¹ Convention on International Liability for Damage caused by Space Objects, done at London, Moscow, and Washington on March 29, 197 a (hereinafter referred to as the Liability Convention), Canada Treaty Series (C.T.S.) 1975 No. 7, Article a.

^1a Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, done at London, Moscow, and Washington on April 22, 1968, C.T.S. 1975, No. 6.

² The Statement of Claim presented by the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Soviet Ambassador on January 23, 1979, International Legal Materials (I.L.M.), vol. XVIII, No. 4, July 1979 (Annex A), at 906, paragraph 19.

³ Id., 908, paragraph 24. Canada’s decision to seek only incremental costs and not the total costs (e.g., wages of Canadian government personnel) was based on a strict interpretation of Article 12 of the Liability Convention. See also Legault, L.H. and Farand, A., “Canada’s Claim for Damages Caused by the Soviet Cosmos 954 Satellite,” unpublished paper presented at the American Bar Association’s First Annual Meeting of the Air and Space Committee, Orlando, Florida, February 1984.Google Scholar

⁴ Protocol Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Article 1, Department of External Affairs Communiqué, No. 27, April 2, 1981. It has been suggested that compensation for damage caused by space objects under the Liability Convention is often inadequate as evidenced by the Cosmos 954 settlement, in which Canada received just under one-half the amount asked for in the Settlement of Claim. This is an oversimplification. The settlement was based on a number of considerations including past lump sum settlements, the desirability of prolonging negotiations, and the various political considerations surrounding the negotiations.

⁵ Matte, Nicolas Mateesco, Aerospace Law: From Scientific Exploration to Commercial Utilization 158 (Toronto: Carswell, 1977).Google Scholar

⁶ Christol, Carl Q., The Modern International Law of Out er Space 106 (New York: Pergamon Press, 1982).Google Scholar

⁷ At least one scholar has argued that leaving debris in the geostationary orbit is prohibited under Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty. See Elmar Vitt, “Ques-tions of International Liability in the Case of Collisions Suffered by Satellites in the Geostationary Orbit,” German Journal of Air and Space Law 55, where it is argued that: “As satellites can be removed from the GSO at negligible costs and litter-free designs are possible, such action - i.e. producing debris - is faulty. The launching state responsible for a piece of debris causing collision damage to an active satellite is liable and has to pay full compensation.”

⁸ USSR Note 18 of February 20, 1978 reproduced in I.L.M., vol. XVIII, No. 4, July 1979 (Annex B), at 915.

⁹ For a fuller discussion of the legal and practical problems of establishing fault for damage caused by debris in space, see Kenneth Schwetje, F., “Liability and Space Debris,” unpublished paper presented at the International Colloqium on the Environmental Aspects of Activities in Outer Space – State of Law and Measures of Practice, Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany, May 16–19, 1988.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Gorove, Stephen, “Cosmos 954: Issues of Law and Policy,” 6 J. Space L. 141 (1978).Google Scholar

¹¹ Supra note 2, at 905, paragraph 17. See also Haanappel, P.P.C., “Some Observations on the Crash of the Cosmos 954,” 6 J. Space L. 148 (1978).Google Scholar

¹² For a fuller discussion on the right to compensation for economic loss as a result of evasive actions to avoid collisions in space, see supra note 7, at 54–55.

¹³ Supra note 1a.

¹⁴ Supra note 1, Article 12.

¹⁵ Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, done at London, Moscow, and Washington on January 27, 1967, C.T.S. 1967, No. 19.

¹⁶ Supra note 1, Article 19, paragraph 2.