Launching Space Objects: Issues of Liability and Future (Space Regulations Library Series) [1 ed.] 1402000618, 9781402000614, 9780306484056

Citation preview

LAUNCHING SPACE OBJECTS: ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

SPACE REGULATIONS LIBRARY VOLUME 1

EDITORIAL BOARD Managing Editor PROF. R. JAKHU, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, Montreal, Canada MEMBERS M. DAVIS, Ward & Partners, Adelaide, Australia S. LE GOUEFF, Le Goueff Law Office, Luxembourg P. NESGOS, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, New York, U.S.A. S. MOSTESHAR, Chambers of Sa’id Mosteshar, London, U.K. & Mosteshar Mackenzie, California, U.S.A. L. I. TENNEN, Law Offices of Sterns and Tennen, Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.

LAUNCHING SPACE OBJECTS: ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND FUTURE PROSPECTS by

VALÉRIE KAYSER

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS NEW YORK, BOSTON, DORDRECHT, LONDON, MOSCOW

eBook ISBN: Print ISBN:

0-306-48405-6 1-4020-0061-8

©2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow Print ©2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht All rights reserved

No part of this eBook may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without written consent from the Publisher

Created in the United States of America

Visit Kluwer Online at: and Kluwer's eBookstore at:

http://kluweronline.com http://ebooks.kluweronline.com

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Aims and Context 1.1 Overall Approach 1.2 Risk in Launching Space Objects, An Overview 1.2.1 What Type of Risk? 1.2.2 Risk Location 1.2.3 Communities Exposed 1.3 Approaches to Risk 1.3.1 The Engineer’s Approach 1.3.2 The Legal Counsil’s Approach 1.3.3 The Insurer’s Approach 1.4 Liability Risk Management: Looking to the Future Annex 1. Summary of Main Types of Space Insurance

1 2 3 4 7 7 8 9 11 12 14 17

PART I: THE LABRYNTH OF DAEDALUS Chapter 2: The International Legal Framework 2.1 Space Treaties and Resolutions 2.1.1 Main Principles of Space Law: the context Principle of freedom of exploration and use (i) Principle of non-appropriation (ii) (iii) Principle of applicability of international law Restriction on military activities (iv) Responsibility and liability (v) (vi) Common interest and common heritage principles (vii) International cooperation 2.1.2 Responsibility and Liability in Space Law (i) Entities subject to responsibility/liability States International organizations Non-governmental entities (ii) The compensable damage (iii) Type of liability (iv) Potential claimants (v) Procedure for claiming compensation 2.2 Examples of International Practice 2.2.1 Definition of Objects and Link to a State or Organization 2.2.2 Reference to the Liability Convention 2.2.3 Liability Between the Parties Annex 1. Summary Tables on the Space Treaties v

23 24 25 25 26 28 29 29 29 30 31 33 33 37 40 44 50 51 53 58 59 60 62 67

vi

Chapter 3: Domestic Launch Legislation and Regulations Legal Framework for Launch Services in the United States 3.1 3.1.1 Evolution Towards the Development of a Concise Regulatory Framework (i) Authority of US Government Agencies (ii) Practical consequences of the multitude of Agencies 3.1.2 Initial Steps Towards Improvement of the Regulatory Framework for Launches 3.1.3 The First Regulatory Steps Put to the Test 3.1.4 The Consolidation Phase: the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA) and the Associated Regulatory Framework (i) The Commercial Space Launch Act (ii) When is a license required? (iii) The licensing procedure 3.1.5 Liability and Insurance Issues (i) Liability and insurance under the CSLA (ii) The situation of private launch operators (iii) The CLSA Amendments (iv) Final Rule Concerning Financial Responsibility Requirements for Licensed Launch Activities (v) Final Rule Effective 21 June 1999 for Codification of 14 CFR 3.2 European Legal Framework: The Ariane Launch Services 3.2.1 French Approach to Space Legislation 3.2.2 Overall Legal Framework for the Ariane Launch Services (i) The initial phases of the program (ii) The commercialization phase 3.2.3 Institutional Aspects of the Legal Control Exercised Over Arianespace Control via shareholding in the capital of (i) Arianespace (ii) The role of ESA 3.2.4 Liability for Ariane Activities (i) Liabilities related to property of ESA and the participants (ii) Third party liability (iii) Contractual allocations

77 77 79 79 84 86 89 90 91 96 98 114 114 118 122 129 132 134 134 135 136 137 138 138 139 140 141 142 143

vii

Chapter 4: General Rules of Common Law and Civil Law Susceptible of Governing Liability for Launch Services 4.1 Common Law: General US Law Applicable to Liability for Launch Activities 4.1.1 Contract Liability (i) Liability for breach of contract (ii) Warranties (iii) Rules of contract interpretation 4.1.2 Tort Liability Negligence (i) Strict liability (ii) 4.1.3 Classical Means of Defense Defenses related to behavior or (i) characteristics of the victim (ii) Defenses related to limitation of the scope of the liability (iii) Defenses related to time 4.1.4 Cumulation of Contract and Tort Claims 4.1.5 Vicarious Liability 4.1.6 Recoverable Damages Recoverable damages in general (i) Punitive damages (ii) (iii) Liquidated damages, penalty clauses 4.1.7 Force Majeure 4.1.8 Judicial Procedure Aspects 4.1.9 A brief overview of US case law related to space activities Berg v. Reaction Motors Division (i) Smith v. Lockheed Propulsion (ii) (iii) Pigott v. Boeing (iv) Smith v. USA and Smith v. Morton Thiokol Lexington Insurance v. McDonnell Douglas (v) Appalachian Insurance v. (vi) McDonnell Douglas (vii) Martin Marietta v. Intelsat (viii) Hughes Communication Galaxy v. USA (ix) American Satellite Co. v. USA Lloyds of London v. McDonnell Douglas (x) 4.2 Civil Law: The Example of French Law 4.2.1 Contract Liability (i) Liability for breach of contract (ii) Warranty (iii) Rules of contracts interpretation

