Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:49:39.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Space law as a branch of international law*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

P. Malanczuk
Get access

Extract

‘Need I apologize for my choice of subject? Some may say it belongs to the realm of exotics of law. Some may ask: Why deal with issues so remote when there are so many much closer to us still awaiting a solution? Why reach so far?’ With these words the late Judge Manfred Lachs introduced his 1964 lecture at the Hague Academy of International Law on the topic ‘The International Law of Outer Space’. The subject is no longer exotic today. Within the three decades following the launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, the use of space technology is now widespread, not only for military but also for civilian purposes, including satellites for communications, meteorology, television and radio broadcasting and other applications. Remote sensing data is employed in agriculture and resource management as well as in environmental monitoring. Writing a quarter of a century later than Lachs, in a prologue to a collection of articles by “a new generation of space law scholars’, K.-H. Böckstiegel notes:

‘Space law is coming of age. What started out as an exotic field of law and then continued with the discussion and codification of legal rules, following the development of exploratory space activities, is now confronted with the challenge of arriving at just and effective rules for the use of space serving many practical and conflicting economic, political and military interests.’

Type
Diversity in Secondary Rules and the Unity of International Law
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 25 , December 1994 , pp. 143 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Lachs, M., ‘The International Law of Outer Space’, 113 RdC (1964) no. 3, p. 7Google Scholar. On the life of Judge Lachs who, inter alia, chaired the Legal Sub-Committee on Outer Space in the United Nations and fostered the development of the consensus on the major aspects of space law, see the contributions by Schachter, O., Schwebel, S.M., Franck, T.M. and Chopra, S.K., ‘In Memoriam: Judge Manfred Lachs (1914–1993)’, 87 AJIL (1993) pp. 414–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. For a good survey on the current applications of space technology, see Gibson, R., Space (1992).Google Scholar

3. Böckstiegel, K.-H., ‘Prologue’, in Zwaan, T. L., ed., Space Law: Views of the Future. A Compilation of Articles by a New Generation of Space Law Scholars (1988) p. 1.Google Scholar

4. Jennings, R.Y., ‘International Law’, 7 EPIL (1984) p. 278, at p. 288 et seqGoogle Scholar. The list distinguishes the following 17 major ‘topics’ or ‘branches’: (1) the position of States in international law, (2) the law relating to international peace and security, (3) the law relating to economic development, (4) State responsibility, (5) succession of States and governments, (6) diplomatic and consular law, (7) the law of treaties, (8) unilateral acts, (9) the law relating to international watercourses, (10) the law of the sea, (11) the law of the air, (12) the law of outer space, (13) the law relating to the environment, (14) the law relating to international organizations, (15) international law relating to individuals (including nationality, extradition, right of asylum and human rights), (16) the law relating to armed conflicts, and (17) international criminal law. See also Matte, N.M., ‘Space Law’, 11 EPIL (1989) pp. 303–309.Google Scholar

5. The public-private law distinction, which has a different relevance in common law and civil law systems, has become increasingly difficult to define in view of the changing functions of the State over the last two centuries, see Malanczuk, P., ‘Öffentlich-rechtliche Literatur in Großbritannien’, 109 Archiv des Öffentlichen Rechts (1984) pp. 605–627.Google Scholar

6. David, R., ‘Introduction. The Legal Systems of the World, Their Comparison and Unification’, in David, R., ed., Ch. 2: The Structure and Divisions of the Law, 2 IECL, p. 3, at p. 5 et seq.Google Scholar

7. Glendon, M.A., Gordon, M.W. and Osakwe, C., Comparative Legal Traditions (1982) p. 115.Google Scholar

8. In fact, a legal system can operate without a sophisticated classification of the law, as shown by English law where the divisions are far less clear-cut than those of most other legal systems and there has been little debate on what the divisions should be, see Weir, T., ‘The Common Law System’Google Scholar, in David, ed., op. cit. n. 6, p. 77. This has been attributed primarily to the unified jurisdiction of the higher courts and the peculiarities of the historical development of the common law, but also to the character of the English mind. The English legal professions do mentally place the law in compartments and use categories to arrange it, but such compartments and categories are mostly on a much lower level of abstraction than those used as divisions of the legal system in civil law countries. The lack of ‘any decent order’ in English law, however, does not prevent it from working. As noted by Weir: ‘A grimy and patched machine may operate very well, chaotic kitchens can produce good food, and if the index to a book is complete and accurate, it may not matter that the table of contents discloses profound disorder. Divisions which are reationally justifiable may prove in practice to be barriers or at least hurdles; legal rules may risk becoming immovables by destination’, at p. 79.

9. See Kropholler, J., ‘Comparative Law, Function and Methods’, 10 EPIL (1987) pp. 52–58Google Scholar; Butler, W.E., ‘Comparative Law and International Law’Google Scholar, ibid., pp. 49–52; Hilf, M., ‘Comparative Law and European Law’Google Scholar, ibid., pp. 45–49, all with bibliographies.

10. See also Rheinstein, M., Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung (1974) p. 25 et seq.Google Scholar; Zweigert, K. and Kötz, H., Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiet des Privatrechts, Vol. I, 2nd edn. (1984).Google Scholar

11. Its characterization as a ‘primitive legal system’, however, is somewhat misleading, see Malanczuk, P., ‘Zur Repressalie im Entwurf der International Law Commission zur Staatenverantwortlichkeit’, 45 ZaöRV (1985) pp. 293–323, at 293 et seq.Google Scholar

12. In international law, this must not to be confused with the discussion on ‘sub-systems’ or ‘self-contained regimes’ which has arisen in connection with Riphagen's contribution to the efforts of the International Law Commission to codify the rules on State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts and has been critically analyzed and refuted by Simma; see Simma, B., ‘Self-contained Regimes’, 16 NYIL (1985) p. 111 et seqCrossRefGoogle Scholar. The question at issue here is whether there are special ‘sub-systems’ in international law providing for rules on the legal consequences of violations of obligations in these ‘sub-sytems’ which are ‘self-contained’ in the sense that they would exclude the application of the relevant reparation and enforcement rules of general international law. While this issue may be one aspect under which it is possible to classify international law, it is limited to the perspective of State responsibilty and, as such, is not the relevant criterion for distinguishing ‘branches’ of international law in a broader substantive sense. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the new Special Rapporteur of the ILC on State Responsibility. G. Arangio-Ruiz, has made strong reservations as to the very concept of ‘self-contained regimes’. Recent cases would indicate that ‘there if no such thing as a universal or regional self-contained regime’, and in conclusion he states that ‘none of the hypotheses of a self-contained regime seems to materialize in concreto. Furthermore, the analysis of those hypotheses leads us to formulate the most serous doubts with regard to the very admissibility in abstract of the concept of self-contained regimes as “subsystems” of the law of State responsibility … such as those created by the law of human rights, the law of diplomatic relations, the laws of tariffs and trade or the law of the EEC'. G. Arangio-Ruiz, Fourth Report on State Responsibily, UN Doc. A/A/CN.4/444/Add.2, 1 June 1992, at pp. 9 and 13.

13. See Lachs, loc. cit. n. 1, at p. 31 et seq.

14. Jennings, loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 283.

15. See Böckstiegel, K.-H., ‘Grundlagen des Weltraumrechts’, in Böckstiegel, K.-H., ed., Handbuch des Weltraumrechts (1991) p. 7Google Scholar; Gorove, S., ‘International Space Law in Perspective – Some Major Issues, Trends and Alternatives’, 181 RdC (1983) no. 3, p. 357Google Scholar states: ‘While space law may be defined briefly as the law dealing with the legal problems arising out of man's activities in outer space, the sources of such law may be found both in international and domestic law.’

