File #2765: "2019_Book_TheSpaceTreatiesAtCrossroads.pdf"
Text
1|Foreword|5
1|Preface|6
1|Acknowledgements|8
1|Contents|9
1|Contributors|11
1|Chapter 1: Positive Space Law and Privatization of Outer Space: Fundamental Antinomies|13
2|1.1 Public Law V. Private Activities|14
2|1.2 The Non-appropriation Principle V. Property Rights in Space|16
2|1.3 Interests of Humankind V. Interests of States and Individuals|17
2|1.4 International V. National (Space) Law|21
2|1.5 Antinomies Cannot Be Resolved Through Legal Interpretation|24
2|1.6 Conclusion|24
1|Chapter 2: Interpreting the UN Space Treaties as the Basis for a Sustainable Regime of Space Resource Exploitation|26
2|2.1 Introduction|26
2|2.2 Treaty Interpretation|30
2|2.3 The Moon Agreement|35
2|2.4 Orbits and the International Telecommunication Union|39
2|2.5 Conclusion|43
1|Chapter 3: The Effectiveness and Applicability of the Moon Agreement in the Twenty-First Century: Will There Be a Future?|45
2|3.1 Introduction|45
2|3.2 The Adoption of the Moon Agreement|46
3|3.2.1 Negotiation Procedure|46
3|3.2.2 Legal Status of the Moon (and Other Celestial Bodies)|48
3|3.2.3 Does Necessity Justify Failure?|48
2|3.3 Legal Issues Rendering the Moon Agreement Ineffective|50
3|3.3.1 Scope of Application|50
3|3.3.2 What Is a “Celestial Body”?|51
3|3.3.3 The Common Heritage of Mankind Principle|52
3|3.3.4 Responsibility of States for Space Activities|54
2|3.4 The Future of the Moon Agreement: Make It or Break It?|56
2|3.5 Concluding Remarks|58
1|Chapter 4: The Interplay Between Space Law and International Investment Law: Local Equity Requirements as a Model for Standards of Global Action in the Uses of Outer Space|59
2|4.1 Introduction|59
2|4.2 The Different and Yet Similar Origins of the Two Regimes|61
2|4.3 Humankind as the Home and Host State of Investments|64
2|4.4 Local Equity Requirements in International Investment Law as an Example for Minimum Standards of Global Action in the Uses of Outer Space|66
2|4.5 The Example of Local Equity Requirements as a Tool Toward Global Access to Space Technology|70
2|4.6 Conclusion|73
1|Chapter 5: From Little Things, Big Things Grow: How Should We Regulate the Commercial Utilization of Small Satellite Technology?|74
2|5.1 The Changing Nature of Space Technology|74
2|5.2 The Current International Legal Framework and Regulatory Requirements|76
2|5.3 Concluding Remarks|85
1|Chapter 6: Using Space Objects in Orbit as Transaction Objects: Issues of Liability and Registration de lege lata and de lege ferenda|88
2|6.1 Registration of Space Objects under Current International Law|88
3|6.1.1 Duty to Register Space Objects|89
3|6.1.2 Consequences of Registration|89
4|6.1.2.1 Jurisdiction and Control|90
4|6.1.2.2 International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects|91
4|6.1.2.3 Right to Have the Space Object Returned|91
4|6.1.2.4 International Responsibility for National Space Activities|92
2|6.2 Commercialisation of Space Activities and Effects|93
3|6.2.1 Modern Commercial Practices|93
3|6.2.2 Legal Ramifications|94
3|6.2.3 Policy Considerations|94
2|6.3 The Aviation Model|95
3|6.3.1 Registration of Aircraft|95
3|6.3.2 Art. 83bis CC|96
4|6.3.2.1 Object and Purpose|96
4|6.3.2.2 Content of the Agreement|97
4|6.3.2.3 Formalities|97
3|6.3.3 Legal Consequences|97
2|6.4 Differences Between Aviation and Outer Space Operations and Regulation|98
3|6.4.1 Legal Differences|98
3|6.4.2 Operational Differences|99
3|6.4.3 Gradual Change of Operational Concepts in Outer Space|100
2|6.5 Proposal de lege ferenda|101
3|6.5.1 Formal Registration and Liability|101
3|6.5.2 Change of Registration|102
3|6.5.3 Registration of Bilateral Agreements|103
2|6.6 Conclusion|104
1|Chapter 7: Is the Launching State the Only “Appropriate State” to Register a Space Object? Change of Registry in Case of Change of Ownership|105
2|7.1 Introduction|105
2|7.2 States’ Rights and Obligations in Relation to a Space Object Before and After an In-Orbit Transfer|106
