¹ In Canada, for example, licence plates and chassis numbers are required on automobiles and nationality and registration marks on aircraft; ships must display the port of registry, an official number and a number denoting registered tonnage and draught of water.

² In Canada, automobile registers are maintained by provincial Transport Ministries (or their equivalent) and registers of aircraft and ships by the federal Transport Ministry.

³ Under the Air Regulations in Canada, however, qualified mortgagors, lessees and others with contingent rights in particular aircraft may be registered by the Minister where he is satisfied that the registration is in the public interest.

⁴ For instance, Article 21 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, provides, inter alia, that “each contracting state undertakes to supply to any other contracting state or to the International Civil Aviation Organization, on demand, information concerning the registration and ownership of any particular aircraft registered in that state.” Annex 13 to the Convention provides for standards and recommended practices regarding aircraft accident inquiries, including the dissemination of registration information.

⁵ Article 19 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, provides that “the registration or transfer of registration of aircraft in any contracting state shall be made in accordance with its laws and regulations.” Authority under Canadian law is conferred under section 6 (1)b of the Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. A-3, which provides for the Minister of Transport to regulate the registration and identification of aircraft subject to Cabinet approval. The Air Regulations of January 11, 1961 (SOR/61-10), with amendments to March 11, 1970, contain registration provisions.

Article 5 of the Convention on the High Seas, Geneva (1958), states inter alia that “Each state shall fix the conditions … for the registration of ships in its territory….” This is accomplished under the Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-9, and the Shipping Regulations.

In federal states there is often a second degree of decentralization, as with automobiles in Canada, where registration is a provincial responsibility.

⁶ Representatives of Canada, France, Mexico, Italy, Belgium, Japan, Australia and the UAR, among others, have expressed this need at various meetings of the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (hereafter Outer Space Committee) and its Legal and its Scientific-Technical Subcommittees. See also para. 4 of the Resolution on the Legal Regime of Outer Space, September 11, 1963, quoted in Jenks, C. W., Space Law 416 (London, Oceana, 1965)Google Scholar. For a partial list of the writers on space registration, see Diederiks-Verschoor, I. H. Ph., “Registration of Spacecraft,” McWhinney, & Bradley, , (eds.), New Frontiers in Space Law Google Scholar, c. 10. See also Lay, and Taubenfeld, , The Law Relating to the Activities of Man in Space 90, note 160 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970)Google Scholar.

⁷ Jenks, op. cit. supra, at 221–22.

⁸ Report of Ad Hoc Committee, 1959, U.N. Doc. A/4141, at 6; quoted in Lay and Taubenfeld, op. cit. supra note 6, at 90. The Ad Hoc Committee was the predecessor of the standing U.N. Outer Space Committee.

⁹ U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1721 (XVI)B, December 20, 1961.

¹⁰ It was not even entirely clear which state was responsible for registration. See Lay and Taubenfeld, op. cit. supra note 6, at 90–91, for a discussion of this point. This writer agrees with the authors, however, that the point is now clearer: see infra note 35.

¹¹ The U.S. has held that the Resolution requires that only those objects which have attained orbit and remained there must be reported. This is disputed by other states who contend that all spacecraft launched should be reported. See McDougal, , Lasswell, and Vlasic, , Law and Public Order in Space 573 (1963)Google Scholar. A question also arises as to whether military as well as non-military spacecraft must be reported under the Resolution (though it is not always easy to differentiate in practice between the two types).

¹² In the information document prepared by it for the Seventh Session of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/C.1/CRP. 1, April 14, 1970, at 1), the Secretariat reported that the USSR, USA, Italy, France, Australia and Japan had submitted notifications of launches, the latest one dated February 16, 1970; and that it had distributed copies of all of these on a general basis. The document went on to note the differing designations used and information submitted by the different countries.

¹³ The treaty received the unanimous “commendation” of the General Assembly in Res. 2222(XXI) of December 19, 1966. It came into force in October, 1967. Hereafter Outer Space Treaty.

¹⁴ The treaty was approved by the General Assembly in Res. 2345 (XXII) on January 10, 1968 and entered into force in December 1968. Hereafter Astronaut Treaty.

¹⁵ Draft Convention Concerning the Registration of Objects Launched into Space for the Exploration or Use of Outer Space. U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/ C.2/L.45, June 18, 1968.

¹⁶ The items to be included in the register include (a) the registration number; (b) where applicable, the name of the object; (c) the name and address of the governmental or intergovernmental agency or non-governmental entity procuring the launching; (d) the external specifications of the object, such as total weight, shape, dimensions, and external component parts; (e) the law applicable to the object and to the persons carried in it when an inter-governmental agency or a group of natural or juridical persons, referred to in sub-paragraph (c) hereof, procures the launching.

¹⁷ The text of Article 3 reads as follows: “This number shall be displayed in at least two places on the object and on opposite sides thereof, if the size of the object permits. It shall be repeated as frequently as possible in order to permit identification, in case of accident, of portions, or component parts of the object. The height of the characters shall be determined by technical considerations. The number shall be shown on at least one identification plate inside the object. The processes and materials used for reproduction of the registration number and manufacture of the identification plate shall be such, having regard to the condition in which the object will be used, as to provide the best possible guarantee that the registration number will be identifiable as speedily as possible if the object or its component parts are found.”