16. See Böckstiegel, op. cit. n. 15, at p. 847 et seq. providing an overview of the law in Germany (Reifarth/Müller), Austria (Fasan), Switzerland (Guldimann), the United States (Gorove), and Sweden and the United Kingdom (Reifarth). See also Gorove, S., United States Space Law – National and International Regulation (1982)Google Scholar; Hosenball, S.N., ‘NASA and the Practice of Space Law’, 13 J Space L (1985) pp. 1–7Google Scholar; Goldman, N.C., American Space Law: International and Domestic (1988)Google Scholar; Dann, P., ‘The Future of Municipal Law in Regulating Space-Related Activities’Google Scholar, in Zwaan, op. cit. n. 3, at pp. 125–134; Gorove, S., The Growth of Domestic Space Law: An US Example, 18 J Space L (1990) pp. 99–111Google Scholar; Bourély, M., ‘Quelques réflexions au sujet des législation spatiales nationales’, 16 Ann. Air & Space L (1991) pp. 245–266Google Scholar; Kayser, V., ‘An Achievement of Domestic Space Law: US Regulation of Private Commercial Launch Services’, 16 Ann. Air & Space L (1991) pp. 341–379Google Scholar; Dann, P., ‘Law and Regulation of Satellite Communications in the United Kingdom’, 20 J Space L (1992) pp. 1–25Google Scholar; Harris, P.R., ‘Space Policy for the New US Administration: A White House Conference on Space Enterprise’ 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kamenetskaya, E., Vereshchetin, V. and Zhukova, E., ‘Legal Regulation of Space Activities in Russia’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Qizhi, He, ‘Legal Progress of Space in China’, 18 Air and Space Law (1994) p. 288.Google Scholar

17. Gorbiel, A., ‘Two Decades of Space Law Codification’, reprint from 15 Postopy Astrinautyki (1982) pp. 45–64Google Scholar; Danilenko, G.M., ‘Outer Space and the Multilateral Treaty-Making Process’, 4 High Tech LJ (1990) p. 217Google Scholar; Benkö, M. and Schrogl, K.U., International Space Law in the Making (1994).Google Scholar

18. See Sucharitkul, S., ‘The Role of the International Law Commission in the Decade of International Law’, 3 LJIL (1990) pp. 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Danilenko, loc. cit. n. 17, p. 237 at fn. 98 refers to reports by Quentin-Baxter and Baboza concerning International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising Out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law as examples. But the reports by Arangio-Ruiz on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts also contain such references.

20. See Malanczuk, P., ‘Towards Global Environmental Legislation’, in United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, ed., UN/IAF Workshop on Organising Space Activities in Developing Countries: Resources and Mechanisms (Graz, October 1993) (forthcoming)Google Scholar; see also Lang, W., ‘Environmental Treatymaking: Lessons Learned for Controlling Pollution of Outer Space’, in Simpson, J.A., ed., Preservation of Near-Earth Space for Future Generations (1994) pp. 165–179.Google Scholar

21. On the work of the Committee see for example Benkö, M., ‘The United Nations's Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space: Legal Developments between 1986 and 1990’, 40 ZLW (1991) pp. 22–29Google Scholar; Kopal, V., ‘The 31st Session of the Legal Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, 23 March-10 April 1992’, 20 J Space L (1992) pp. 46–56.Google Scholar

22. For a critical review see Meron, T., Human Rights Law-Making in the United Nations: A Critique of Instruments and Process (1986)Google Scholar; Alston, P., The United Nations and Human Rights. A Critical Appraisal (1993).Google Scholar

23. See Bin, Cheng, ‘Air Law’, 11 EPIL (1989) p. 10Google Scholar, describing ICAO as ‘the principal forum for the development of international air law, and through it, domestic air laws’. It should be noted, however, that air law is characterized by the interaction between customary law and treaties, both multilateral and bilateral, and the supervision and administration of the system, particularly as regards safety and operational rules, by ICAO. UNCOPOUS does not exercise a comparable function in this respect with regard to space traffic. On the quasi-legislative powers of ICAO see Burgenthal, T., Lawmaking in the International Civil Aviation Organization (1969) p. 59 et seq.Google Scholar

24. See Malanczuk, P., ‘Die Konferenz der Vereinten Nationen über Umwelt und Entwicklung (UNCED) und das internationale Umweltrecht’, in Festschrift für Bernhardt (forthcoming)Google Scholar; Malanczuk, , ‘The Concept of “Sustainable Development” and International Law – Some Critical Remarks in the Light of the Results of the Rio Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)’, in Ginther, K., Denters, E. and de Waart, P., eds., Sustainable Development and Good Governance (forthcoming)Google Scholar. In 1984 Jennings still described the law relating to the environment as ‘perhaps at the present time not so much an area of law as an area of problems which, being international in character, will require solutions in international law’, loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 292.

25. Sullivan, C.D., ‘The Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space: An Emerging Principle of International Law’, 4 Temple ICLJ (1990) pp. 211–237Google Scholar; von Kries, W., ‘Die militärische Nutzung des Weltraums’Google Scholar;, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 309–350; Lippman, M., ‘The Strategic Defense Initiative and the Militarization of Space Scientific Responsibility and Citizen Resistance’, 9 Dickinson JIL (1991) pp. 177–229Google Scholar; Haeck, L., ‘Le droit de la guerre spatiale’, 16 Ann. Air & Space L (1991) pp. 307–340Google Scholar; Cheng, B., ‘The Military Use of Outer Space and International Law’, 1 Essays in Honour of Judge Taslim Olawale Elias (1992) pp. 63–75Google Scholar; McLean, A., Western European Military Space Policy (1992)Google Scholar; Pike, J., Lang, S. and Stambler, E., ‘Military Use of Outer Space’, SIPRI Yearbook (1992) pp. 121–146Google Scholar; Reynolds, G.H., ‘Outer Space and Peace: Some Thoughts on Structures and Relations’, 59 Tenn. LR (1992) pp. 723–733Google Scholar; Heintze, H.-J., ‘“Weltraumkrieg” und Volkerrecht’, 5 HuV-I (1992) pp. 61–66Google Scholar; von Kries, W., “Anti-Missile Defense for Europe and the Law of Outer Space’, 42 ZLW (1993) p. 271.Google Scholar

26. See Malanczuk, P., ‘Telecommunications Satellites and International Law, Comments’, 21 Rev. Belge (1988) pp. 262–272Google Scholar; Telecommunications Satellites and International Law: International Colloquium, Brussels, November 8, 1988 (Collection de droit International 24) (1989)Google Scholar; Lyall, F., Law and Space Telecommunications (1989)Google Scholar; Diederiks-Verschoor, I.H. Ph., ‘Telecommunication Satellites and International Law’, 3 Hague YIL (1990) pp. 105–111Google Scholar; Rothblatt, M., ‘The Status of Radio Spacecasting under Space Law’, 18 J Space L (1990) pp. 113–122Google Scholar; Smith, M., International Regulation of Satellite Communication (1990)Google Scholar; Rothblatt, M.A., ‘New Regulatory Ideas and Concepts in Space Telecommunications’, 20 J Space L (1992) pp. 27–34Google Scholar; Diedericks-Verschoor, I.H. Ph., ‘Legal Aspects Affecting Telecommunications Activities in Space’, 1 Telecommunications & Space J. (1994) (forthcoming)Google Scholar; White, S., ‘International Regulation of the Radio Frequency Spectrum and Orbital Slots’Google Scholar, ibid.

27. Malanczuk, P., ‘Telecommunications, International Regulation of’, 9 EPIL (1986) pp. 367–371Google Scholar; Malanczuk, ‘Information and Communication, Freedom of, ibid., pp. 162–172; R. Wolfrum, ‘Telekommunikation’, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 367–393.

28. See Danilenko, loc. cit. n. 17, at p. 236 et seq.

29. See Christol, C.Q., ‘Influence ofthe International Institute ofSpace Law and the International Law Association on the Development of Space Law’, 42 ZLW (1993) pp. 430–441.Google Scholar

30. International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, UNGA Res. 1472 (XIV), 12 December 1959. See also the earlier Resolution: Question of the Peaceful Use of Outer Space, UNGARes. 1348 (XIII), 13 December 1958.