149

150 151 151 152 153 155 156 161 168 168 171 175 176 177 178 178 180 181 182 182

185 186 187 187 187 187 188 189 192 193 193 194 195 196 202 204

viii 4.2.2

4.2

Tort Liability (i) Provisions of the Civil Code: liability for fault and strict liability (ii) Product liability 4.2.3 Classical Means of Defense (i) Defenses related to the behavior of the victim (ii) Defenses related to the limitation of the scope of liability (iii) Defenses related to time Defenses available under the new product (iv) liability law 4.2.4 Cumulation of Contracts and Torts Claims 4.2.5 Vicarious Liability Specific types of liability for others (i) Towards a general principle of liability (ii) for others established by jurisprudence 4.2.6 Recoverable Damages (i) Recoverable damages in general (ii) Punitive damages (iii) Liquidated damages, penalty clauses 4.2.7 Force Majeure (i) Source in contracts and in torts Criteria to be met by force majeure events (ii) (iii) Effects of the force majeure (iv) Force majeure clauses 4.2.8 Judicial Procedure Issues Practice in Spacecraft Development Contracts: The European Space Agency 4.3.1 Applicable Law 4.3.2 Performance by Contractors and Control of Performance 4.3.3 Liability Provisions in the Contract (i) Liability of the Contractor concerning equipment, supplies and technical documents made available by the Agency (ii) Liability of the Contractor for damage caused to persons, goods or property (iii) Liability of the Contractor for infringments of the law and third-party rights (iv) Liability of the Contractor for performance of his subcontractors Res perit domo (v)

206 206 214 217 217 220 225 227 228 230 230 233 234 234 236 236 237 237 238 239 240 240 244 244 245 246 246 246 247 247 248

ix

4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7 4.3.8 4.3.9

Limitation of Liability 248 Penalty Clauses 248 Warranty and Product Liability 249 International Space Station Provisions 252 Liability of the Contractor in case of serious Breach of Contract 253 Settlements of Disputes 253 PART II.- ESCAPING THE LABYRINTH

Chapter 5: Issues in Liability Risk Management and Proposals De Lege Ferenda 5.1 An appraisal of the Legal Situation 5.1.1 A multitude of points of contact and an unadapted international legal environment 5.1.2 The Development of a Lex Mercatoria in the field of Launch Services 5.2 Methodology for our Further Discussions Harmonizing the Practice of Inter-Participant 5.3 Waivers of Liability 5.3.1 The Limitations of Inter-Participants Waivers of Liability Their validity is controversial in (i) certain legal systems (ii) Their validity may be contested in the absence of express acceptance (iii) They cannot exclude wilful misconduct and gross negligence (iv) They cannot exclude claims from individuals for bodily injury They do not always deal clearly and (v) consistently with consequential damages (vi) They are assessed in relation to the balance of the contract (vii) Their interpretation is strict (viii) Third-party liability allocations (ix) The relationship between inter-participant waivers of liability and product liability (x) Flow down requirements

257 258 258 260 261 262 265 265 266 267 268 268 268 269 269 270 273

x

5.4

5.3.2 Moving Forward with Inter-participant 278 Waivers of Liability Harmonization of inter-participant (i) 278 waivers of liability (ii) Clarification of the essential obligations of the launch provider and launch customers 280 (iii) The validation of the inter-party waivers 281 in the public order of States 283 The International Law Framework 5.4.1 The Outer Space Treaty and 284 the Liability Convention 285 (i) The current political atmosphere 287 Should we patch or should we review? (ii) (iii) The need for addressing liability issues 288 related to the launch of space objects 292 5.4.2 Issues and Proposals 292 The launching state: definition (i) 297 (ii) Liability of the launching State 297 (iii) Appropriate State (iv) Establishing the liability of the operator and legal channeling with respect to claims 298 by third-parties 300 (v) Licensing requirements 300 Actions in recourse between States (vi) 301 5.4.3 The Registration Convention Shortcomings of the Registration (i) 301 Convention (ii) Proposals for an efficient registration system to improve the security of determination of 302 the launching State 304 5.4.4 Conclusions on International Law Proposals

Chapter 6: Some Concrete Proposals -Harmonization of Inter-Participant Waivers of Liability 6.1 Inter-Participants Liability Covenants in States with Licensing Requirements (US Model) -Inter-Participants Liability Covenants for States without Licensing Requirements Implementation Arrangements for the Space Treaties 6.2 Proposed Protocol

