No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Reflections on Some of the Main Problems Arising in the Future Development of Space Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
In the last three decades since, in 1957, the first Sputnik circled the earth, a significant number of legal rules to govern space applications have been adopted.
In the field of primarily civil space activities, agreements were reached on the following instruments.
(1) The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, of 1967.
(2) The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, of 1968.
(3) The Convention on International Liability to Damage Caused by Space Objects, of 1972.
(4) The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, of 1974.
(5) The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, of 1979.
On top of these instruments, the UN adopted two sets of Principles, the 1982 Principles Governing Direct Television Broadcasting and the 1986 Principles Relating to Remote Sensing.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1989
References
1. See General Assembly Official Records: Thirty-seventh Session Supplement No. (A 137).
2. See UN Doc. A/AC. 105/415, 11 November 1988.
3. See UN Doc. A/AC. 105/C.1/2.160.
4. See UN Doc. A/AC. 105/1.171, 13 June 1988.
5. See on the relevance of space to Europe, in particular ‘Europe's Future in Space’, a Joint Policy Report, published in 1988 by the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
6. See, on the negative space policy of the British Government, the article by SirEberle, James, Director of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, ‘Prisoners of the Planet Earth’, The Times (15 10 1987)Google Scholar, and the article by M.P., Michael Heseltine, ‘Little Britain Ignores its Space Destiny’, The Times (19 10 1987)Google Scholar in which he stresses that the ESA is the only realistic journey for Britain into space.
7. See, on this project, a report in Aviation Week and Space Technology (24 October 1988) p. 41.
8. See, on this plan, inter alia, an article in The Economist (29 July 1989) pp. 16, 17.
9. See the Report of the 48th Conference of the Association, New York, 1958.
10. The scope of the present article does not allow a consideration of the many important studies published by the International Institute of Air and Space Law of the University of Leyden (Director Prof. H.A. Wassenbergh), of Cologne (Director Prof. K.H. Böckstiegel), of Montreal (Director Prof. N. Matte) and by the Institute of Space Law of the International Astronautical Federation (Prof. I. Diederiks-Verschoor).
11. See the Report of the 53rd Conference of the ILA, Buenos Aires, 1968, p. 81 et seq.
12. See the Report of the 58th Conference of the ILA, Manila, 1978, p. 2.
13. See ‘The Problems of the Frontiers of Outer Space and Air Space’, 174 Hague Recueil (1982) p. 375 et seqGoogle Scholar.
14. See 81 AJIL (1987) no. 3, p. 775Google Scholar.
15. See the Report of the 60th Conference of the ILA, Manila, p. 12.
16. In the most substantial book published on space law to date, Christol, C. U., The Modern International Law of Outer Space (1982)Google Scholar, the writer gave an extensive survey of these discussions, see pp. 605–765.
17. See Kopal, V., ‘The Role of UN Declarations of Principles in the Progressive Development of Space Law’ 16 Journal of Space Law (1988) no. 1, p. 585Google Scholar.
18. See the Report of the 57th Conference of the ILA, Madrid, 1976, p. XLIII.
19. Among the abundant literature on the meaning and content of Art. IV, attention should be drawn to the Report of Professor Stephen Gorove, one of the leading American space experts, published in Jassentaliana, N., ed., Maintaining Outer Space for Peaceful Uses (1984)Google Scholar which contains the Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Peace Palace of The Hague in March 1984, p. 77 et seq.
20. See Treves, T., ‘Military Installations, Structures and Devices on the Seabed’, 74 AJIL (1980) p. 817CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the article by the present writer ‘The Present State of International Relations in Outer Space’, 7 Int. Relations (1983) no. 5Google Scholar.
21. One of the most noteworthy articles on the ABM Treaty was by Longstreth, T. N., Pike, J. E. and Rhinelānder, J. B., “The Impact of U.S. and Soviet Ballistic Missiles Defense Programs’, 03 1985, Library of Congress Catalog. Card no. 85–060986Google Scholar.
22. Important debates on this issue took place during the American Society of International Law Session, April 1986; see the report by Professor Gorove, S., published in 14 Journal of Space Law (1986) no. 1, p. 43 et seqGoogle Scholar.
23. See the Report of the 62nd Conference of the ILA, p. 385 et seq.
24. See, on the testing of these weapons, an article in The Daily Telegraph (19 July 1989).
25. In an article published in Aviation Week and Space Technology (14 November 1988) p. 32 et seq., the testing of this concept was said to have produced very successful results.
26. See 42 Science in Parliament, no. 179 (10 1984) p. 28 et seqGoogle Scholar.
27. See ‘Legal Issues Involved in the Potential Military Uses of Space Stations’. Bos, M. and Brownlie, I., eds., Liber Amicorum for the Rt. Hon. Lord Wilberforce PC, CMG, OBE, QC (1987) pp. 23, 39Google Scholar.
28. In an important article by Matte, N., ‘Space Stations, a Peaceful Use for Humanity?’, 44 Annals of Air and Space Law (1985) p. 443Google Scholar, he referred to the US People Protection Act of 24 October 1983, which, inter alia, purports to order the immediate development of a manned space station, capable of national security activities.
29. See Aviation Week and Space Technology (19 June 1989) p. 38.
30. See ibid. (31 August 1987).
31. See ibid. (24 August 1989).
32. See UN Doc A/AC. 105/L. 172, 16 June 1988.