31. International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, UNGA Res. 1721 (XVI), 20 December 1961.

32. Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, UNGA Res. 1962 (XVIII), 13 December 1963.

33. Reijnen, B.C.M., The United Nations Space Treaties Analyzed (1992).Google Scholar

34. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, January 27, 1967, 610 UNTS (1967) pp. 205–301; Bückling, A., Der Weltraumvertrag (1980)Google Scholar; Matte, N.M., ‘Outer Space Treaty’, 11 EPIL (1989) pp. 251–253Google Scholar; Lachs, M., ‘Le vingtcinquième anniversaire du traité régissant les principes du droit de l'espace extra-atmosphérique, 1967–1992’, 46 RFDAS (1992) pp. 365–374Google Scholar; Lachs, M., ‘The Treaty on Principles of the Law of Outer Space, 1967–92’, 39 NILR (1992) pp. 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts, and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 22 April 1968, 627 UNTS (1969) pp. 119–189.

36. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 29 March 1972, 961 UNTS (1975) pp. 187–261.

37. Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 12 November 1974, 1023 UNTS (1976) pp. 15–73.

38. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 5 December 1979, UNGA Res. 34/68, Annex; 18 ILM (1979) pp. 1434–1441; Mateesco-Matte, N., ‘L'Accord sur la lune: quel avenir?’, 17 Ann. Air & Space L (1992) pp. 283–303Google Scholar; Mateesco-Matte, N., ‘The Moon Agreement: What Future?’, 12 Annuaire français de droit maritimes et aérospatial (1993) p. 345.Google Scholar

39. Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, 5 August 1963, 480 UNTS p. 43.

40. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 10 December 1976, 1108 UNTS p. 151.

41. Williams, S.M., ‘The Law of Outer Space and Natural Resources’, 36 ICLQ (1987) pp. 142–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pritzsche, K.U., Natürliche Ressourcen im Weltraum – Das Recht ihrer wirtschaftlichen Nutzung (1989)Google Scholar; Helm, B.E., ‘Exploring the Last Frontiers for Mineral Resources: A Comparison of International Law Regarding the Deep Seabed, Outer Space, and Antarctica’, 23 Vand. J Trans. L (1990) pp. 819–849Google Scholar; Jasentuliyana, N., ‘International Space Law and Cooperation and the Mining of Asteroids’, 15 Ann. Air & Space L (1990) pp. 343–357Google Scholar; Barritt, D.A., ‘A “‘Reasonable’ Approach to Resource Development in Outer Space’, 12 Loy. LA Int. & Comp. LJ (1990) pp. 615–642Google Scholar; Pritzsche, K.-U., “Die Nutzung natürlicher Ressourcen’Google Scholar, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 557–578.

42. See Müller, R. and Müller, M., ‘Co-operation as a Basic Principle of Legal Regimes for Areas Beyond National Sovereignty – with Special Regard to Outer Space Law’, 31 GYIL (1988) p. 553 et seq.Google Scholar

43. See Böckstiegel, op. cit. n. 15, p. 13; K. Focke, ‘Kooperation’, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 637–666; Pedersen, K.S., “Is it Time to Create a World Space Agency?’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delpech, J.F., Logsdon, J.M. and Meslin, B., ‘A New Cooperative Strategy for Space in the 21 st Century’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 265CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Faut-il créer une organisation mondiale de l'espace?, La documentaion française (1993).Google Scholar

44. See supra, n. 26.

45. See Malanczuk, P., ‘Satelliten-Fernerkundung der Erde: politische und rechtliche Aspekte’, in: Kaiser, K. and Welck, Frhr. v., eds., Weltraum und internationale Politik (1987) pp. 57–71Google Scholar; Malanczuk, ‘Erdfernerkundung’, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 425–455; Heintze, H.-J., ‘Schlüsselrolle der Fernerkundungssatelliten im Golfkrieg’, 40 ZLW (1991) pp. 408–25Google Scholar; Pearson-Mackie, N., ‘The Need to Know: The Proliferation of Space-based Surveillance’, 12 Arms Control (1991) pp. 94–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feder, H., ‘The Sky's the Limit? Evaluating the International Law of Remote Sensing’, 23 NYUJ Int. L & Pol. (1991) pp. 599–669Google Scholar; Peyrefitte, L., ‘Le régime juridique de la télédection spatiale, 45 RFDAS (1991) pp. 183–208Google Scholar; Heintze, H.-J., Nowak, M. and Wallner, J., ‘Satellitenverifikation nach dem Ende der Ost-West-Konfrontation’, 43 Aussenpolitik (1992) pp. 195–205Google Scholar; Heintze, H.-J., ed., Remote Sensing Under Changing Conditions: Proceedings of the Immenstaad Workshop 1992 (1992)Google Scholar; Qizhi, He, ‘Legal Aspects of Monitoring and Protection of the Earth Environment by Space Technology”, 20 J Space L (1992) pp. 111–116Google Scholar; Heintze, H.-J., Wallner, J., Hounam, D. and Nowak, M., ‘Remote Sensing and Strengthening European Security’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harris, G., ‘Global Remote Sensing Programmes, Global Science, Global Change: An Australian Perspective’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 124CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Abiodun, A.A., ‘An International Remote Sensing System: A Possibility’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gabrynowicz, J.I., ‘The Promise and Problems of the Land Remote Sensing Act of 1992’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 319CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Heintze, H.-J., ‘Rechtsfragen der Nutzung von Fernerkundungssatelliten bei humanitären Hilfsaktionen-Zunehmende Anwendung von Satelliten-Datendurchdie UN undhilfeleistendeStaaten’, 42 ZLW (1993) p. 278Google Scholar; Satin, P., ‘The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992’, 42 ZLW (1993) p. 263Google Scholar; Salin, P., ‘L'évolution du régime juridique de la télédétection aux Etats-Unis”, 18 Ann. of Air & Space L (1993) p. 241.Google Scholar

46. Sagar, D., “International Maritime Satellite Organization (INMARSAT)”, 16 Ann. Air & Space L (1991) pp. 428–434Google Scholar; 17 Ann. Air & Space L (1992) pp. 500–509.Google Scholar

47. Madders, K.J., ‘European Space Agency’, 6 EPIL (1983) pp. 203–206Google Scholar; Longdon, N. and Guyenne, D., eds., Twenty Years of European Cooperation in Space. A European Space Agency Report 1964–1984 (1984)Google Scholar; Couston, M., L'Europepuissance spatiale (1991)Google Scholar; Spude, M., ‘Integriette Zusammenarbeit: Die Europäische Weltraumorganisation (ESA)’Google Scholar, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, p. 667–754; Grillo, W. and Spude, M., ‘Die Rechtsprobleme der Internationalen Zusammenarbeit in der ESA dargestellt am Beispiel der Ministerratskonferenz 1991’, 41 ZLW (1992) pp. 255–270Google Scholar; Hobe, S., ‘The Legal Framework of the Decisions Made at the Ministerial Level ESA Conference in Munich’, 17 Ann. Air & Space L (1992) pp. 237–254Google Scholar; Lafferrenderie, G., ‘The European Space Agency in 1991’, 17 Ann. Air & Space L (1992) pp. 511–516Google Scholar; Spude, M. and Oesberg, R.-P., ‘Die Tagung des ESA-Rates auf Ministerebene in Granada 1992’, 42 ZLW (1993) pp. 162–181Google Scholar; ESA, Proceedings of ESA/EUI International Colloquium on the Implementation of the ESA Convention (1994).Google Scholar

48. Schrogl, K.U., ‘Die Strukturreform der ITU: Auswirkungen auf die Entwicklung der Weltraumnutzung und des Weltraumrecht’, 42 ZLW (1993) p. 182.Google Scholar