307 307 309 325 335 336

CONCLUSIONS

347

BIBLIOGRAPHY

351

CHAPTER 1.- AIMS AND CONTEXT

The commercial launch business is fairly young and its opening to private companies is recent. It all started in the early 1980's when a few private operators found their way onto the launch market through their spirit of free-enterprise in the United States, or through the determination of a group of nations to achieve space autonomy in Europe. The trend has developed since then, with more operators, in particular from Russia and China, entering the launch market and the development ofnew launch facilities around the world. The result is that nowadays a number of private (or non-governmental) launch providers offer their services to those wishing to explore or exploit outer space.(1) This new market has brought with it the need for assessing and managing the legal environment of launching activities undertaken by non-governmental operators. The legal framework for launching activities is at the crossroads between a substantial body of public international space law developed since the 1960's, domestic laws applicable in general to the activities of any person or company in a given country, and, since the mid1980's domestic regulations specific to the launch business. Legal counsels advising launch providers, their customers and their respective insurers have been faced with an interesting challenge, which they perceived early as being significant for their community. P.D. Nesgos was thus concluding one of his articles, in 1989: “[...] the challenges facing the private practitioner regarding insurance and liability concerns in commercial space transportation are numerous. A practitioner must be attuned to the needs of an innovative commercial industry, involved in a high risk activity. Moreover, familiarity with a wide spectrum of relevant law - from international law to torts and contracts to regulatory law - is essential. Whether the practitioner represents the interests of the launch services provider, the launch customer, sub-contractors, insurers, or brokers, the fundamental concern is how to allocate and manage the many risks and obligations which arise from commercial launch activities. The solution is a complex risk management structure composed of contractually allocated responsibilities, insurance contracts and government indemnification. The proper implementation of this structure will help assure the future of safe and responsible

(1)

Information on launch companies, launcher manufacturers and satellite manufacturers can be found in : ESA Launcher Catalogue, ESA Publications, Looseleaf updated regularly D. Baker Ed, Jane’s Space Directory, 15th Edition (Coulsdon: Jane’s Information Group Limited, 1999) Jane’s online: (accessed 01/2001) D. Shirvanian Ed, European Space Directory, 14th Edition (Paris: Sevig Press, 1999). Andrews Space & Technology database on launchers online at: (accessed: 01/2001)

1

2 commercial launch transportation”.(2)

1.1.- OVERALL APPROACH The space business, in particular launch and its related activities, operates in a labyrinth of actors and norms, which makes the management of liability risk and exposure daunting and challenging. As an academic as well as a practitioner, we took up the challenge and attempted to bring a contribution to the field, both in academic and practical terms, in two main domains:

The analytical overview of today’s legal environment: The specialized literature has already discussed aspects of liability for space activities and for launches in particular, general and specific treaties, national regulations on launch licensing, litigation of liability cases in the space business, contractual and international practice. However, the overall picture of this global environment of legal norms and practices is not readily available, and the interested reader must find his way through a mass of scattered information, which is nowhere gathered in a synthesized form. Also, linkage between international and domestic norms and practices applicable to the space business, in connection to general domestic laws concerning liability, is a subject which has been only partially studied. We have tried to organize this information and relate its different facets to provide the reader with an overall view of the norms at play in this field of activity. Our aim is not to provide all the detail on each of these, but rather to develop them to the extent necessary for the reader to grasp their importance, their interactions, and their relative weight in an assessment of the liability risk attached to a particular situation. We have endeavored to provide references for further reading on the topics addressed, many of the references online, as Web-based information is nowadays an essential tool for the legal counsel.

The development of proposals to prepare for tomorrow’s challenges: The environment in which private launch providers operate today is highly complex. Readers familiar with international business or international relations, may wonder what makes this environment different from the one in which businessmen and legal counsels across the world find themselves daily. We believe that the space business is in a unique situation where the complexities encountered in classical international legal relationships are increased due to 1) the highly transnational nature of the space business in terms of actors (many firms are involved from many countries in one single endeavor) and effects (launch providers, customers, contractors and potential victims will often be of different nationalities), 2) the sheer number of interfaces involved in all respects (technical, managerial, legal, contractual or corporate), 3) the concentration of exposure and risk in a single launcher/payload package, and 4) by the magnitude of the damage which can be caused by this package in a short time frame.

(2)

P.D. Nesgos, “The Challenges Facing The Private Practitioner: Liability and Insurance Issues in Commercial Space Transportation” (1989) 4 Journal of Law and Technology, 21.

3 Our first aim is to highlight the complexities created by today’s environment, and point out the main areas where such complexities prevent a reliable liability risk management due to the lack of predictability as to the norms eventually applicable. This lack of predictability is primarily caused, in our view, by two main factors: the superposition of a variety of legal norms, which leave gaps in between the layers they constitute and contain ambiguous concepts, and the absence of organized and coherent practices, in particular in the area of contractual allocations of risks between launch participants. This is not helped by the quasi absence of litigation in the field, a positive sign, though it has the consequence that resolution of disputes is often arbitrary and that there is no unification in the interpretation of norms and the solution of similar issues. In view of these complexities, our second aim is to make a contribution to this field by suggesting ways to improve liability risk management and to make the overall legal environment more consistent. We have looked into possible improvements in two domains: the contractual relationships between participants in launch activities, and in public international space law, both of which require, at some stage, intervention of domestic legislation and regulations. Our suggestions are directed to the implementation of harmonized approaches in the contractual relationships between participants in launch activities, and a more practical acknowledgment by international space law of the role of non-governmental entities in the launch business, as an essential part of building a more efficient and predictable legal environment. None of the suggestions are easy to achieve, but we proposed a methodology for addressing them in an adequate forum. Our voyage through today’s legal environment, and tomorrow’s prospects, is meant to inform and aid in developing an awareness of issues regarding liability risk management approaches, provoke the thought process into challenging the reliability of one’s own liability risk management approaches, and convince that concerted effort must be applied to the development of common tools to achieve a better legal environment for launch and related activities. This book is an attempt to start and stimulate this process.

