Electronic Proceedings - United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs

The sequence of the Convention’s information duties provides an additional opportunityfor (intentional) delays. Article 4 requires the State concerned to furnish to the Secretary-General information concerning each space object “carried on its registry”. So when will theentry of the space object in this national registry take place? Article 2 of the Convention states“when a space object is launched”, which looks specific, but in fact it is not.From the point of view of the (potential) victim State this is not very satisfactory,particularly if one takes into account that the launch itself is the most critical moment in thelife of a satellite. Obviously, the purpose of the Convention would require globally distributedinformation about the space object before, during and after the launch, which, in the age ofthe satellite-supported World Wide Web should not present any technical difficulty.For the same reason, the information should not only be up-to-date, but also complete.So what is the information which the State of registry has to provide to the U.N.? Article 4lists the following elements: name of the launching State(s), designator or registration numberof the space object, date and territory or location of the launch, basic orbital parameters andgeneral function of the space object. In principle, in case of a “crash”, that should besufficient information to assist in the identification of the launching State with respect to thespace object concerned. Of course, data on the propulsion system (nuclear or otherwise) andradio frequencies used could also be helpful in this connection.Missing from the Registration Convention is the obligation found for other modes oftransport, such as aircraft or ships, i.e., a registration mark on the body of the vehicle.Discussions at UNCOPUOS on this possible requirement took a long time. In the end, theScientific and Technical Subcommittee supported the position of the United States ofAmerica that this requirement was neither technically feasible nor necessary (apart from beingcostly and impractical). Marking the space object is not a requirement under the Convention,but if a State decides to put a mark on the object, the U.N. Register should be informedaccordingly.In practice, a more important aspect affects the completeness and reliability of theregistration system of the Convention, i.e., the fact that States feel free not to register satelliteswith highly sensitive national security tasks and functions. Although the Convention makesno distinction based on – civil or military – purposes (article 2, paragraph 1: “When a spaceobject is launched…the launching State shall register…”), article 2, paragraph 3 provides that“[t]he contents of each registry and the conditions under which it is maintained shall bedetermined by the State of registry concerned”.This latter provision could possibly be (mis-)used to leave certain space objects out ofthe national registry, thereby “neutralizing” the obligation to report to the U.N. Register alldata pertaining to space objects carried in the national registry.The draftspersons knew that the provisions of the Convention would not always solve allidentification problems for the parties concerned. Hence a special provision which allowsparties, who have been unable to identify – the State behind – a space object which has causeddamage or which is otherwise dangerous, to request the assistance of other States “possessingspace monitoring and tracking facilities” in the identification of the object. At the time ofdrafting, these facilities were basically only available in the U.S. and the Soviet Union, with,potentially, the ironic result that in some cases the “culprit” would be asked to identify aspace object as its own. There are now some more “catalogues” of space object data,including privately-held ones. As a result, space objects or parts thereof can and will usuallybe identified.34