49. Malanczuk, P., ‘Das Satellitenfernsehen und die Vereinten Nationen’, 44 ZaöRV (1984) pp. 257–289Google Scholar with the text of the principles; Frowein, J.A., ‘Satellite Broadcasting’, 11 EPIL (1989) pp. 273–276Google Scholar; Fisher, D., Prior Consent to International Direct Satellite Broadcasting (1990)Google Scholar; Fjordbad, S., ‘The International Direct Broadcast Satellite Controversy’, 55 J Air L & Com. (1990) pp. 903–938Google Scholar; Reinert, P., Grenzüberschreitender Rundfunk im Spannungsfeld von staatlicher Souveränität und transnationaler Rundfunkfreiheit: eine völker-, europa- und verfassungsrechtliche Betrachtung des Mediums Rundfunk, insbesondere über Satellit und Kabel (1990)Google Scholar; Wotfrum, R., ‘Direct-Broadcasting Satellites’Google Scholar, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 395–418; Stewart, M.L., To See the World: The Global Dimension in International Direct Television Broadcasting by Satellite (1991)Google Scholar; Gornig, G., ‘Satellitenrundfunk und Völkerrecht’, 36 ZUM (1992) pp. 174–186.Google Scholar

50. See supra, n. 45.

51. B. Boutros-Ghali, ‘La Cooperation Internationale dans les Activitiés Spatiales pour le Réenforcement de la Sécurite dans la Periode de L'Après-guèrre Froide’, Rapport du secretaire général, Nations Unies, Département des affaires politiques UN Doc. A/48/221; Lafferranderie, G., ‘La nouvélle donné de la coopération en matière spatiale ent re l'Union soviétique et l'Agence Spatiale Européenne’, 16 Ann. Air & Space L (1991) pp. 381–392Google Scholar; Schmidt-Tedd, B., ‘MIR‘92 Mission und Perspektiven der Kooperation’, 41 ZLW (1992) pp. 63–73Google Scholar; von der Dunk, F. G., ‘The Minsk Space Agreement: A “Commonwealth in Space”’?, 20 J Space L (1992) pp. 179–189Google Scholar; Bourély, M., ‘Les nouvelles rèlations de l'Agence spatiale européenne avec les pays de l'Est’, Annuaire français de droit maritimes et aerospatial (1993) p. 387Google Scholar; ECSL, Changing Europe in Space, Proceedings of the Workshop organised by Dutch NPOC, ESTEC (1993).

52. Malanczuk, P., ‘Report on the UN/IAF Workshop on “Organising Space Activities in Developing Countries” (Graz, October 1993)’, 21 J Space L (1993) pp. 175–178Google Scholar; Cheng, C.-J., ed., The Highways of Air and Outer Space Over Asia (1992)Google Scholar; Qizhi, He, ‘Organising Space Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Regions’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53. See UN Doc. A/AC. 105/575 of 9 May 1994.

54. See Kopal, V., ‘The Role of United Nations Declarations of Principles in the Progressive Development of Space Law’, 16 J Space L (1988) p. 5 et seqGoogle Scholar. See also the literature cited in supra, n. 17.

55. See Galloway, E., ‘Consensus Decisionmaking by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space’, 7 J Space L (1979) p. 3 etseq.Google Scholar On the general function of consensus in international lawmaking see Suy, E., ‘Consensus’, 7 EPIL (1984) pp. 47–52Google Scholar; Zemanek, K., ‘Making Rule and Consensus Technique in Law-Making Diplomacy’, in MacDonald, R. St. J. and Johnston, D.M., eds., The Structure and Process of International Law (1983) pp. 857–887.Google Scholar

56. See Suy, loc. cit. n. 55, at p. 50 et seq.

57. See supra, n. 49.

58. See supra, n. 45.

59. Kopal, V., ‘The Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space: A New Set of United Nations Principles?’, 19 J Space L (1991) pp. 103–122Google Scholar; Benkö, M., Gruber, G. and Schrogl, K., ‘The UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space: Adoption of Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space and Other Recent Developments’, ZLW (1993) p. 35.Google Scholar See also Benkö, M., ‘Nuklearenergie im Weltraum’Google Scholar, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 457–479; Maharik, M. and Fischhof, B., ‘Public Views of Using Nuclear Energy Sources in Space Missions’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60. See the Report of the Legal Subcommittee on the Work of its Thirty-Third Session (21 March-5 April 1994), UN Doc. A/AC. 105/573 of 14 April 1994, p. 17.

61. See Malanczuk, P., ‘Outer Space’, 1 Y Int. Env. L (1990) pp. 173–175Google Scholar; Vol. 2 (1991) pp. 184–189; Vol. 3 (1992), pp. 299–300; Vol. 4(1993) (forthcoming); Malanczuk, , ‘International Law Association (ILA) Continues Work on Draft Instrument to Protect the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Activities’, 20 J Space L (1992) pp. 164–168.Google Scholar

62. See Frhr, S.. v. Welck, , ‘Die Bedeutung der Erforschung und Nutzung des Weltraums für Einfluß und Macht in der internationalen Politik’, in Kaiser, K. and Frhr, S.. v. Welck, , eds., Weltraum und internationale Politik (1987) p. 481 et seq.Google Scholar

63. See i.e., Elmandjra, M., ‘The Conquest of Space: A Few Political, Economic and Sociocultural Considerations’, 6 Third World Q (1984) p. 576 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Qizhi, He, ‘Observations on the Main Issues of Space Law in the United Nations’, 10 Ann. Air & Space L (1985) pp. 363–365Google Scholar; Supancana, I.B.R., ‘The Contribution of the Developing Countries to the Legal Formulation of Future Space Law’Google Scholar, in Zwaan, ed., op. cit. n. 16, pp. 113–124; Tuinder, P.H., ‘Power and the Law-making Process Concerning Outer Space’Google Scholar, in ibid. pp. 69–77; Tavernier, P., ‘Espace extra-atmosphérique, droits de l'homme et développement’, 44 RFDAS (1990) pp. 405–415Google Scholar; Qizhi, He, ‘Legal Issues of China's Entry into International Space Market’, 40 ZLW (1991) pp. 278–283.Google Scholar

64. See supra, n. 38.

65. See Art. 11.

66. The Treaty entered into force on 11 July 1979, see Christol, C.Q., ‘The Moon Treaty Enters into Force’, 79 AJIL (1985) pp. 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67. See UN Doc. A/AC.105/573 of 14 April 1994, p. 8 et seq.

68. Böckstiegel, K.-H. and Benkö, M., eds., Space Law. Basic Legal Documents, Vol. 1, B.IVGoogle Scholar; Wolfrum, R., ‘Geostationäre Umlaufbahn’Google Scholar, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 351–365; Straubel, M.S., ‘Telecommunication Satellites and Market Forces: How Should the Geostationary Orbit be Regulated by the FCC?’, 17 NCJ Int. L & Com. Reg. (1992) pp. 205–238.Google Scholar

69. See UN Doc. A/AC. 105/573 of 14 April 1994, p. 15 et seq, and Annex IV, working paper A/AC.105/C.2/L.192 of 30 March 1993, submitted by Colombia.

70. See Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, ed., Technologischer Fortschritt als Rechts problem (1986)Google Scholar; Lachs, M., ‘Thoughts on Science, Technology and World Law’, 86 AJIL (1992) pp. 673–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71. See Bin Cheng, loc. cit. n. 23, at p. 10: ‘Air law is now a well-established, extensive and functionally autonomous branch of international law, distinguished above all by its constant need to attune itself to ever-advancing technology and rapidly changing circumstances.’