1.2.- RISK IN LAUNCHING SPACE OBJECTS: AN OVERVIEW Prior to moving into our main developments, this introduction will set the frame and describe the types of risks involved in the launch of space objects, the approaches which can be implemented to control risk, and the role of the legal counsel in this environment as well as his specific challenges. For most activities, half a century of practice normally leads to a decreased level of risk in their performance, as compared with their beginnings. However, this is not the case for space activities in general and for launch activities in particular. After years of experience, lift-off remains a stressful moment for the launch team, the customer, the insurers and, sometimes, the public at large. Launching objects into space is a frequent event nowadays, and rarely makes the prime-time news, yet it remains a risky event and this risk is of concern to the legal profession involved in launch activities, from its position of advising either the launch provider, his customers, the insurers and manufacturers. Launching activities should not be considered in isolation. Many activities contributing

4 to a launch, cannot be separated from it in the assessment of risk and its legal ramifications. The root of a particular risk is often found prior to the launch itself, in particular in the design, development and manufacturing of the objects concerned, such as the launcher, the satellite or payload, the adaptor equipment between the launcher and the payload, the equipment used for integration of the payload into the launcher, the launch facilities, ground control equipment and any other equipment taking part in one way or another in the launch activities. These risks weigh considerably on the nature and wording of the contracts entered into for the procurement or purchase of those products and services. Space activities are a technological domain, where the products involved are complex. The practicing legal counsel must develop awareness ofthe technical and operational activities and environments, and thereby the technical risk, which he will need to apprehend in his legal management and in the establishment ofthe legal documentation needed in support of the activities concerned.(3) Therefore, it is important, as a background, to briefly review the types of risks, their location, and those exposed.

1.2.1.- What Type of Risk? We will focus here on the technical risks associated to launch and launch-related activities.(4) Risk can manifest itself in different ways and at different stages of launchrelated activities: transportation of the payload or the launcher around the launch facilities, integration of the payload onto the launcher, transportation of the payload-launcher package to the launch pad, on the launch pad, during launch itself, injection on the transfer orbit, transfer to the target orbit, or in orbit during the life ofthe satellite. The risk can also take various forms: damage to the satellite or the launcher prior to launch, damage to or (3)

On the relationship between technology and law in space law, see: L. Perek, “The Scientific and Technological Basis of Space Law” in N. Jasentuliyana ed., Space Law, Development and Scope (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1992), at 175. We believe that legal counsels practicing in connection with space ventures can find significant advantage in actively developing their understanding for the technical aspects of the activities they participate in, for instance through attendance of seminars aiming at presenting space engineering to non-engineers. From his ability to develop awareness to these issues, will depend the professionalism and effectiveness of the legal counsel on the operational field in the area of space activities. For an overall technical presentation, see: P. Fortescue & J. Stark, Spacecraft Systems Engineering (Chichester: Wiley, 1995).

(4)

There are other risks which have to be taken into account by the operators of launch services and owners of satellites, often referred to as the political risks and the market risks. These are not specifically dealt with here. For further developments see P.L. Meredith & G.S. Robinson, Space Law: A Case Study for the Practitioner, Implementing a Telecommunications Satellite Business Concept (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1992), at 250. Also, even though this will not be addressed in the present thesis, the practitioners will often be confronted with general legal risks such as customs and export controls, intellectual property rights infringements, etc. Some of these are addressed in the above referred book. See also, R. Bender, Launching and Operating Satellites, Legal Issues (The Hague: Kluwer, 1998) On export controls in particular, see H. Peter van Fenema, The International Trade in Launch Services, The Effect of US Laws, Policies and Practices on its Development (Leiden: H.Peter van Fenema, 1999) P.L. Meredith & S.P. Fleming, “US Space Technology Exports: The Current Political Climate” (1999) 27:1 Journal of Space Law, 35.

5 destruction of the satellite at launch or during orbit transfer, or reduction of the life of the satellite either because of one of the previous mentioned causes or because of its injection on an improper orbit leading, for example, to the need for orbit correction by use of the satellites motors, which will then prematurely use propellants normally needed for orbit correction during the lifetime of the satellite. The failure of the launcher upper stage, and the resulting failure to inject the satellite on the proper orbit, seems to be statistically one of the highest cases of failure. There are risks connected to the satellite itself which may also malfunction, leading to complete loss or reduction of life. Failed launch or malfunction of the payload may also cause damage to other satellites through interference, or worse, collision. There is a risk to persons and property in the vicinity of the launch operations, whether they are taking part into the launch operations, or are third parties and to the environment from the toxic products used as propellants, or if the payload carries dangerous products such as nuclear power sources. Another significant risk at all stages on orbit is space debris, which can cause significant damage to or total destruction of the launcher-payload package before separation or to the payload itself thereafter. And, of course, one has to bear in mind the risks related to the design, manufacturing and testing of payloads and launchers. The origins of technical risks are numerous and could be categorized under the following main headlines:

Complexity: Spacecraft are complex technological systems(5) and some functions on board are redundant to minimize the consequences of failures. This complexity generates a degree of risk. An interesting comparison has been made of the degree of complexity of different objects by comparing the order of magnitude of parts items constituting these objects. The following table summarizes this comparison(6): Item

Sewing machine

Order of magnitude of Number of parts

10

2

Television

Car

Jet airplane

Satellite

Launcher

103

104

105

105

106

The complexity of the launcher must be combined with the complexity of the satellite (payload) and of the associated ground infrastructure.

Technology: Although certain satellites and launchers are now built in series, they are nevertheless high technology products. They will always carry the risk associated with the use of such (5)

An idea of such complexity can be given by consulting the International Space Station Familiarization Manual which contains the technical description of the elements making up the International Space Station. Online: (accessed: 01/2001) For the European Laboratory on the International Space Station, see A. Thirkettle & J. Gülpen, Columbus: Europe’s Laboratory on the International Space Station (Noordwijk: ESA Publications, 1999), Publication Reference BR-144 One can also consult the Ariane 4 User Manual and the Ariane 5 Technical Information Booklet online: (accessed: 01/2001).

