1. Cooper, , “Luft-Weltraumrecht, Gegenstand und Begriffsbestimmung”, in Zeitschrift für Luftrecht und Weltraumrechtsfragen 1964, pp. 1 ff., even stresses the need for a combined treatment of both disciplines under the common denominator “Aerospace Law”.Google Scholar

2. “Le domaine aérien et le régime juridique des aérostats”, in Revue générale de droit international public 1901, pp. 414 ff.Google Scholar

3. During the discussion on the subject in the Institut de droit international, see Annuaire IDI 1906, p. 299.Google Scholar

4. See François, , Handboek van het Volkenrecht (A Treatise on International Law), First Part, 2nd ed., 1949, pp. 141 ff.Google Scholar; Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, First Part, 8th éd., 1955, pp. 516 ff.Google Scholar

5. In his report to the Institut de droit international on “le régime juridique des aérostats” of 1911.Google Scholar

6. See the remark made by Pradelle, Albert De La, Cours de l'Institut des hautes Etudes internationales, 1933/'34 p. 112Google Scholar, that the Paris Convention was concluded “sous le signe de la guerre”.

7. Examples can be found in Slotemaker, , Freedom of Passage for International Air Services, Leiden 1932Google Scholar; for a survey of the history of the Conventions see the Report on The Limitation of Air Sovereignty (reporter Goedhuis), presented to the Dubrovnik Conference of the International Law Association; Report 47th Conference (1956), pp. 196 ff.Google Scholar

8. A survey of these attempts is given by Goedhuis, , Dubrovnik Report p. 202Google Scholar, and by Wassenbergh, , Post-war Civil Aviation Policy and the Law of the Air, 2nd. ed., The Hague 1962, pp. 40 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. E.g. Pradelle, Paul de La, “Les Frontières de l'Air”, in Recueil ADI 86 (1954), pp. 126 ff.Google Scholar

10. E.g. Schachter, , “Legal Aspects of Space Travel”, in Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 1952, pp. 14 ff.Google Scholar; Cooper, , “Legal Problems of Upper Space” in 23 Journal of Air Law and Commerce (1956), pp. 308 ff.Google Scholar; Böhme, , “Lufthoheit und Weltraumflug”, in Zeitschrift für Luftrecht etc. 1956, pp. 184 ffGoogle Scholar; Jenks, ,' “International Law and Activities in Space”, in 5 Int. & Comp. L.Q. (1956) pp. 99 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. See on this doctrine Paul de la Pradelle, op. cit., ibid.

12. See the authors mentioned in the last but one note.

13. E.g. Meyer, , “Rechtliche Probleme des Weltraumflugs”, in Zeitschrift für Luftrecht etc. 1953, pp. 31 ffGoogle Scholar; Goedhuis, , “Some Trends in the Political and Legal Thinking on the Conquest of Space”, this Review 1962, p. 121, and the authors quoted by him.Google Scholar

14. E.g. Schachter, op. cit., ibid., Cooper op. cit., ibid.

15. On the application of the principle of effectiveness with regard to the sovereignty over the airspace see, among others, Kelsen, , Principles of International Law 1952, p. 226Google Scholar; Verdross, , Völkerrecht, 5th ed. 1964, p. 274Google Scholar; Bouchez, , “The Concept of Effectiveness as applied to territorial sovereignty over Sea Areas, Air Space and Outer Space”, this Review 1962, p. 182.Google Scholar

16. E.g. with regard to stratospheric flights, see Sottile, , “Ballons stratosphériques et droit international aérien”, in Revue de droit international (Sottile) 1956, pp. 363 ff.Google Scholar

17. Resolution nr. 1721 of the XVIth Assembly

18. Resolution nr. 1962 of the XVIIIth Assembly in which, inter alia, the General Assembly

“Solemly declares that in the exploration and use or outer space States should be guided by the following principles:

1. The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried on for the benefit and in the interests of all mankind.

2. Outer space and celestial bodies are free for exploration and use by all States on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law.

3. Outer space and celestial bodies are not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

4. The activities of States in the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried on in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding.

5. etc.,

19. Schachter, Thus, “The Prospects of a Regime in Outer Space and International Organization”, in Law and Politics in Outer Space, Montreal 1964, p. 96Google Scholar, remarks that the Resolution “is now generally considered to be a statement of the basic legal precepts governing outer space”; this view corresponds with the statements made by the delegates of the U.S.A. and the Soviet-Union during the debates on the 1963-resolution; however, other delegates, notably the French one, held the opinion that this resolution only constituted a “declaration of intention”, and not a binding declaration of existing international law, see Cooper, , “Luft-Weltraumrecht: Fortschritt in den Vereinten Nationen”, in Zeitschrift für Luftrecht etc. 1964, pp. 153 ff.Google Scholar; see also Bueckling, , “Entschliessungen der Vereinten Nationen für das Weltraumrecht – Rechtsnatur und Bedeutung”Google Scholar, in ibid. pp. 193 ff.

20. At its Brussels session (1963) the Institut de droit international paid attention to the problems of space law, among them the question of the appropriation of celestial bodies, Annuaire 1963, pp. 60 ff.Google Scholar; par. 1 of the resolution which was adopted unanimously states: “Outer space and the celestial bodies are not subject to any kind of appropriation”, etc.