72. See Malanczuk, loc. cit. n. 20 with references.

73. See UN Doc. A/AC. 105/573 of 14 April 1994, p. 10.

74. See Böckstiegel, op. cit. n. 15, p. 17 et seq.

75. On the meaning of “sources” see Jennings, loc. cit. n. 4, p. 284; Hart, H.L.A., The Concept of Law (1961) p. 246.Google Scholar

76. Dominicé, C., ‘Methodology of International Law’, 7 EPIL (1984) p. 334Google Scholar; Monaco, R., ‘Sources of International Law’Google Scholar, ibid. p. 424; Schachter, O., International Law in Theory and Practice (1991) Ch. III.Google Scholar

77. Jennings, loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 285. See also Bernhardt, , ‘Customary International Law’, 7 EPIL (1984) p. 61Google Scholar; Kirchner, J., ‘Thoughts about a Methodology of Customary International Law’, 43 Austrian JPIL (1992) p. 215Google Scholar; Wolfke, K., ‘Some Persistent Controversies Regarding Customary International Law’, 24 NYIL (1993) pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

78. But see Vereshchetin, V.S. and Danilenko, G.M., ‘Custom as a Source of International Law of Outer Space’, 13 J Space L (1985) pp. 22–35.Google Scholar

79. On the general principles see Bockstiegel, K.-H., ‘Die Nutzungdes Weltraums, Allgemeine Grundsätze’Google Scholar, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 265–276; see further Bittlinger, H., ‘Das Gebot der Rücksichtnahme’Google Scholar, in ibid. pp. 119–134 and the literature in the following notes.

80. Bueckling, A., ‘Die Freiheiten des Weltraumrechts und ihre Schranken’Google Scholar, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 55–102.

81. G.W. Rehm, ‘Das Aneignungsverbot’, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 103–118.

82. Böckstiegel, op. cit. n. 15, at pp. 27–28.

83. Vereshchetin and Danilenko, loc. cit. n. 78, at p. 25.

84. On the problem of the delimitation of air space and outer space see infra.

85. See Diederichs-Verschoor, I.H.Ph., An Introduction to Space Law (1993) p. 12Google Scholar. For a differentiated analysis see Vereshchetin and Danilenko, loc. cit. n. 78, p. 27 et seq.

86. See section 6.2 infra.

87. See Cassesse, A., International Law in a Divided World (1986).Google Scholar

88. Bin, Cheng, ‘United Nations Resolutions on Outer Space: “Instant” International Customary Law?’, Indian JIL (1965) p. 23 et seq.Google Scholar

89. North Sea Continental Shelf cases, ICJ Rep. (1969) p. 4.

90. See Jennings, loc. cit. n. 4, t p. 285.

91. For a discussion of the Italian doctrine see Münch, F., ‘A Propos du Droit Spontane’, Studi in Onore di Guiseppe Sperduti (1984) pp. 149–162.Google Scholar

92. For a recent discussion in the field of international environmental law see Hohmann, H., Präventive Rechtspflichten und -prinzipien des modernen Umweltvölkerrechts (1992) p. 221 et seq.Google Scholar; Hohmann, H., ‘Ergebnisse des Erdgipfels von Rio’, 12 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (1993) p. 311 et seqGoogle Scholar., at p. 318. Critical of this position: Beyerlin, U., ‘Rio-Konferenz 1992: Beginn einer neuen globalen Umweltrechtsordnung?’, 54 ZaöRV (1994) pp. 124–127.Google Scholar

93. Bernhardt, R., ‘Der Einfluss der UN-Seerechtskonvention auf das geltende und künftige internationale Seerecht’, in Delbrück, J., ed., Das neue Seerecht. Internationale und nationale Perspektiven (1984) p. 215Google Scholar. For an earlier discussion of unwritten international law see Bernhardt, R., ‘Ungeschriebenes Völkerrecht’, 36 ZaöRV (1976) p. 72.Google Scholar

94. Jennings, loc. cit. n. 4, calls it a ‘paradoxical term’.

95. Dupuy, P.-M., ‘Soft Law and the International Law of the Environment’, 12 Michigan ILJ (1991) pp. 420–435Google Scholar; Chinkin, C.M., ‘The Challenge of Soft Law: Development and Change in International Law’, 38 ICLQ (1989) pp. 850–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a more general analysis see Heusel, W., ‘Weiches ’ Völkerrecht (1991)Google Scholar. See also the extensive references by M. Fitzmaurice-Lachs in this volume, at pp. 199–201.

96. Supra, nn. 30–33. With regard to the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles, Jennings, R.Y. in 7 EPIL (1984) p. 292Google Scholar notes that it was not a binding resolution, ‘but since it represented a consensus of those interested in the matter, and since the need to agree such principles was important and urgent, it probably very quickly represented a basic customary law.”

97. See M. Fitzmaurice-Lachs, in this volume, pp. 200–201.

98. Franck, T. M., The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations (1990)Google Scholar. For a brief discussion with further references see Malanczuk, P., Humanitarian Intervention and the Legitimacy of the Use of Force (1993) p. 6 and p. 47 fn. 80Google Scholar. See also recently Caron, D., ‘The Legitimacy of the Collective Authority of the Security Council’, 87 AJIL (1993) pp. 552–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On equity see Lachs, M., ‘Equity in Arbitration and in Judicial Settlement of Disputes’, 6 Leiden JIL (1993) pp. 323–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schachter, op. cit. n. 76, at p. 49 et seq.

99. For a recent analysis see Luhmann, N., Das Recht der Gesellschaft (1993).Google Scholar

100. Mosler, H., ‘General Principles of Law’, 7 EPIL (1984) p. 89.Google Scholar

101. See also Almond, H.L., ‘General Principles of Law: Their Role in Development of the Law of the Outer Space’, 57 Univ. Colorado LR (1986) pp. 871–883.Google Scholar

102. Böckstiegel, op. cit. n. 15, p. 29.

103. See Jennings, loc. cit. n. 4, p. 287.

104. Diederiks-Verschoor, op. cit. n. 85, at p. 135 et seq.; see further Butler, C.E., ‘The Antitrust Liability of Comsat in its Role as Representative to Intelsat’, 17 NCJ Int. L & Com. Reg. (1992) pp. 547–566Google Scholar; Zwaan, T.M., ‘The Martin Marietta Case, or How to Safeguard Private Commercial Space Activities’, 18 Air and Space Law (1993) p. 345.Google Scholar

105. Böckstiegel, K.-H., ‘Case Law on Space Activity’, 1 Telecommunications & Space Journal (1994) (forthcoming).Google Scholar

106. For a detailed analysis see P. Malanczuk, ‘Haftung’, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, at p. 755 et seq.

107. See Simma, B., ‘Grundfragen der Staatenverantwortlichkeit in der Arbeit der International Law Commission’, 24 Archiv des Völkerrechts (1986) pp. 358–407Google Scholar; Spinedi, M. and Simma, B., eds., United Nations Codification of State Responsibility (1987)Google Scholar; Zemanek, K., Salmon, J. and Weil, P., eds., Responsabilité internationale (1987).Google Scholar

108. See Bittlinger, H., ‘Private Space Activities: Questions of International Responsibility’, Proceedings of the 30th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (IISL) (1987) p. 191 et seq.Google Scholar

109. See Herdegen, M., ‘Bemerkungen zur Zwangsliquidation und zum Haftungsdurchgriff bei internationalen Organisationen”, 47 ZaöRV (1987) p. 537 et seq.Google Scholar

110. See Böckstiegel, K.H., ‘Settlement of Disputes Regarding Space Activities’, 21 J Space L (1993) pp. 1–10Google Scholar; Böckstiegel, , ‘Developing a System of Dispute Settlement Regarding Space Activities’, 35 Proceedings of the International Institute of Space Law (1993) p. 27 et seq.Google Scholar; Böckstiegel, , ‘Beilegung von weltraumrechtlichen Streitigkeiten’Google Scholar, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, at p. 805 et seq.; Böckstiegel, , ed., Settlement of Space Law Disputes – The Present State of the Law and Perspectives of Further Development, Proceedings of an International Colloquium Munich, 13–14 September 1979, organized by the Institute of Air and Space Law of Cologne University (1980)Google Scholar. See also Traa-Engelman, H. v., ‘Settlement of Space Law Disputes’, 3 LJIL (1990) pp. 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

111. ILA, Report of the 61st Conference, Paris 1984, p. 325 et seq., p. 334 et seq.Google Scholar

112. For details see Böckstiegel, ‘Settlement of Disputes’, loc. cit. n. 110, at p. 3 et seq.

113. See Böckstiegel, K.-H. and Benkö, M., eds., Space Law. Basic Legal Documents, Vol. 1, A.VI.2.Google Scholar

114. Böckstiegel, ‘Settlement of Disputes’, loc. cit. n. 110, at p. 9 et seq.

115. Ribbelink, O.M.R., ‘The End of the Cold War and the Prospects for the Settlement of Space Law Disputes’, IISL Proceed ings, 35th Colloquium, 28 August-15 September 1992, Washington D.C., pp. 130–139.Google Scholar

116. Report by Gorove, K.M., 21 J Space L (1993) pp. 64–65.Google Scholar

117. See Böckstiegel, ‘Settlement of Disputes’, loc. cit. n. 110, at p. 6; The International Institute of Space Law has set up a Committee on Space Law Dispute Settlement under the chairmanship of Prof. Böckstiegel which will operate in cooperation with a network of national correspondents. In view of the fact that dispute settlement is a major aspect of the UN Decade of International Law 1990–1999, which may lead to a Third Hague Peace Conference, the present author, as Chairman of the Dutch Space Law Working Group, has suggested to the ILA Space Law Committee that it should engage in a review of the matter in coordination with the IISL.