(6)

H. Yoshida, “Accidents of Space Activities and Insurance” (1993) 36 Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space [hereinafter, Colloquium], 221.

6 technology and the risk due to the absence of large scale statistics data which would allow for accurately predicting the behavior of certain equipment (for example, electronic components, elaborate metal alloys, or new software developments). There are new types of launchers or of satellites,(7) but even in proven launchers or satellite platforms, improvements and upgrades are regularly made which raise the technological complexity and add risk, in particular for maiden launches.

Environment: The launch environment is hostile. Sending a payload from Earth still requires that it must be perched on top of a powerful firework-type vehicle, which burns tons of propellant per second, generating tremendous forces and vibrations. The space environment is also very hostile and unusual: for example gravity and atmosphere are absent, radiation hits spacecraft and upset on-board computers, temperatures change from extremely hot to extremely cold, micro meteoroids hit the spacecraft, etc.

Human failure: Like in any activity, human failure plays a role at all stages of the process leading to the launch. Besides the classical mistakes, there are also failures due to the complexity of the system, design and technology involved, and the consequences of the psychological pressure which builds up in preparation for and during a launch campaign, where time is of the essence.(8)

The industrial risk: Defects in design, manufacture, testing, handling, can also happen, despite the strict monitoring procedures being implemented in space industry and space projects at all stages of the development, manufacturing and testing of the launchers and payloads.

These risks are more or less directly related to the problems often occurring during the launch itself. It appears that in the total number of anomalies affecting satellites, only about 5% are caused by the launcher, and the rest are related to the satellite itself(9). However, the risk associated to the launcher is potentially of higher magnitude than this figure leads to conclude, because of the virtually catastrophic consequences in extreme cases such as the explosion of the launcher on the pad or at lift off, possibly made worse by the presence of nuclear material on board. Besides these risks, which one could refer to as the direct risks, one must consider the consequential risks linked to failures, such as the financial risks resulting from loss of the (7)

Scientific satellites are not produced in series like telecommunications satellites and, although there is a practice to build at least two of each such satellite to take into account the possibility that the first one is destroyed at launch, this practice cannot be implemented in certain cases due to funding constraints.

(8)

The reader may get a feeling for such pressures by reading the Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger accident, in particular Chapter V - The Contributing Cause of the Accident, Chapter VII - The Silent Safety Programme and Chapter VIII - Pressures on the System. Report to the President by the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, June 6th, 1986, Washington D.C.

(9)

See H. Yoshida, “Accidents of Space Activities and Insurance”, supra note 6, at 4.

7 payload and associated revenues, or resulting from the need for re-design and remanufacturing, delays suffered in subsequent launches, loss of confidence in the launch provider. The ripple effects can be considerable as a given launch may involve multiple payloads and the transponders of some of these payloads may have been leased. All of these risks have legal ramifications, in particular the exposure to liability for damage.

1.2.2.- Risk Location Different geographical locations are affected by the manifestation of the risks we have addressed above. A large part of the risk is concentrated on ground: during the development, manufacturing and testing, transportation, integration of the launcher and then of the payload into the launcher, and at launch. The latter is the time when the highest concentration of risk exists since events may lead, in extreme cases, to the destruction of the launcher and its payload as well as the property of the industrial contractors or the launch facilities, or the property of third-parties. And it is on ground that the risk of injury to persons, either participants in the launch or third-parties, is the highest. Airspace and outer space are also locations where risk is a concern: until injection on orbit, on orbit, and upon the return of space objects. The return of space objects creates a risk on ground and at sea and, in this case, it may not be possible to predict the precise location where the space object will impact Earth. Launching and its related activities are probably the most far reaching activities in terms of geographical impact. All locations are susceptible of being at risk due to these activities, and it is not always possible to completely predict and geographically delimitate the radius within which their effects can materialize. Development and manufacturing activities are more predictable from this point of view.

1.2.3.- Communities Exposed From the above developments, one can conclude that a group of virtually unlimited number and its associated property is exposed. This group is composed of natural persons, States, governmental organizations, private companies, and space agencies. However, the probability of exposure is mostly concentrated on those directly involved in the concerned space activity, and in particular those involved in the launch process. The next most exposed category, especially in terms of legal risk, are the developers and manufacturers of launchers and space objects. Entities exposed to risk are usually classified into the following summarized categories: - first party: the launch provider and his personnel, and the payload owner (customer) and his personnel. - second party: those who, while not included in the first party, are involved in the space activity. This category covers launch facility operators and associated personnel, as well as contractors of those first party.

8 - third party: these are the persons or entities not involved or connected at all to the space activities and launch operations. Although we are not dealing in detail with manned spaceflight here, one should not overlook the crews of manned spacecraft, who are on the front line of risk at launch, during flight and at landing. Data are reproduced here, showing the risk of space flight related fatalities in comparison to other activities:(10) Activity Person struck by lightning

Risk of fatal accident

per day

Industrial worker

per shift

Mine worker

per shift

Car driver or passenger

per trip

Scheduled airline passenger Military pilot Space crew Mountain climber Himalayas above 23000 ft

per flight per flight per mission per expedition

The safety of the flight crew is a complex matter, consideration of which ranges from the design and preparation of the spacecraft to the emergency escape systems both on the pad and in flight on board space stations.(11)

1.3.- APPROACHES TO RISK Whatever the risks are, and however complex their combination is, there are three main types of approaches for their management: - the engineer’s approach: reduce the possibility of the risk and mitigate the consequences of a materialized risk; - the legal counsel’s approach: assess and manage the legal risk associated to technical risks by evaluating the law applicable, providing for the legal framework for risk mitigation approaches, and allocating legal risk among the different participants to a given activity; the involvement ofthe legal counsel from the early stages of a project is essential; - the insurer’s approach: insure the portion of risk allocated to each concerned party, as far as it is insurable and insurance is available, based on the confidence (10)

J.H. Carver, “Factual Issues”, in K.H. Böckstiegel ed, Manned Space Flight, Legal Aspects in the Light of Scientific and Technical Development (Köln: C. Heymanns Verlag, 1993), 149, at 151.

