborating the legal regimefor (use of) the geo-stationary orbit directly stem fromthese problems. Efforts to discuss this matter withinUNCOPUOS should therefore be applauded, even if anumber of important states are still averse to conclusivesteps in this regard. To the extent that such adversity isfed by private enterprise, wishing to avoid any undueconstraints on their commercial activities, it might betime to tackle these issues head-on.9. The subject of space debris and relatedenvironmental concerns, of crucial importance to thefuture of the whole space endeavour if not of humanityas such, is rightly given a prominent place in the paper.I agree with the author that, at this point, the ball laysin the court of the technicians, and in the wake thereof
EXISTING UNITED NATIONS TREATIES: STRENGTHS AND NEEDS 23probably of economists and politicians. I firmly believethat the major breakthroughs on this issue in the lastresort require the political will to spend the moneyrequired to realise the various technical and othermeasures available.Lawyers should be relatively modest in this area;their major contribution would lie in giving legal shapeto whatever political and economic solutions would beglobally or at least generally accepted. Examples ofsuch solutions have been put forward from the legalside recurrently in the past years, such as thoseregarding safeguard funds for damage by space debriscoming from unidentified sources, and obligations forlaunching parties to take certain precautions and/orprovide certain funds and/or financial guarantees.10. The author rightly points out that, probably for thefirst time since a number of years, some worthygovernmental initiatives have been taken recently in thearea of dispute settlement. Most notably, an optionaldeclaration to accept, on a reciprocal basis, in advancea Claim Commission’s judgement under the LiabilityConvention as binding, is a step in the good direction.Nevertheless, one should caution that also in this areathe main efforts required will lie outside the legal fieldproper. Once the major part of states accepts that foreffective settlement of disputes it is necessary toestablish independent mechanisms or even bodies, thatit is inevitable that sovereignty will be taking a backseat in some respects, in the world of international lawsufficient legal dispute settlement mechanisms aboundwhich could be used, if necessary after adaptation or bycopying, for space dispute settlement as well.In conclusion, the paper by giving a comprehensive andinsightful analysis and evaluation of space law strictosensu and its relation with space law lato sensu, bringsinto focus a number of crucial legal issues which wouldmerit considerable attention by the governmentsassembled at the present UNISPACE with, hopefully,one particular abstract idea at least in the back of theirminds: to enhance the working of the current legalframework for space activities, with the ultimate goal tomake the human space endeavour more fruitful,effective and beneficial for all.Commentary PaperS. BhattIntroductionI am pleased to offer my comments in this shorter paperon Professor Kopal’s learned discussion paper on thesubject of "Existing United Nations Space Treaties:Strengths and Needs". These comments are made in awider perspective of IISL workshop subject "space lawin the 21st Century", and the UNISPACE IIIConference. Space law is based on communityexpectations (Professor Myres McDougal). It is acreative discipline for the progress of mankind(Professor Oscar Schachter). It rests on the consent ofstates (Dr. Nagendra Singh former Judge and Presidentof ICJ). Therefore existing strength and needs of spacetreaties are to be seen keeping in view space goals ofbenefits for all, poverty removal, promoting knowledgeand research and achieving harmony and creative unityof mankind.Salient Points of Professor Kopal'sPaperProfessor Kopal makes a survey of the achievements ofthe UN in space law-making which has proceeded stepby step laying down leading principles from time totime. Space law is obeyed by all states, he says. Hepoints out the following major shortcomings in theregime of space law: the OST does not have provisionfor economic exploitation, it has no mechanism for thesettlement of disputes, the Moon Agreement of 1979has not been accepted by advanced states so far, theregulation of NPS has met with limited success, thespace benefits principles though not legally bindingprovide for a code of conduct for states, the problem ofdefinition of space remains to be solved, there is needfor protection of space environments, and effectivenessof legal instruments needs to be improved by morestates becoming parties to them. Space law can befurther developed, says the author, by new legalprinciples, new General Assembly resolutions and by
Page 3 and 4: ST/SPACE/2Office for Outer Space Af
Page 5: IntroductionThe Workshop on Space L
Page 11 and 12: CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS OF THEWOR
Page 13: 3between public and private law and
Page 16 and 17: 6provide for the application of int
Page 18 and 19: 8obstacles that impede ratification
Page 21 and 22: SESSION ONEExisting United Nations
Page 23 and 24: EXISTING UNITED NATIONS TREATIES: S
Page 27: EXISTING UNITED NATIONS TREATIES: S
Page 39: EXPANDING GLOBAL LAUNCH SERVICESSES
Page 42 and 43: 36 EXPANDING GLOBAL LAUNCH SERVICES
Page 54 and 55: 48low earth orbit. This commercial
Page 67: EXPANDING GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS SER
Page 70 and 71: 64 EXPANDING GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 78 and 79:
72 EXPANDING GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
EXPANDING GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS SER
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
A resource management/administratio
Page 103 and 104:
SESSION FOURExpanding Global Remote
Page 105 and 106:
EXPANDING GLOBAL REMOTE SENSING SER
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135:
THE ROLES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZA
Page 138 and 139:
132 THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL ORGAN
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 161 and 162:
SESSION SIXExpanding Global Navigat
Page 163 and 164:
EXPANDING GLOBAL NAVIGATION SERVICE
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185:
POSSIBLE INTERNATIONAL REGULATORYFR
Page 188 and 189:
182 POSSIBLE INTERNATIONAL REGULATO
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
POSSIBLE INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY F
Page 203 and 204:
SESSION EIGHTMaintaining the Space
Page 205 and 206:
MAINTAINING THE SPACE ENVIRONMENT 1
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223:
Page 226 and 227:
220Session 3: Wednesday. 21 July. 1
Page 229 and 230:
223Annex IITHIRD UNITED NATIONS CON
Page 231 and 232:
225No Name Address E-Mail27. Ersfel
Page 233 and 234:
227No Name Address E-Mail57. Koloso
Page 235 and 236:
229No Name Address E-Mail86. Noack,
Page 237 and 238:
231No Name Address E-Mail117. Steph
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?