118. Schwenk, W., ‘Die Bedeutung des Luftrechts für Weltraumtätigkeiten’Google Scholar, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 135–155. See also Diederiks-Verschoor, I.H. Ph., ‘Comparisons Between Air Law and Space Law Concerning Liability for Damages Caused by Aircraft and Space Objects’, ZLW (1979) p. 385 et seq.Google Scholar

119. Malanczuk, P., ‘Information and Communication, Freedom of’, Vol. II EPIL (1994) (forthcoming).Google Scholar

120. Smith, D., Space Stations: International Law and Policy (1979)Google Scholar; Desaussure, H., ‘The Impact of Manned Space Stations on the Law of Outer Space’, 21 San Diego LR (1984) pp. 985–1013Google Scholar; Böckstiegel, K.-H., ed., Space Stations – Legal Aspects of Scientific and Commercial Use in a Framework of Transnational Cooperation (1985)Google Scholar; Bourély, M., ‘Les Accords Relatifs à la Station Spatiale Internationale’, 36 AFDI (1990) pp. 925–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guyenne, D., ed., Colloque International les stations spatiales habitées: Actes du colloque sur les stations spatiales habitées: Aspects juridiques; Paris, 7–8 November 1989 (1990)Google Scholar; Diederiks-Verschoor, I.H.P., ‘Quelques observations sur la station spatiale “Mir”’, 36 AFDI (1990) pp. 912–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Farand, A., ‘La station spatiale et son régime juridique’, 15 Ann. Air & Space L (1990) pp. 309–331Google Scholar; Shin, H., ‘“Oh, I Have Slipped the Surly Bonds of Earth”: Multinational Space Stations and Choice of Law’, 78 Calif. LR (1990) pp. 1375–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Malpass, S.R., ‘Legal Aspects of the United States/International Space Station’, 14 Houston JIL (1991) pp. 183–212Google Scholar; Panella, L., ‘La Registrazione della stazione spaziale internazionale’, 46 Comunita Internz. (1991) pp. 196–215Google Scholar; J. Reifarth, ‘Die Weltraumstation’, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 537–556; Böckstiegel, K.-H., Vereshchetin, V. and Gorove, S., ‘Draft for a Convention on Manned Space Flight’, 40 ZLW (1991) pp. 3–8Google Scholar; H. Bittlinger, ‘Menschen im Weltraum’, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 205–244; Böckstiegel, K.-H., ed., Manned Space Flight (1993).Google Scholar

121. Goldman, N., Space Commerce (1984)Google Scholar; Böckstiegel, K.-H., Space Law: Changes and Expectations at the Turn to Commercial Space Activities (1986)Google Scholar; Henaku, K., ‘Private Enterprises in Space Related Activities: Questions of Responsibility and Liability’, 3 LJIL (1990) pp. 45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Qizhi, He, ‘Certain Legal Aspects of Commercialization of Space Activities’, 15 Ann. Air & Space L (1990) pp. 333–342Google Scholar; Böckstiegel, , ‘Die kommerzielle Nutzung des Weltraums’Google Scholar, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 277–306; Meredith, P.L. and Robinson, G.S., Space Law: A Case Study for the Practitioner. Implementing a Telecommunications Satellite Business Concept (1992)Google Scholar; Hobe, S., Die rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen der wirtschaftlichen Nutzung des Weltraums (1992)Google Scholar; Lai, B. C., ‘National Subsidies in the International Commercial Launch Market’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Greenberg, J.S., ‘Competitiveness of Commercial Space Transportation’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 220CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van Traa-Engelman, H.L., Commercial Utilization of Outer Space, Law and Practice, 2nd edn., 1993).Google Scholar

122. Eisenstein, L. J., ‘Choice of Law Regarding Private Activities in Outer Space: A Suggested Approach’, 16 Calif. Western ILJ (1986) pp. 282–311Google Scholar; Klucka, J., ‘The Role of Private International Law in the Regulation of Outer Space’, 39 ICLQ (1990) pp. 918–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

123. Kuskuvelis, I.I., ‘The Space Risk and Commercial Space Insurance’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 109CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ritorto, R. and Mitchell, M.S., ‘Telecommunications Satellite Insurance’, 18 Air & Space L (1993) pp. 136–140.Google Scholar

124. See Malanczuk, P., ‘Introduction and Conclusions by the Chairman’, Recent Developments in the Field of Protection and Distribution of Remote Sensing Data, Proceedings of the 3rd Dutch NPOC/ECSL Workshop, ESTEC, Noordwijk, the Netherlands, 15 April 1994Google Scholar (forthcoming); Kerever, A., ‘Satellite Broadcasting and Copyright’, 24 Copyright Bull. (1990) pp. 6–22Google Scholar; van Traa-Engelman, H., ‘The Commercial Exploitation of Outer Space: Issues of Intellectual Property Rights and Liability’, LJIL (1991) pp. 293–304Google Scholar; Knittlmayer, N., ‘Patentschutz bei Tätigkeiten im Weltraum’, 37 RIW/AWD (1991) pp. 823–828Google Scholar; Salin, P. A., ‘Proprietary Aspects of Commercial Remote-Sensing Imagery’, 13 Northwestern J Int. L & Bus. (1992) pp. 349–373Google Scholar; Ferrazzani, M. and Thiebaut, W., ‘The Legal Protection of Remote Sensing Satellite Data’, 76 ESA Bull (1993) p. 61Google Scholar; Mansell, R. and Paltridge, S., ‘The Earth Observation Market: Industrial Dynamics and their Impact on Data Policy’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 286CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harris, G., ‘Some Current International and National Earth Observation Data Policies’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 273CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harris, R. and Krawec, R., ‘Earth Observation Data Pricing Policy’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gibson, R., ‘Earth Observation Data Policy’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 272Google Scholar; ECSL, Intellectual Property Rights in Outer Space, Proceedings of a Workshop organised by the Spanish Centre for Space Law & ECSL (1993).