(11)

See N. Jasentuliyana, “Legal Aspects of Human Safety and Rescue in Space”, in K.H.Böckstiegel Ed, Manned Space Flight, supra note 10, at 165.

9

of a sound technical and legal risk management of the insured.

1.3.1.- The Engineer’s Approach Launch vehicle and payload manufacturers’ primary interest is to technically reduce risks or to technically manage risks to ensure full success of the intended mission, even in cases where malfunction would occur in the launch vehicle or the payload. This requires stringent attention and discipline in the design and development phases of the spacecraft. Space agencies like the European Space Agency prescribe strict standards to their contractors in this respect(12), which are applicable to all activities from the start of the design until final acceptance and launch preparation, as well as for operations. These standards aim at obtaining the highest quality in all areas of work, and the structured control and decision-making with respect to choices made and exceptions agreed. These general standards are complemented by specific requirements prescribed for the conduct of each specific project (for example, management requirements, review requirements, verification requirements, product assurance and safety requirements). We can illustrate this with a few examples: A number of functions in a spacecraft have to be redundant, in particular when they are critical for the safe or reliable operation of the spacecraft. Exceptions to such redundancies are subject to numerous analyses to assess the risk taken by the deletion of a redundancy. Software has to be written according to very strict standards. Space software is not more complicated than in other types of applications but the complexity arises from the limitations on the computers placed on board spacecraft, and the types of functions of the software in particular those to be performed in real time. Electronic components used have to be resistant to radiations, to avoid the risk of malfunctions due to radiation hits and components of a lesser quality may be used under strict conditions(13) Only specific materials can be used, from a list of approved materials and deviating from this list requires demonstrating that the proposed material complies with a number of (12)

The ESA standards (PSS standards) can be found online < ESA, ESTEC: http://www/wsmwww /components/pss_overview.html> (accessed: 01/2001). The standards cover disciplines such as Product Assurance and Safety, Electrical Power and Electromagnetic Compatibility, Mechanical Engineering and Human Factors, Space Data Communications, Software Engineering, Management and Project Control, Operations and EGSE, Natural and Induced Environment, Control Systems, Ground Communications and Computer Networking. Each of these is in turn subdivided in lower level standards at an increasing level of detail. These standards are progressively replaced by the ECSS Standards, which are part of an effort of harmonization in Europe for standards in use in the space industry. They are elaborated by a group gathering industry and space agencies, in coordination with standardization organizations. The ECSS main levels of documentation are: Standardization policy document (ECSS-P-00) and Glossary of terms (ECSS-P-001), under which are the three main ECSS branches i.e: Space Project Management, Space Product Assurance, Space Engineering. More information on these standards can be found online at (accessed: 01/2001).

(13)

Space agencies operate systems for the specification, qualification and procurement of electronic, electrical and electro mechanical components (EEE Parts) for use in space projects. On the ESA system, see online (accessed: 01/2001). On the NASA system, see online (accessed: 01/2001).

10 criteria, for example in the area of flammability and production of toxic substances or gases. Manned spaceflight also requires the strict implementation of human factor standards which aim at making space equipment safe for use by astronauts by ensuring, for instance, that they do not contain any sharp edges or operations modes which could lead to injuries of the crew. Compliance with these standards, the quality of the work, and the safety of the design are controlled through a system of reviews and formal controls occurring at the various stages of the design, development and construction of the spacecraft. The major events in the manufacturing and testing of the spacecraft are also strictly controlled by a system of inspection points. A series of tests are prescribed to demonstrate that the spacecraft can tolerate the launch and space environments and meets all the prescribed requirements. The manufacturing processes are also prescribed and controlled and the staff performing them must, in certain cases, be trained and certified to perform specific operations, for example soldering particular alloys, welding, components coating and gluing, glasshandling. Certain manufacturing or integration operations have to be performed in stringent conditions of cleanliness. The standards of quality in the space industry are very high and are controlled by product and quality assurance audits conducted by the product and quality assurance authorities of the customer, and at all levels of the contractual chain.(14) Product and quality assurance authorities usually are granted an independent status in their organization, which helps to ensure the implementation of an adequate level of product, quality and safety assurance independent of the constraints of a specific project. The testing of a spacecraft is strictly controlled and test facilities are monitored to comply with stringent parameters. Rigorous procedures are applied during the performance of a test to avoid damage or accidents, and security measures are taken by the security services of the facilities concerned. As far as launching is concerned, detailed procedures are set by the launch authority for all activities taking place on the launch site. The order in which each operation occurs is strictly prescribed, as well as the conditions in which each phase can be initiated and performed. The launch itself is precisely regulated:(15) for example, the wind conditions are monitored prior to a launch and the launch may be postponed if the wind blows in the direction of populated areas (in case of accident, toxic products would be carried by the wind), all parameters of the launcher and launch complex are permanently monitored and, should any of these parameters exceed the margins prescribed, the countdown may be suspended. The type of standards described above are rather universal in spirit, although details may vary from one organization to another. This technical part is only meant as a background (14)

For additional information these aspects: M. Spada, “Quality Control in Production of Space Objects and Liability in Outer Space Law”, in G. Lafferranderie & D. Crowther Eds, Outlook on Space Law Over the next 30 Years, (The Hague, Kluwer, 1997), 191.