3|7.2.1 Jurisdiction, Control, Authorization and Supervision Before In-Orbit Transfer|107
3|7.2.2 Mapping of Rights and Obligations over the Space Object After the Change of Control|110
2|7.3 Considerations de lege lata and de lege ferenda|112
3|7.3.1 The Rules to Bring Balance|112
3|7.3.2 Transfer of Registry: Revisiting the Registration Convention and the Outer Space Treaty|114
2|7.4 Conclusion|115
1|Chapter 8: From Sea to Outer Space and Back: Political, Economic, and Environmental Considerations for Ocean-Based Space Launching Activities|117
2|8.1 Introduction|117
2|8.2 How Does it Work?|117
2|8.3 SWOT Analysis for Ocean-Based Space Activities|120
3|8.3.1 Strengths|121
3|8.3.2 Opportunities|124
3|8.3.3 Weaknesses|125
3|8.3.4 Threats|125
2|8.4 Rights and Obligations of States|125
3|8.4.1 Zones of Strict Control (Areas of National Sovereignty)|126
3|8.4.2 Zones of Use-Related Control|127
3|8.4.3 Areas of Common Use|129
2|8.5 Environmental and Biodiversity Challenges|130
2|8.6 Discussion|131
2|8.7 Conclusion|131
1|Chapter 9: Judicial Settlement of Space-Related Disputes: Sovereignty’s Final Fetters|133
2|9.1 Introduction|133
2|9.2 Certain Issues on Judicially Settling International Disputes|135
2|9.3 Judicial Settlement of ‘Space-Related’ Disputes by the Court|138
2|9.4 The ‘Optional Clause’ Revisited: Are ‘Space-Related’ Disputes Part of the Court’s Jurisdiction?|139
2|9.5 Is There a Need for a World ‘Space’ Court?|143
2|9.6 Concluding Remarks|145
1|Chapter 10: The Legacy of the Dinosaurs: Regulation of Planetary Defence and Near-Earth Objects at a Global Level|148
2|10.1 The Threat of NEOs|149
3|10.1.1 NEOs and PHOs|149
3|10.1.2 The Disastrous Potential|150
2|10.2 Methodology of Threat Mitigation|151
3|10.2.1 Detection of NEOs|151
3|10.2.2 Prevention or Mitigation of the Impact|152
2|10.3 Current Efforts for Threat Mitigation|153
3|10.3.1 International Organisations|153
4|10.3.1.1 United Nations|153
5|International Asteroid Warning Network|154
5|Space Mission Planning Advisory Group|154
4|10.3.1.2 European Union|154
4|10.3.1.3 European Space Agency|155
3|10.3.2 Individual States|155
4|10.3.2.1 United States of America|155
4|10.3.2.2 Canada|156
4|10.3.2.3 Russian Federation|156
4|10.3.2.4 Japan|157
3|10.3.3 Private Initiatives|157
3|10.3.4 Evaluation of Current Efforts|157
2|10.4 Proposal for an International Approach|158
3|10.4.1 Background: Risk Perception and Risk Management|158
3|10.4.2 Policy Considerations in Establishing the Fund|160
3|10.4.3 Creation of an International Planetary Defence Organisation|163
4|10.4.3.1 Structure|163
4|10.4.3.2 Contributions to the Fund|165
4|10.4.3.3 The Function of the Fund|166
5|International Mandate for Action|166
5|Liability and Risk Management|166
5|Parallel Establishment of Domestic Funds|168
2|10.5 Conclusion|168
1|Chapter 11: Legal Challenges of the New Space Race to Mars: Proposal for the Use of a Three-Tier Legal Framework|170
2|11.1 Introduction|170
3|11.1.1 The New Space Race to Mars|170
3|11.1.2 Brief Summary of the Existing Legal Framework|173
2|11.2 Legal Issues|175
3|11.2.1 Appropriation of Planetary Realty|175
3|11.2.2 Exploitation of Natural Resources Necessary for Establishment of Planetary Settlement|177
3|11.2.3 Liability|179
3|11.2.4 Transfer of Technology and Information Sharing|180
2|11.3 No Environment for New Treaty-Making Processes|182
2|11.4 The ISS Model|183
2|11.5 Conclusion|188
1|Chapter 12: The Consolidation of the Five UN Space Treaties into One Comprehensive and Modernized Law of Outer Space Convention: Toward a Global Space Organization|189
2|12.1 Introduction|189
2|12.2 The Current Space Law Regulatory System: An Overview|190
2|12.3 The “NewSpace Industry” and the Need for a New Regulatory System|193
2|12.4 Attempts Toward a New Legal Framework for Outer Space Activities and Subsequent Issues of Implementation|196
2|12.5 A Possible Model for a Single Law of Outer Space Convention|198
2|12.6 Toward a Global Space Organization|200
