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

cannot be identified. This shall be further elaborated later concerning the information to befurnished in the registration.Thirdly, in case a space object consists of component parts individually registered bydifferent States, the problem arises: how to identify the object as a whole? There are no obligatoryguidelines available. The resolution of the problem relies on the cooperation among the States.The launching States should agree beforehand that the State of registry will register the completestructure as a new space object in accordance with the Convention. One good example can be theconstruction of the International Space Station. This shall be further discussed in the followingpart on cooperation among launching States.3. State of RegistryThe term can only be found in the Registration Convention. No other space treaties havemade use of this term. For example, in the Liability Convention, launching State(s), not the Stateof registry, shall be liable for possible damages. Many scholars have come to the conclusion thatState of registry is the launching State or one of the launching States. It is thus necessary toidentify the purpose of defining the term “State of registry”: is the sole purpose of using this termsimply meant to require one State to register the space object? From the absence of the term inother treaties, we might come to a positive answer: the term does not help in regulating the statusof space objects or the consequences of operating them. For this purpose, it is thus not necessaryto identify nationality with relevant registration, although in practice it happens that the State ofregistry automatically confers its nationality on a space object.Nevertheless, this understanding above can cause some problems. Is State of registry theone that has full control and jurisdiction over the space object? This might be true when thepractice of selling space objects is not common. The launching States may agree upon the State ofregistry, which can exercise its jurisdiction and control the object. Accordingly, an agreement cansettle the issue of registry. However, the transfer of ownership of space objects to a Sate which isnot a “launching State” can take place, which shall result in the transfer of power of control.While not a launching State, the buyer is neither allowed to be the State of registry, norundertakes any liability under the Liability Convention. This situation is totally ridiculous.While it is possible that launching States may claim compensation from the buyer afterpaying the damage to a third party, it would be better to extend the State of registry to a Sate withtrue ownership. This would bring the Convention in line with the new development. One way outcould be by adding one sentence afterwards: “in case of a non-original launching State, “ the Stateof registry” further refers to a state maintaining its jurisdiction and control over the said spaceobject”. Several elements can assist in determining “jurisdiction and control”: direct commercialbenefits from the operation of the space object; the transfer agreement; the restriction of retransfer;etc.II.Ambiguities in the Existing Registration SystemThe Convention provides the first move in formalizing the registration system. Proposalsfor revisions were submitted early in 1984. However, no measures have been taken. It isnecessary to reiterate some shortcomings that have been identified and offer further comments onthe existing registration system.