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

argument that Article 5 of the 1968 Rescue Agreement has become customary international law,especially if there is no State practice by non-parties that is contrary to Article 5.It is difficult to consider the State practice with respect to the rescue and return ofastronauts because there have not been any instances where search and rescue was required.Even if all of the substantive provisions in the 1968 Rescue Agreement are not binding,as rules of customary international law, it can be argued that the general principles, set out inparagraphs 7 and 9, of the 1963 Declaration and Articles V and VIII of the 1967 Outer SpaceTreaty are binding on all States as rules of customary international law. The1963 Declaration wasadopted unanimously. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty was not only adopted unanimously, it has aneven larger number of States Parties than the 1968 Rescue Agreement.ConclusionsThe provisions of the 1968 Rescue Agreement are straightforward and ratheruncontroversial. They set out provisions for the rescue and return of astronauts and for therecovery and return of space objects.The provisions on rescue and return of astronauts favour the interests of the spacepowers, especially those who have goals of manned space flight. Contracting Parties have a legalobligation to assist in the rescue and return of astronauts who land in their territory. However,Contracting Parties have no guarantee that the expenses they incur in the search and rescueoperation will be borne by the Launching Authority. Nevertheless, given the humanitarian spiritunderlying the provisions and the general principles of cooperation and assistance that apply tothe use of outer space, the obligations in the Agreement with respect to the rescue and return ofastronauts do not impose a very onerous burden on Contracting Parties.At the same time, the provisions on the recovery and return of foreign space objects givesignificant benefits to Contracting Parties. First, if a Contracting Party incurs expenses inrecovering and returning a space object that has landed in its territory, the Launching Authoritywill be obliged to bear those expenses. Second, if a space object that lands in the territory of aContracting Party is found to be of a hazardous or deleterious nature, the Launching Authoritywill be under an obligation to immediately take effective steps to eliminate possible danger orharm.In addition, the provisions of the Agreement do not compromise the principle that Stateshave sovereignty over their territory. If astronauts land in the territory of a Contracting Party, theLaunching Authority may be under an obligation to assist the Contracting Party in the search andrescue operations. However, such operations are subject to the direction and control of theContracting Party. Similarly, the Launching Authority may be under an obligation to take steps toeliminate possible danger of harm from hazardous space objects that have landed in the territoryof Contracting Party. However, the steps taken by the Launching Authority are subject to thedirection and control of the Contracting Party.Another point in favour of States becoming Contracting Parties is that it in most States noimplementing legislation will be necessary to implement the Agreement. The rights andobligations set out in the Agreement could be fulfilled in almost all States without the passage ofadditional legislation.