2|12.7 Final Remarks|202
1|Preface|6
1|Acknowledgements|8
1|Contents|9
1|Contributors|11
1|Chapter 1: Positive Space Law and Privatization of Outer Space: Fundamental Antinomies|13
2|1.1 Public Law V. Private Activities|14
2|1.2 The Non-appropriation Principle V. Property Rights in Space|16
2|1.3 Interests of Humankind V. Interests of States and Individuals|17
2|1.4 International V. National (Space) Law|21
2|1.5 Antinomies Cannot Be Resolved Through Legal Interpretation|24
2|1.6 Conclusion|24
1|Chapter 2: Interpreting the UN Space Treaties as the Basis for a Sustainable Regime of Space Resource Exploitation|26
2|2.1 Introduction|26
2|2.2 Treaty Interpretation|30
2|2.3 The Moon Agreement|35
2|2.4 Orbits and the International Telecommunication Union|39
2|2.5 Conclusion|43
1|Chapter 3: The Effectiveness and Applicability of the Moon Agreement in the Twenty-First Century: Will There Be a Future?|45
2|3.1 Introduction|45
2|3.2 The Adoption of the Moon Agreement|46
3|3.2.1 Negotiation Procedure|46
3|3.2.2 Legal Status of the Moon (and Other Celestial Bodies)|48
3|3.2.3 Does Necessity Justify Failure?|48
2|3.3 Legal Issues Rendering the Moon Agreement Ineffective|50
3|3.3.1 Scope of Application|50
3|3.3.2 What Is a “Celestial Body”?|51
3|3.3.3 The Common Heritage of Mankind Principle|52
3|3.3.4 Responsibility of States for Space Activities|54
2|3.4 The Future of the Moon Agreement: Make It or Break It?|56
2|3.5 Concluding Remarks|58
1|Chapter 4: The Interplay Between Space Law and International Investment Law: Local Equity Requirements as a Model for Standards of Global Action in the Uses of Outer Space|59
2|4.1 Introduction|59
2|4.2 The Different and Yet Similar Origins of the Two Regimes|61
2|4.3 Humankind as the Home and Host State of Investments|64
2|4.4 Local Equity Requirements in International Investment Law as an Example for Minimum Standards of Global Action in the Uses of Outer Space|66
2|4.5 The Example of Local Equity Requirements as a Tool Toward Global Access to Space Technology|70
2|4.6 Conclusion|73
1|Chapter 5: From Little Things, Big Things Grow: How Should We Regulate the Commercial Utilization of Small Satellite Technology?|74
2|5.1 The Changing Nature of Space Technology|74
2|5.2 The Current International Legal Framework and Regulatory Requirements|76
2|5.3 Concluding Remarks|85
1|Chapter 6: Using Space Objects in Orbit as Transaction Objects: Issues of Liability and Registration de lege lata and de lege ferenda|88
2|6.1 Registration of Space Objects under Current International Law|88
3|6.1.1 Duty to Register Space Objects|89
3|6.1.2 Consequences of Registration|89
4|6.1.2.1 Jurisdiction and Control|90
4|6.1.2.2 International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects|91
4|6.1.2.3 Right to Have the Space Object Returned|91
4|6.1.2.4 International Responsibility for National Space Activities|92
2|6.2 Commercialisation of Space Activities and Effects|93
3|6.2.1 Modern Commercial Practices|93
3|6.2.2 Legal Ramifications|94
3|6.2.3 Policy Considerations|94
2|6.3 The Aviation Model|95
3|6.3.1 Registration of Aircraft|95
3|6.3.2 Art. 83bis CC|96
4|6.3.2.1 Object and Purpose|96
4|6.3.2.2 Content of the Agreement|97
4|6.3.2.3 Formalities|97
3|6.3.3 Legal Consequences|97
2|6.4 Differences Between Aviation and Outer Space Operations and Regulation|98
3|6.4.1 Legal Differences|98
3|6.4.2 Operational Differences|99
3|6.4.3 Gradual Change of Operational Concepts in Outer Space|100
2|6.5 Proposal de lege ferenda|101
3|6.5.1 Formal Registration and Liability|101
3|6.5.2 Change of Registration|102
3|6.5.3 Registration of Bilateral Agreements|103
2|6.6 Conclusion|104
1|Chapter 7: Is the Launching State the Only “Appropriate State” to Register a Space Object? Change of Registry in Case of Change of Ownership|105
2|7.1 Introduction|105
2|7.2 States’ Rights and Obligations in Relation to a Space Object Before and After an In-Orbit Transfer|106