21. Goedhuis, , op. cit., pp. 128 ff.Google Scholar

22. See on this issue the Report on Air Sovereignty and the Legal Status of Outer Space (reporter Goedhuis), presented to the Brussels Conference of the International Law Association, Report 50th Conference (1962), pp. 77ff.Google Scholar; and the Panel on the Status of Competing Claims to Use Outer Space, held at the 57th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Proceedings 1963, pp. 173 ff.Google Scholar

23. On this ambiguity of space activities, and the impossibility of separating military from non-military uses, see Mc Naughton, “Space Technology and Arms Control”, and Meeker, “Observation in Space”, both in Law and Politics in Space, pp. 69 ff. and 82 respectively.Google Scholar

24. See, in this respect, the proposals of a general nature with regard to the creation of a High Council of Establishment, discussed and recommended by Tammes, this Review 1959, Special Issue, pp. 344 ff.Google Scholar

25. On the interpretation of article 51 see Waldock, , “The Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law”, in Recueil ADI 81 (1959 II) pp. 496 ffGoogle Scholar; see also the panel discussions during the 57th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Proceedings pp. 147 ff.Google Scholar

26. On the application of article 8 to space vehicles, see Machowski, , “The legal Status of Unmanned Space Vehicles”, in Proceedings Second Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, ed. Vienna 1960, pp. 111 ff.Google Scholar

27. Meyer, and Cooper, , op. cit.Google Scholar, ibid.; Danier, and Saporta, , “Les satellites artificielles”, in Revue générale de l'Air 1955, pp. 297 ff.Google Scholar

28. See Goedhuis, , “The Question of Freedom of Innocent Passage of Space Vehicles of one State through the Space above the Territory of another State which is not Outer Space”, in Proceedings Second Colloquium, pp. 42 ff.Google Scholar

29. Of course, regulations must be made for the purpose of obviating danger to aviation activities as a result of the passage of spacecraft through the air; but the same obtains with regard to the movements of spacecraft in outer space, which must be such as not to create the risk of a collision with other space vehicles; therefore, both cases can be covered by an overall regulation, e.g. by establishing a duty to give previous notice of the hour of launching and the trajectory to be described, see McDougal, , “Artificial Satellites: A modest Proposal”, in 51 AJIL (1957) pp. 74 ff.Google Scholar

30. See on this aspect of the exercise of the right of self-defence in outer space the above-cited panel discussions of the American Society of International Law.

31. Jacobini, , “Problems of high altitude or space jurisdiction”, in 6 Western Pol. Quart. (1953) pp. 680 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mankiewicz, , “L'état des doctrines sur le droit de l'espace extra-aéronautique après le quatrième colloque sur le droit de l'espace”, in Revue francaise de droit aérien 1962, pp. 19 ff.Google Scholar

32. Op. cit., ibid.

33. See on this viewpoint Kucherov, “Legal Problems of Outer Space, U.S.A. and Soviet Viewpoints”, in Proceedings Second Colloquium pp. 67/68.Google Scholar

34. In order to avoid misunderstandings, the author wishes to stress that his argument is not that airspace is incapable of appropriation because of the con-tinous movement of the air particles it contains. He is aware of the fact that the movement of the waters of the sea does not exclude the possibility of delimiting territorial belts and contiguous zones. The difference, however, between maritime zones and aerial or spatial ones is that the former form part of the surface they are rotating with, whereas the latter do not.

35. The same obtains with regard to the so-called contiguous zones some States have established in the airspace above the oceans surrounding their territories; these zones, too, are of a functional rather than of a spatial nature.

36. Le droit de l'espace, Paris 1960, pp. 50 ff.Google Scholar

37. “Droit international cosmique”, in Recueil ADI 98 (1959), pp. 509 ff.Google Scholar

38. “Etendue et limites du droit aérien”, in Revue générale de l'Air 56, pp. 140 ff.Google Scholar

39. ICAO Doc. 7278-C/841 (May 10, 1952)

40. This practice has been severely criticized by Goedhuis, , “Artikel 5 van het Luchtvaartverdrag van Chicago van 1944: Pacta sunt servanda”, in Rechtskundige Opstellen, Zwolle 1952, pp. 114 ff.Google Scholar

41. See Goedhuis, , Report to the Dubrovnik Conference of the International Law Association, p. 204.Google Scholar

42. For a description and a sharp criticism of these practices, see Wassenberg, , op. cit., notably pp. 61 ff. and 124 ff.Google Scholar

43. See Goedhuis, , “Het Soevereiniteitsbegrip in het Luchtrecht (The Concept of Sovereignty in Air Law)”, this Review 1955, pp. 225 ff.Google Scholar

44. Article 55: With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people, the United Nations shall promote, etc.; see also article 56: All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55.

45. On the relevance of the preamble for the interpretation of a treaty and the binding character of a preamble within the limits of its proper, particularly its interpretational functions, see Fitzmaurice, ; “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951–1954: Treaty Interpretation and Other Treaty Points”, in 23 BYIL (1957), pp. 227 ff.Google Scholar

46. Wassenberg, , op. cit., pp. 132 ff.Google Scholar

47. “No scheduled international air service may be operated over or into the territory of a contracting State, except with the special permission or other authorization of that State, and in accordance with the terms of such permission or authorization”.

48. Manuel élémentaire de droit international public, 1943, pp. 442.Google Scholar

49. Wassenberg, , op. cit.Google Scholar, ibid.