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

58 EXPANDING GLOBAL LAUNCH SERVICESviews on that matter. I would like to make two remarksand two proposals concerning this important issue.1) The space treaties and especially the first ones area great achievement. I really don't know how we coulddraft such texts nowadays. As far as launchingactivities are concerned, the treaties deal withresponsibility and liability in a victim-oriented mannerwhich is second to none. Some improvement is possibleespecially to take into account the commercial andprivate activities, but it should not conduct to a changeof the principles.The relations between international and domesticlaw are often misunderstood. Space treaties should notbe regarded as able to rule everything in outer spaceespecially as far as private entities are concerned.Private entities are not subject to international lawwhich applies to them through domestic legal order.International space law including the treaties creates toStates obligations that they must fulfil. The treatiesshould be regarded as the basic rules of Statesobligations and relations. This does not prevent them toorganise and rule, on a domestic juridical level, privateactivities they are internationally responsible and liablefor.It is often argued that some definitions used in thetreaties are to be specified. May I remind you thatarticle 38 of the statute of the International Court ofJustice accepts the "teachings of the most highlyqualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiarymeans for the determination of rules of law." Thus Iwould support the creation by the COPUOS of groupsof experts which should be of great help on thesematters.2) My second question is more directly linked with thepaper of Pr. Van Fenema. If the commercial spacemarket is rather closed for the time being, I am not surethis situation is going to be maintained. The currentmarket is nowadays launcher-oriented, but, with thepossible success of new launchers and of thecommercial use of old ones, the market may becomeuser oriented. The recent success of Sea Launch showsthe way. Some other projects are being pursued; newlaunch facilities are created or to be created.To my opinion this trend will modify not only thelaunching market, but also the legal framework forcontrolling launching activities. As we know, thelaunching State, because of its liability, has to controllaunching. Until now, launching activities needed largefacilities and were under the effective control ofcompetent and able States. The current evolution shouldconduct to see some private entities driven by a strongercompetition try to escape the heavy burden ofregulations by space powers. As we see in other fields,in a difficult and very competitive market, one of themajor possibilities to lower the cost is to try to escaperegulations that are costly in time and money. It isalready the case in the sea activity; no real actor can actin a competitive market without using flag ofconvenience, i.e. rules of convenience.My proposals are the consequences of theseremarks:1 The necessity to maintain the treaties as the verybasis of space law especially on the questions related toresponsibility and liability.2 The necessity to improve international spaceregulations to make sure that States will fulfil theirobligation to control their national activities in outerspace. These international rules should be compulsoryand integrated into domestic legal order by every Stateand thus cannot be avoided by choosing a registrationor a nationality. No flag of convenience should beaccepted in outer space. I would not like to see thoselegal black holes be created in outer space as they areat sea.We know what black holes are, they destroyeverything approaching them, even the light.Summary ReportThis session examined the expanding base of launchsystem providers worldwide and considered the legaland policy implications of the phenomenal growth in