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

informed research on the Convention at the present stage might serve a strong support and basisfor the coming conference. The present paper intends to take up this challenging task and maketentative comments. Several areas for possible revision will be identified in the paper.I. Clarification of Certain ConceptionsFollowing the example of the Convention on International Liability for Damage Causedby Space Objects (Liability Convention), the Registration Convention starts by defining severalimportant terms: “launching state”, “space object” and “state of registry”. The definitions arouseserious discussions, which lead to the conclusion: the definitions are neither clear nor satisfactory.1. Launching StateAmong the most important rules figures the definition of “launching State”, which isargued by many scholars as one of the major difficulties impeding the development ofcommercial space activities. A proper definition of “launching State” is vital to the determinationof State liability for national activities under the Space Treaty and the Liability Convention.The problems arising out of the definition can include: a proper understanding of aprocuring State; the application of Article VIII of the Space treaty; the determination of alaunching State in case of transfer of ownership; the relationship between a private entity and aState, etc. The current definition is criticized for failing to answer the new issues arising out ofcommercialization and privatization of space activities. While commercialization is an inevitabletrend in outer space, it is urgent to clarify the concept of “launching State”. One working group ofthe Legal Subcommittee of the UNCOPUOS presented its deliberations in 2002, offering the firstresult of intergovernmental discussions on this issue.1.1. Transfer of Ownership (Non-Launching State)The practice of transferring the ownership of satellites is not unusual. References can bemade to the transferring of AsiaSat 1 from the UK register to the Chinese one during the transferof sovereignty of Hong Kong to China. In this case, there will be no problem since China, as theplace for the original launching, is one launching State.However, problems will arise when a satellite is sold to a State, which is not an originallaunching State, as defined by the registration Convention. The new State, while not a launchingState, shall not bear any liability according to the Liability Convention, which provides that onlylaunching States will bear liability. This shall cause unfair results. Generally, the space object isunder the new State’s jurisdiction and control, but this new state will not undertake any liabilityfor damages caused by the space object just because it is not an original launching State. Thoseoriginal launching States are liable for damages, which they have no ability to prevent. To resolvethis problem, it would be advisable to extend the meaning of “launching State” as follows: alaunching State is not required to be an original launching State. Further determination of otherpossible definitions of launching State can be identified in the term “State of registry”.1.2. Involvement of Private EntitiesPrivatization of space operations is not a new topic. Private entities, includinginternational organizations, multinational corporations, are increasingly involved in the launchingactivities. As far as an international organization is concerned, this is easy: the organizationrepresents the total of States concerned. Such organizations can declare their acceptance of the