125. See Malanczuk, P., ‘Ten Years of European Telecommunications Law and Policy – A Review of the Past and of Recent Developments’, 1 Telecommunications and Space Journal, Annual Yearbook (1994) (forthcoming)Google Scholar; Gebhardt, H.-P., ‘Regulation of Satellite Communications in the EEC Member States’, 58 Telecomm. J (1991) pp. 223–231Google Scholar; Madders, K.J. and Thiebaut, W.M., ‘Two Europes in One Space: The Evolution of Relations Between the European Space Agency and the European Community in Space Affairs’, 20 J Space L (1992) pp. 117–132Google Scholar; Zanghi, C., ‘Cooperazione spaziale europea e normativa comunitaria’, 32 Riv. di Diritto Eur. (1992) pp. 527–541Google Scholar; Ducasse, E., L'Europe des télécommunications par satellite entre libéralisation et coopération. Etude rélaisée avecle concours de l'ECSL et sous la direction de Mme Courteix (1993)Google Scholar; Mosteshar, S., EC Regulation of Telecommunications, Telecommunications Systems and Services (1993).Google Scholar

126. See Malanczuk, P., ‘Satellite Communications and the GATT’, 9 Space Communications (1992) pp. 231–239Google Scholar; Brooks, T.A., ‘Regulating International Trade in Launch Services’, 6 High Tech LJ (1991) pp. 59–107.Google Scholar

127. See supra, n. 61. See further Böckstiegel, K.-H., ‘Environmental Aspects of Activities in Outer Space – State of the Law and Measures of Protection’, 63 ILA Rep. (1988) pp. 353–369Google Scholar; Rzymanek, J., ‘Protection of Outer Space Environment: Urgent Necessity and Challenge for International Law’, 17 Polish YIL (1988) pp. 157-73Google Scholar; Reijnen, G.C.M. and de Graaff, W., Pollution of Outer Space, in Particular of the Geostationary Orbit (1989)Google Scholar; Baker, H.A., Space Debris: Legal and Policy Implications (1989)Google Scholar; Böeckstiegel, K.-H., ed., Environmental Aspects of Activities in Outer Space: State of the Law and Measures of Protection (1990)Google Scholar; Courteix, S., “L'utilisation de l'espace á des fins de surveillance de l'environment: Aspects juridiques et institutionnels’, 15 Ann. Air & Space L (1990) pp. 275–308Google Scholar; Manson, H.C., ‘The Impact of International Outer Space Commerce on the Environment’, 26 Texas ILJ (1991) pp. 541–559Google Scholar; Frantzen, B., ‘Umweltbelastungen durch Weltraumaktivitäten’Google Scholar, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 597–636; Reibel, D.E., ‘Environmental Regulation of Space Activity: The Case of Orbital Debris’, 10 Stanford Env. LJ (1991) pp. 97–136Google Scholar; Meredith, P.L., ‘Legal Implementation of Orbital Debris Mitigation Measures: A Survey of Options and Approaches’, 6 American Univ. JIL & Policy (1991) pp. 203–216Google Scholar; Roberts, L.D., ‘Addressing the Problem of Orbital Space Debris: Combining International Regulatory and Liability Regimes’, 15 Boston College Int. & Comp. LR (1992) pp. 51–73Google Scholar; Ad hoc Expert Group IAA, ‘Orbital Debris Status and Possibilities for Control”, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

128. See the detailed response prepared by the Office for Outer Space Affairs in 1993, UN Doc. A/AC.105/547 and Add. 1

129. See Wolfrum, R., Die Internationalisierung staatsfreier Räume (1984).Google Scholar

130. Bin, Cheng, ‘Astronauts’, 11 EPIL (1989) p. 40Google Scholar. On analogies of outer space law with existing branches of international law see the critical remarks by Lachs, loc. cit. n. 1, at p. 19 et seq.

131. Errin, S., ‘Law in a Vacuum: The Common Heritage Doctrine in Outer Space Law’, 7 Boston College Int. & Comp. LR (1984) pp. 403–431Google Scholar; Wotter, D., ‘The Peaceful Purpose Standard of the Common Heritage of Mankind Principle in Outer Space Law’, 9 ASILS ILJ (1985) pp. 117–146Google Scholar; Zieck, M.Y. A., ‘The Concept of “Generations” of Human Rights and the Right to Benefit from the Common Heritage of Mankind with Reference to Extraterrestrial Realms’, 25 VRÜ (1992) pp. 161–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

132. See Wolfrum, R., ‘Common Heritage of Mankind’, 11 EPIL (1989) pp. 65–69Google Scholar with a bibliography. See further Cassese, A., International Law in a Divided World (1986) Ch. 14.Google Scholar

133. Art. 1.

134. On the negotiations, see Cassese, op. cit. n. 132, at pp. 387–391.

135. Wolfrum, loc. cit. n. 132, at p. 66.

136. Ibid., p. 67.

137. Ibid. The reference to ‘future generations’ reminds one of the discussion on the meaning of the concept of ‘inter-generational equity’ following the frequently cited definition of ‘sustainable development’ by the Brundtland Commission in 1987.

138. Ibid.

139. Ibid., p. 68. See also Bernhardt, R., ‘Einfluss der Seerechtskonvention’Google Scholar, op. cit. n. 93, pp. 214–215 who states that it may be considered as a guiding principle of international law which, however, exists next to other fundamental principles, such as sovereignty. According to Bernhardt, although such principles are part of the international legal system, specific obligations can only be drawn from them to a very limited extent.

140. For a differentiated view see Jennings, loc. cit. n. 4, p. 286 et seq.

141. But see Charney, J.I., ‘Universal International Law’, 87 AJIL (1993) pp. 529–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

142. Art. 53.

143. See Art. 66 of the Vienna Convention.

144. Art. 33.

145. Böckstiegel, op. cit. n. 15, p. 9, mentions Mandl, V., Das Weltraum-Recht. Ein Problem der Raumfahrt (1932)Google Scholar; Korovin, E., “La conquête de la stratosphère et le droit international’, RGDIP (1934)Google Scholar; and Heinrich Prinz, von Hannover, Luftrecht und Weltraum (1953).Google Scholar

146. See for example, McDougal, M., Lasswell, H. and Vlasic, I.A., Law and Public Order in Space (1963)Google Scholar; Haley, A., Space Law and Government (1963)Google Scholar; Fasan, E., Weltraumrecht (1965)Google Scholar; Jenks, C.W., Space Law (1965)Google Scholar; Sontag, P.-M., Der Weltraum in der Raumordnung des Völkerrechts (1966)Google Scholar; Lachs, M., The International Law of Outer Space (1966)Google Scholar; Zhukov, G.P., Weltraumrecht (1968)Google Scholar; Matte, N.M., Aerospace Law (1969)Google Scholar; Gál, G., Space Law (1969).Google Scholar

147. Lay, S.H. and Taubenfeld, H.J., The Law Relating to Activities of Man in Space (1970)Google Scholar; Piradov, A.S., Kosmos i Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (1970)Google Scholar; Cocca, A.A., Consolidacion del derecho espacial. Contibucion del pensamiento argentino a la codificacion del espacio (1971)Google Scholar; Lachs, M., The Law of Outer Space – An Experience in Contemporary Law-Making (1972)Google Scholar; Kish, J., The Law of International Spaces (1973)Google Scholar; Markoff, M.G., Traité de Droit International Public de l'Espace (1973)Google Scholar; Matte, N.M., Aerospace Law – From Scientific Exploration to Commercial Utilization (1977)Google Scholar; Gorove, S., Studies in Space Law: Its Challenges and Prospects (1977)Google Scholar; Vereshchetin, V.S., Mezhdunarodnoye Strudnichestvo v Kosmose, Pravovyye Voprosy (1977)Google Scholar; Jasentuliyana, N. and Lee, R.S.K., eds., Manual on Space Law, 2 vols. (1979).Google Scholar

148. Reijnen, G.C.M., Utilization of Outer Space and International Law (1981)Google Scholar; Gorbiel, A., Outer Space in International Law (1981)Google Scholar; Vazquez, M. Seara, Derecho y politica en espacio cósmico (1981)Google Scholar; Christol, C.Q., The Modern Law of Outer Space (1982)Google Scholar; Fawcett, J.E.S., Outer Space, New Challenges to Law and Policy (1984)Google Scholar; Wadeaonkar, D., The Orbit of Space Law (1984)Google Scholar; Matte, N.M., ed., Centre for Research of Air and Space Law, McGill University, Space Activities and Emerging International Law (1984)Google Scholar; Wadegaonkar, D., The Orbit of Space Law (1984)Google Scholar; Zhukov, G. and Kolosov, Y., International Space Law (1984)Google Scholar [translation from the Russian]; Benkö, G., De Graaff, W. and Reijnen, C.M., Space Law in the United Nations (1985)Google Scholar; Gorbiel, A., International Law of Outer Space (1985)Google Scholar [in Polish]; Piradon, A.S., ed., International Law of Outer Space, A Textbook (1985)Google Scholar [in Russian]; van Bogaert, E.R.C., Aspects of Space Law (1985)Google Scholar; Gorbiel, A., Law Governing Outer Space Activities: Its Concept, Terminology, Scope and Subjectivity (1986)Google Scholar; Vereshchetin, V., Vasilevskaya, E. and Kamenetskaya, E., Outer Space: Politics and Law (1987)Google Scholar [translation from the Russian]; Reynolds, G.H. and Merges, R.P., Outer Space: Problems of Law and Policy (1989).Google Scholar

