1 On the launching of the satellite see Ha'aretz, 20 September 1988; The Jerusalem Post, 20 September 1988; Ma'ariv, 20 September 1988; and Yedioth Ahronoth, 20 September 1988.

2 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: Adopted by U.N.G.A Res. 222 (XXI), 19 December 1966, 610 U.N.T.S 206 (1967), 18:3 U.S.T. 2410(1967), T.I.A.S. 6437; Opened for signature on 27 January 1967, entered into force on 10 October 1967, entered into force for Israel on 1 March 1977. (Hereafter cited as: Outer Space Treaty).

3 Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched Into Outer Space: Adopted by U.N.G.A. Res. 2345 (II), 19 December 1967, 672 U.N.T.S. 120(1969), 19 U.S.T. 7570 (1967), T.I.A.S. 6599; Opened for signature on 22 April 1968, entered into force on 3 December 1968, entered into force for Israel on 19 December 1969. (Hereafter cited as: Rescue and Return Agreement).

4 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects: Adopted by U.N.G.A. Res. 2777 (XXVI), 29 November 1971, 24:3 U.S.T. 2389 (1973), T.I.A.S. 7762; Opened for signature on 29 March 1972, entered into force on 9 October 1973, entered into force for Israel on 23 June 1977. (Hereafter cited as: Liability Convention).

5 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched Into Outer Space: Adopted by U.N. G.A. Res. 3232 (XXVI), 12 November 1974; 28:1 U.S.T. 695 (1976–77), T.I.A.S. 8480: Opened for signature on 14 January 1975, entered into force on 15 September 1976. (Hereafter cited as: Registration Convention.)

6 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: U.N. Doc. A/34/664, (1979) 18 Int'l Legal Materials 1434: Opened for signature on 18 December 1979, entered into force on 11 July 1984. (Hereafter cited as: Moon Agreement.)

7 Outer Space Treaty. Art. 1(2)(3).

8 Israel Television, 19 September 1988, quoting the official Libyan response to the launching.

9 The ARABSAT members are: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, “Palestine”, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates. ARABSAT consists of two telecommunications satellites, one active and one held in reserve in case the first becomes inoperative. See Hurwitz, Bruce A., “The Labyrinth of International Telecommunications Law: Direct Broadcast Satellites” (1988) Neth. Int'l L. R. 145, 170–174Google Scholar.

10 Outer Space Treaty, Art. 1(1).

11 Ibid., Art. 1(2).

12 Ibid., Arts. 1(2) and 3.

13 Ibid., Art. 3.

14 Ibid., Art. 4(2). See texts accompanying nn. 16 and 17 infra.

15 See Hurwitz, Bruce A., The Legality of Space Militarization (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986) 53–71Google Scholar.

16 Outer Space Treaty, Art. 4(2).

17 Hurwitz, supra n. 15, at 67.

18 Moon Agreement, Art. 3.

19 United Nations Charter, Art. 2(4).

20 See Hurwitz, supra n.15, at 67–69.

21 Outer Space Treaty, Art. 4(1).

22 Moon Agreement, Art. 3(3).

23 See McDougall, Walter A., … the Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age (Basic Books, New York, 1985) 269–274Google Scholar.

24 The Jerusalem Post. 25 September 1988.

25 Outer Space Treaty. Art. 11.

26 U.N. Doc A/AC 105/INF/395 of 13 October 1988.

27 Registration Convention, Art.2.

28 Ibid., Art. 3.

29 Ibid., Art. 4(1).

30 See supra n. 26.

31 Outer Space Treaty. Art. 5(1).

32 Ibid., Art. 8.

33 Rescue and Return Agreement. Arts. 1–4.

34 Ibid. Art. 5.

35 Outer Space Treaty. Art. 6.

36 Ibid. Art. 7.

37 Liability Convention. Art. 1(a).

38 The Nation. 8 November 1988. Offeq–1 disintegrated in the Earth's atmosphere on 14 January 1989: Haaretz. 15 January 1989.

39 See Christol, Carl Q.. The Modern International Law of Outer Space (Pergamon, New York. 1982) 95Google Scholar.

40 See ibid., at 93–97.

41 According to the arbitration award, the United States was not entitled to be indemnified for such indirect damages as “the costs of pursuit of the Confederate cruisers” (a decision reached by a vote of three in favour with 2 opposed), or “prospective earnings … inasmuch as they depend in their nature upon future and uncertain contingencies” (a decision reached unanimously). “The Alabama Claims. United States – Great Britain Claims Arbitration, 1872”, reprinted in Orfield, Lester B. and Re, Edward D., Cases and Materials on International Law (Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1955) 644Google Scholar.

42 See Christol, supra n. 39. Van Bogaert, reviewing the legislative history of the Liability Convention, notes that “the majority of delegations accepted that [reference to indirect or delayed damage] was not to be explicitly mentioned in the draft”. After noting that the opinion of the majority was accepted, he concludes that, “[w]hen the causal link between a space accident and this kind of damage is not established, the victim will not be protected by the Liability Convention. Contrawise, when remote damage is clearly proved to arise from a space accident, it seems illogical to deny the liability of the launching State and to deprive the victim of any form of compensation. It seems unreasonable to avoid all liability in this case as the [Convention] itself does not provide an explicit exception regarding the disadvantage of the injured party; and the term damage is indeed sufficiently broad to cover all contingencies, on the condition that a causal connection is clearly established”, [emphasis added] Bogaert, E.R.C. van, Aspects of Space Law (Kluwer, Deventer, 1986) 172Google Scholar.

43 Liability Convention, Art. 2.

44 Ibid., Art. 6.

45 Ibid., Art. 3.

46 See various press reports, supra n. 1.

47 Liability Convention, Art. 8.

48 Ibid., Art. 9.

49 Ibid., Art. 10.

50 Ibid., Art. 14.

51 Ibid., Art. 19.(2)

52 See Benko, et al. , Space Law in the United Nations (Nijhoff, Drodrecht, 1975) 51 and 96Google Scholar.

53 Liability Convention, Art. 12.

54 Outer Space Treaty, Art. 2.

55 See Hurwitz, supra n. 15, at 136–146.

56 See Hurwitz, supra n. 9, at 175–179.

57 Ibid., at 172.

58 There is no specific Israeli legislation dealing with outer space. Nevertheless, according to sec. 11 of the Land Law, 1969 (23 L.S.I. 283), “The ownership of an area of land extends … to the air space above the surface of the land; however, subject to any law, this provision shall not prevent passage through such air space”. In the case of Baruch and Malka Bezalet v. Shoshana and Tzion Simantov (1975) 29(i) P.D. 41, at 44, Supreme Court Justice H. Cohn interpreted the section to mean that “trespass of land includes trespass in the space above it” (para. 6), and therefore the owner of the land has the right to prevent, in this case, construction over his garden. There is, however, no mention of the height to which ownership extends, i.e., of the border between Israeli sovereignty and outer space. For a discussion on the delimitation issue, see “Delimitation of Air Space and Outer Space: Is it Necessary?” in Earth-Oriented Space Activities and Their Legal Implications, Proceedings of the Symposium held on October 15–16. 1981, Centre for Research of Air and Space Law (Montreal, McGill University, 1981) 230–348Google Scholar.