(15)

For an example of a strict launch preparation monitoring, with the example of the Cassini-Huygens mission, see M.V. Frank, “The Decision to Launch: A Nuclear Risk Assessment of the Cassini Mission”, Proceedings of the Workshop on Risk Management, European Space Agency, ESTEC, 30 March - 2 April 1998, ESA Publications WPP-134, 243.

11 for the reader in view of the legal discussions in the following chapters, but the lack of international harmonization as regards standards should be noted. Lack of technical harmonization causes difficulties, and even disasters such as the loss of a recent mission due to miscalculations of orbit corrections caused by the fact that the two cooperating teams were working in different measurement units!(16) Many efforts have been made to achieve harmonisation in technical areas but much work still remains to be done.

1.3.2.- The Legal Counsel’s Approach Once the technical risks are identified, it is the task of the legal counsel to define the areas of risk from a legal standpoint. The final objective is that each participant in the activities concerned achieves a position to predict, calculate and mitigate its legal exposure. One of the fields where such work is most important is that of liability for damage caused by the activities concerned. The legal approach to liability in the domain of space activities has taken different forms. Initially, the rules governing such liability were developed within the frame of public international law. The main actors of space activities at the time were States and governmental space agencies or international organizations. This is why the first body of rules elaborated in this field (the early United Nations resolutions on principles governing outer space activities, the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention) was drawn up under the auspices of the United Nations, and was that dealing with State responsibility for damages caused by space activities of States, and their non-governmental entities, and compensation for such damages. As cooperation increased between space faring nations, another regime of allocation of risk and responsibility was elaborated through a network of inter-participant waivers of liability clauses(17) applied in cooperation agreements, and in commercial agreements entered into by state entities providing launch services. These risk allocation clauses became common practice and were taken over by industry when the private launch market developed. They are often complemented by hold-harmless clauses.(18) There is a large variety in these clauses for the allocation of liability through contractual schemes involving cross-waivers, hold-harmless, but also sometimes through the definition of the (16)

“Mars Climate Orbiter Team Finds Likely Cause of Loss”, Press Release 99-113 NASA JPL, Online a: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (accessed: 01/2001).

(17)

These clauses operate an allocation of risk and liability among the participants to a launch through a reciprocal waiver of liability and claims entered into by such participants (the launch provider, the launch customer, and their respective contractors and insurers). They are referred to as interparticipant waivers of liability because they aim at operating risk allocation not only between the launch provider and the customer but, to the maximum extent possible, to all participants in the launch activities. We will return to these clauses on various occasions in the course of this book.

(18)

A hold harmless agreement is defined as “a contractual arrangement whereby one party assumes the liability inherent to a situation, thereby relieving the other party of responsibility. [...] Agreement or contract in which one party agrees to hold the other without responsibility for damage or other liability arising out of the transaction involved. ” H.C. Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed (St Paul, Minn: West, 1993), at 731.

12 parties obligations under the contract concerned (obligations of the launch services providers are always defined as ‘best efforts’ for example). In the recent years, schemes have developed that dramatically modified the balance of such allocation. They are the so-called turn-key contracts for satellites which consist of the purchase of a satellite with a transfer of ownership from the manufacturer to the customer only upon delivery on orbit of a functioning satellite. The risk is then fully allocated to the satellite manufacturer who has in turn to reallocate this risk among the various contractors involved in the constellation of contracts required for such an endeavor.(19) Domestic legislation and regulations have also developed, in some countries, to deal specifically with space launches. In the US in particular, a very detailed framework has been put into place by the Commercial Space Launch Act, its amendments, and a comprehensive set of implementing regulations, which set mandatory prescriptions for launch and spaceport licensing, allocation of liability through inter-participant waivers of liability clauses, and insurance and financial responsibility requirements. Other States have also adopted national legislation in this field, although less detailed. States, or international organizations and space agencies, have also gradually extended the use of this mechanism of risk allocation. For example, the Intergovernmental Agreement on the International Space Station, concluded between the US, Europe, Russia, Canada and Japan has adopted the system of cross-waivers of liability. The provisions of this agreement are quite complex since it deals with a permanent international cooperation activity in space and the construction of a station made of modules belonging to different nations taking part in the venture. A regime to manage conflict of laws had to be put into place in a number of areas such as intellectual property, but it was not implemented in the area of liability. The latter is supposed to be dealt with through the cross waiver of liability provision. Finally, because space activities are international in scope, significant legal risk is created by the potential applicability of different national laws and legal regimes, which can conflict and cause the design of a very complex legal framework.

1.3.3.- The Insurer’s Approach Once the participants in a given space activity have allocated the risk among themselves, each of them will in turn seek insurance for their own risks. The insurance market of space activities developed slowly since the first space insurance, in 1965, for the INTELSAT’s “Early Bird” satellite. The market initially limited coverage to pre-launch operations, then launch operations were covered, and later on, the on-orbit phase. Now a large variety of insurance coverage exists. The main types are summarized in the table in Annex 1 to the present Chapter. They are in general combined and tailored to meet the (19)

On turn-key arrangements see: J. Chappez, “Le contrat de livraison en orbite” in P. Kahn ed., L’exploitation commerciale de l’espace, Droit positif, Droit prospectif (Paris: Litec, 1992), at 183 L. Ravillon, Les télécommunications par satellite, Aspects Juridiques (Paris: Litec, 1997), at 140 P.D. Nesgos, “Trends in the Acquisition and Financing of Space Projects: Insurance Implications”, paper presented at the 8th Assicurazioni Generali International Conference on Space Insurance, Venice, March 1995.