149. Williams, S.M., Derecho international contemporäneo: La utilizaciön del espacio ultraterrestre (1990)Google Scholar; Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15; Wassenbergh, H. A., Principles of Outer Space Law in Hindsight (1991)Google Scholar; Martin, P.-M., Le droit de l'espace (1991)Google Scholar; Christol, C.Q., Space Law: Past, Present and Future (1991)Google Scholar; Gorove, S., Developments in Space Law: Issues and Policies (1991)Google Scholar; Jasentuliyana, N., Space Law: Development and Scope (1992)Google Scholar; Andem, M., International Legal Problems in the Peaceful Exploration and Use of Outer Space (1992)Google Scholar; Andem, M., International Legal Problems in the Peaceful Exploration and Use of Outer Space (1993)Google Scholar; Couston, M., Droit spatial économique, Régimes applicables à l'exploration de l'espace (1993)Google Scholar; Diederiks-Verschoor, I.H.P., An Introduction to Space Law (1993)Google Scholar; Peyrefitte, L., Droit de l'Espace (1993).Google Scholar

150. For example: Revue de droit aérien et spatial; Annuaire de droit maritime et aéro-spatial; Air and Space Law; Annals of Air and Space Law; Journal of Space Law; Space Policy; Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht; Telecommunications and Space Journal.

151. Li, K.L., World Wide Space Law Bibliography (1979), vol. I (1951-1976), vol. II (1977–86)Google Scholar; Magraw, D. and Ketter, T., ‘Law Relating to Outer Space: A Bibliography – Part I, 19 Int. Lawyer (1985) pp. 1391–1427Google Scholar; Magraw, D.B. and Ketler, T., ‘Law Relating to Outer Space: A Bibliography – Part II, 20 Int. Lawyer (1986) pp. 399–421Google Scholar; Li, L.K., World Wide Space Law Bibliography (1989)Google Scholar. The outstanding general bibliography Public International Law, A Current Bibliography of Books and Articles, published by the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg since 1975 in 2 annual volumes, lists relevant publications under 10. Air and Space.

152. Böckstiegel, K.-H., ‘The New Space Law Database of the Institute of Air and Space Law in Cologne’, 18 J Space L (1990) pp. 155–159Google Scholar. There is also the ECSL database in Paris.

153. Utrecht Studies in Air and Space Law; von Welck, S.F. and Platzöder, R., Weltraumrecht – Law of Outer Space (1987)Google Scholar; Böckstiegel, K.H. and Benkö, M., Space Law, Basic Legal Documents, Vol. I-II, now with Instalment 5 (1993)Google Scholar; Chronique des Activités spatiales. Aspects juridiques et politiques, Jan. 1991-Juin 1992, Centre d'études et de recherches sur le droit de l'espace (1993); Martin, P.M., Les textes du droit de l'espace (1993).Google Scholar

154. Such as in Cologne, Leyden and Montreal.

155. See for example, Shaw, M.N., International Law, 3rd edn. (1991) Ch. 9Google Scholar; Ipsen, K., ed., Völkerrecht, 3rd edn. (1990) Ch. 12 (H. Fischer).Google Scholar

156. Gorove, S., ed., The Teaching of Space Law around the World (1986)Google Scholar; ECSL, Space Law Teaching in Europe (1993); ECSL, ECSL Space Law and Policy Summer Course, Basic Materials (1993).

157. E. Vitt, ‘Die Weltraumkolonie’, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 579–596.

158. Project by Prof. Cocca, Argentina.

159. Gorove, loc. cit. n. 15, at p. 398.

160. J. Schwietzke, review of Beyerly's, E.Public International Law. A Guide to Information Sources (1991), 52 ZaöRV (1992) p. 1052.Google Scholar

161. 18 Pub. Int. L (1992) No. 2.

162. Art. III.

163. For references see Malanczuk, P., ‘Comments’, 21 Rev. Belge (1988) pp. 264–265.Google Scholar

164. On the concept of ‘countermeasures’, see Malanczuk, , ‘Countermeasures and Self-defence as Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness in the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility’, in Spinedi, M. and Simma, B., eds., United Nations Codification of State Responsibility (1987) pp. 197–286.Google Scholar

165. Böckstiegel, loc. cit. n. 3, p. 2 et seq.

166. Cocca, A. A., ‘The Advances in International Law Through the Law of Outer Space’, 9 J Space L (1981) p. 13 et seq.Google Scholar

167. Wassenbergh, H.A., Principles of Outer Space Law in Hindsight (1991) p. 10.Google Scholar

168. Lachs, M., ‘The Treaty on Principles of the Law of Outer Space, 1961–1992’, 39 NILR (1992) p. 290, at 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

169. Lachs, M., ‘Views from the Bench: Thoughts on Science, Technology and World Law’ 86 AJIL (1992) p. 695 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

170. See H.A. Wassenbergh, in Zwaan, ed., op. cit. n. 3, at p. 143 et seq; see also Böckstiegel, loc. cit. n. 3, at p. 2.

171. Zwaan, T.L., ‘The Influence of the Achievements and Failures of the Past on the Future of Outer Space Law’Google Scholar, in Zwaan, ed., op. cit. n. 3, at p. 33 et seq.; see also Böckstiegel, loc. cit. n. 3, at p. 2, agreeing.

172. Diederichs-Verschoor, op. cit. n. 85, at p. 133.

173. Dauses, M., Die Grenze zwischen Luft- und Weltraum als Gegenstände rechtlicher Regelung (1970)Google Scholar; Gorbiel, A., Legal Definition of Outer Space (1980)Google Scholar; E. Vitt, ‘Begriffsdefmitionen’, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 35–54; Martin, P.-M., ‘Les définitions absentes du droit de l'espace”, 46 RFDAS (1992) pp. 105–117Google Scholar. The issue is still on the UNCPUOS agenda.

174. Gorove, S., ed., The Space Shuttle and the Law (1980)Google Scholar; Bittlinger, H., Hoheitsgewalt und Kontrolle im Weltraum (1988)Google Scholar; Bin, Cheng, ‘Spacecraft, Satellites and Space Objects’, 11 EPIL (1989)Google Scholar; ‘Colloque: L'avion spatial et le droit’, 45 RFDAS (1991) pp. 427–587; M. Hintz, ‘Weltraumgegenstände’, in Böckstiegel, ed., op.cit. n. 15, pp. 157–204; Christol, C.Q., ‘The Aerospace Plane: Its Legal and Political Future’, 9 Space Policy (1993) p. 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

175. Böckstiegel, K.-H., ed., Product Liability in Air and Space Transportation –Proceedings of an International Colloquium in Cologne (1978)Google Scholar; B. Schmidt-Tedd, ‘Transportsysteme’, in Böckstiegel, ed., op. cit. n. 15, pp. 485–536; Nesgos, P.D., ‘Commercial Space Transportation: A New Industry Emerges’, 16 Ann. Air & Space L. (1991) pp. 393–422Google Scholar; Stockfish, B., ‘Space Transportation and the Need for a New International Legal and Institutional Regime’, 17 Ann. Air & Space L. (1992) pp. 323–368Google Scholar; Christol, C.Q., ‘The “Launching State” in International Space Law’, 12 Ann. franç, droit mar. et aérospatial (1993) p. 363.Google Scholar