¹⁸ U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/SR.112, at 5.

¹⁹ Ibid., 8–11.

²⁰ U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.55/Rev. 1.

²¹ U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/58, at 4.

²² U.N. Doc. A/7621, para. 22 and Annex II para. 13a.

²³ The Res. 1721 Registry, for example, is explicitly “public.”

²⁴ See, for example, I. H. Ph. Diedericks-Verschoor, supra note 6.

²⁵ It should, however, be kept in mind that the Ad Hoc Committee had made cogent and perceptive points on registration in its 1959 Report (supra note 2), even though it had not carried out as concentrated a study of the matter as the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee would now undertake.

²⁶ U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.1/L.30, April 14, 1970. Hereafter Canadian Doc.

²⁷ U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.1/L.31, April 1970. Hereafter U.S. Doc.

²⁸ U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/82, May 1, 1970. Report of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee.

²⁹ U.S. Doc, para 6.

³⁰ U.S. Doc, para 8. This last would dispense with numbers but depend on the assignment of distinctive colours to the various launching authorities through-out the world.

³¹ U.S. Doc, para 12.

³² Canadian Doc, 2.

³³ The paper envisaged a separate staff in the Secretariat to operate the system.

³⁴ While the precise lower limits of outer space have not yet been agreed upon, the Canadian paper envisaged all objects launched “into orbit or beyond” being registered, including those launched into fractional orbit or ballistic trajectory: Canadian Doc, 3.

³⁵ Under the Outer Space Treaty, these are the parties jointly and severally responsible for objects launched into outer space. As regards international organizations, to the extent that their personality under international law, and specifically their responsibility under space law conventions for objects launched into outer space are established, to that extent they would be responsible for providing registration data under the proposal. The Astronaut Treaty covers international organizations at Article 6 by providing that for the purposes of that agreement, the term “launching authority” shall refer to a state “or, where an international inter-governmental organization is responsible for launching, that organization provided that that organization declares its acceptance of the rights and obligations provided for in this Agreement and a majority of the States members of that organization are Contracting Parties to (the Astronaut Treaty and to the Outer Space Treaty).” In the draft Liability Convention, Art XXII(1) provides a similar formula engaging the responsibility of international organizations. A similar provision could be inserted in a convention on registration.

³⁶ In detail, under the Canadian proposal, at least the following information should be furnished: (a) registration number (b) location of markings (c) physical characteristics (d) description and composition of materials (e) territory of launch (f) procurer of launch (g) launching authority (state or international organization) (h) date and time launched (i) initial orbital data (j) manoeuvrability (k) expected decay or re-entry date and landing place (1) expected life (function and orbit) (m) methods used for tracking purposes (n) radio frequencies used. Canadian Doc, 4.

³⁷ In regard to when the first notification should be made, the Canadian paper did not go further than Res. 1721 which required that information be furnished “promptly.” In both cases a post-launch reporting is envisaged. The advantages of furnishing information prior to a launch would be in ensuring that a warning would have been given to “clear the road,” and in assisting in identification at the earliest stage. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that states would be willing to go that far. And in any case, the coordination procedures for satellites under the International Telecommunication Union, which take place up to five years prior to launch, require the provision of a good deal of the information relevant to registration. See Radio Regulations as revised by the World Administrative Radio Conference for Space Telecommunications, July 17, 1971.

³⁸ Canadian Doc, 5. What is envisaged here inter alia is the breaking off of parts from a satellite as well as changes in orbit and other parameters.

³⁹ The draft Liability Convention recognizes damage caused “on the surface of the earth,” “to aircraft in flight” (Article II) and “elsewhere than on the surface of the earth to a space object…” (Article III).

⁴⁰ U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/82, May 1, 1970, para. 41.

⁴¹ At the fourteenth meeting of the Outer Space Committee, Iran joined these three countries in formally reserving its position. See Report of Outer Space Committee U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/L.62, at para. 32. Mexico, although it did not go quite that far, did during the debate strongly express its own reservations.

⁴² See the statement of the Canadian delegate to the tenth Session of the Legal Subcommittee. U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/SR. 163, at 5-8.

⁴³ Canadian Doc., Recs. (1) & (2), at 8 and 9.

⁴⁴ As mentioned above, these are (a) special markings; (b) structure components and materials; (c) frequencies of transmitters; and (d) information on flight trajectories.

⁴⁵ U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/82, para. 42.

⁴⁶ U.S. Doc, para. 7.

⁴⁷ U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/SR.112, at 9 and 10.

⁴⁸ Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, General Assembly Official Records, Twenty-fifth Session; supplement No. 20 (A/ 8020), para. 34.

⁴⁹ Ibid., para 35.

⁵⁰ U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/SR. 160, at 3 and 4.

⁵¹ U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/PV.99, at 27.

⁵² U.N. Doc. A/8420, para. 40.

⁵³ Priority was also to be given to questions relating to the moon: U.N. Doc. A/8420, para. 38.