3|7.2.1 Jurisdiction, Control, Authorization and Supervision Before In-Orbit Transfer|107
3|7.2.2 Mapping of Rights and Obligations over the Space Object After the Change of Control|110
2|7.3 Considerations de lege lata and de lege ferenda|112
3|7.3.1 The Rules to Bring Balance|112
3|7.3.2 Transfer of Registry: Revisiting the Registration Convention and the Outer Space Treaty|114
2|7.4 Conclusion|115
1|Chapter 8: From Sea to Outer Space and Back: Political, Economic, and Environmental Considerations for Ocean-Based Space Launching Activities|117
2|8.1 Introduction|117
2|8.2 How Does it Work?|117
2|8.3 SWOT Analysis for Ocean-Based Space Activities|120
3|8.3.1 Strengths|121
3|8.3.2 Opportunities|124
3|8.3.3 Weaknesses|125
3|8.3.4 Threats|125
2|8.4 Rights and Obligations of States|125
3|8.4.1 Zones of Strict Control (Areas of National Sovereignty)|126
3|8.4.2 Zones of Use-Related Control|127
3|8.4.3 Areas of Common Use|129
2|8.5 Environmental and Biodiversity Challenges|130
2|8.6 Discussion|131
2|8.7 Conclusion|131
1|Chapter 9: Judicial Settlement of Space-Related Disputes: Sovereignty’s Final Fetters|133
2|9.1 Introduction|133
2|9.2 Certain Issues on Judicially Settling International Disputes|135
2|9.3 Judicial Settlement of ‘Space-Related’ Disputes by the Court|138
2|9.4 The ‘Optional Clause’ Revisited: Are ‘Space-Related’ Disputes Part of the Court’s Jurisdiction?|139
2|9.5 Is There a Need for a World ‘Space’ Court?|143
2|9.6 Concluding Remarks|145
1|Chapter 10: The Legacy of the Dinosaurs: Regulation of Planetary Defence and Near-Earth Objects at a Global Level|148
2|10.1 The Threat of NEOs|149
3|10.1.1 NEOs and PHOs|149
3|10.1.2 The Disastrous Potential|150
2|10.2 Methodology of Threat Mitigation|151
3|10.2.1 Detection of NEOs|151
3|10.2.2 Prevention or Mitigation of the Impact|152
2|10.3 Current Efforts for Threat Mitigation|153
3|10.3.1 International Organisations|153
4|10.3.1.1 United Nations|153
5|International Asteroid Warning Network|154
5|Space Mission Planning Advisory Group|154
4|10.3.1.2 European Union|154
4|10.3.1.3 European Space Agency|155
3|10.3.2 Individual States|155
4|10.3.2.1 United States of America|155
4|10.3.2.2 Canada|156
4|10.3.2.3 Russian Federation|156
4|10.3.2.4 Japan|157
3|10.3.3 Private Initiatives|157
3|10.3.4 Evaluation of Current Efforts|157
2|10.4 Proposal for an International Approach|158
3|10.4.1 Background: Risk Perception and Risk Management|158
3|10.4.2 Policy Considerations in Establishing the Fund|160
3|10.4.3 Creation of an International Planetary Defence Organisation|163
4|10.4.3.1 Structure|163
4|10.4.3.2 Contributions to the Fund|165
4|10.4.3.3 The Function of the Fund|166
5|International Mandate for Action|166
5|Liability and Risk Management|166
5|Parallel Establishment of Domestic Funds|168
2|10.5 Conclusion|168
1|Chapter 11: Legal Challenges of the New Space Race to Mars: Proposal for the Use of a Three-Tier Legal Framework|170
2|11.1 Introduction|170
3|11.1.1 The New Space Race to Mars|170
3|11.1.2 Brief Summary of the Existing Legal Framework|173
2|11.2 Legal Issues|175
3|11.2.1 Appropriation of Planetary Realty|175
3|11.2.2 Exploitation of Natural Resources Necessary for Establishment of Planetary Settlement|177
3|11.2.3 Liability|179
3|11.2.4 Transfer of Technology and Information Sharing|180
2|11.3 No Environment for New Treaty-Making Processes|182
2|11.4 The ISS Model|183
2|11.5 Conclusion|188
1|Chapter 12: The Consolidation of the Five UN Space Treaties into One Comprehensive and Modernized Law of Outer Space Convention: Toward a Global Space Organization|189
2|12.1 Introduction|189
2|12.2 The Current Space Law Regulatory System: An Overview|190
2|12.3 The “NewSpace Industry” and the Need for a New Regulatory System|193
2|12.4 Attempts Toward a New Legal Framework for Outer Space Activities and Subsequent Issues of Implementation|196
2|12.5 A Possible Model for a Single Law of Outer Space Convention|198
2|12.6 Toward a Global Space Organization|200
2|12.7 Final Remarks|202