13

specific requirements of each customer. The insurance community takes an active part in the assessment of risk involved in a space project, and the insurer is generally involved in the early stages of such project, often as early as the procurement of the satellite. The insurance broker and his experts are often used as advisors with respect to the risk assessment of the project. All risks are assessed, including the legal risks to which the operator is exposed and the allocations he intends to make through the risk allocation clauses at the various contractual levels in the project. The legal security of his client will be an important element in the assessment of the insurer, as well as the insurer’s own legal security measured, among other factors, by his ability to predict the avenues of recovery by subrogation into his client’s rights, should he have to compensate his client for any loss,(20) or the absence of subrogation rights. The insurer has, therefore, an interest both in the technical risk management approach implemented by those responsible for the development, manufacturing and testing of the spacecraft concerned. This will allow the assessment of the reliability of the launcher and payload and the calculation of the corresponding premium to be paid for insurance, as well as the conditions under which such insurance can be provided. The insurer also has an interest in how well the legal counsel in the organizations concerned can manage the liability risks as the materialization of claims will lead to the call upon the insurer to compensate. One of the specific characteristics of the space business, and in particular the launch business is that the worldwide insurance capacity is not sufficient to cover each launch if one would leave all possible claims open. The intervention of the inter-participant waivers of liability, and of government indemnification has helped overcome this situation, making the insurance of spacecraft launch and operations feasible.(21) But it (20)

We will not study here the insurance aspects as such, but the reader may find additional information in: J.L. Magdelénat, “Spacecraft Insurance” (1982) VII Annals of Air and Space Law, 363 M. Bourély, “L’assurance des activités spatiales” (1983) VII Annuaire de Droit Maritime et Aérien, 361 I.H.Ph Diedericks-Verschoor, “L’assurance satellites” (1985) X Annals of Air and Space Law, 322 J.S. Greenberg & C. Gaelick, “Space Insurance, Comments from an Observer” (1986) 2:4 Space Policy, 307 J.S. Greenberg, “Third Party Liability Insurance and Space Launches” (1988) 4:3 Space Policy, 211 P.D.Nesgos, “Satellite Launch Liability Risks, Products Available as New Industry Gets Off the Ground” (Oct 29, 1990) Business Insurance, 25 D.E. Cassidy, “Current Status and Prospects for Space Insurance” (1991) Journal of Space Law, 166 I.I. Kuskuvelis, “Space Insurance”, in K. Tatsuzawa ed, Legal Aspects of Space Commercialization (Tokyo: CSP, 1992), at 60 P. Daphouars, “L’assurance des risques spatiaux”, in P. Kahn ed, L’exploitation commerciale de l’espace, Droit Positif, Droit Prospectif supra note 19, at 253 P. Meredith & G. Robinson, Space Law, A Case Study for the Practitioner , supra note 4, at 249 on risk management and 335 on procuring insurance G. Catalano-Sgrosso, “Insurance Implications About Commercial and Industrial Activities in Outer Space”(1993) 36 Colloquium, 187 I.I. Kuskuvelis, “The Space Risk and Commercial Space Insurance” (1993) 9:2 Space Policy, 109 R. Ritorto & M. Mitchell, “Telecommunication Satellites Insurance” (1993) XVIII:3 Air and Space Law, 136; G.V. D’Angelo, Aerospace Business Law (Westport:, Quorum Books, 1994), at 65 S. Miyakazi & Y. Fujikawa,”Recent Satellite Insurance and its Difficulties” (1994) 1 Telecommunications and Space Journal, 305 L. Ravillon, Les télécommunications par satellite, Aspects Juridiques, supra note 19, at 409; R. Gimblet, “Space Insurance Into the Next Millennium”, in G. Lafferranderie & D. Crowther eds, Outlook on Space Law Over the Next 30 Years, supra note 14, at 163.

(21)

See some interesting figures online: (continued...)

14 remains a high premium area where risk calculations suffer the same problems as in other area of industry involving complex technological products.(22)

1.4.- LIABILITY RISK MANAGEMENT: LOOKING TO THE FUTURE Legal risk management in the field of commercial space launches, especially with respect to liability, is at the crossroads of the topics addressed so far in this Chapter. The technical choices made often have significant bearing on the legal approach to be taken, as, for example in the case of a new launcher or of a payload carrying nuclear power sources. The cost constraints on a particular project may lead to an increased need for liability risk management. The ability to buy insurance will be closely linked to liability risk management since exposure to potential claims is a fundamental element of the assessment by the insurer. The occasional lack of sufficient insurance will lead to the need for liability risk management focused on the risk allocation and risk sharing among the participants to a launch activity. One of the features of liability risk management for space projects today, and launching in particular, is the complexity of the legal framework in the field of space activities. The combination of space treaties and related international public law, private international law, national legislation, as well as contractual agreements, has led to a labyrinth of legal norms. Launch and space activities take place in an international environment and few launch providers exist, with the consequence that satellite owners often have to buy launch services from a company which is not from their national State. The manufacturing of launchers and satellites is, in a number of cases, performed by transnational consortia. Very often the actors of all these activities have a different statutory nature: the satellite owner may be a State-owned telecommunication operator and the launch provider a private company, or the other way round. A number of space ventures originate in international cooperation agreements which contain provisions that have to be flowed down to all participants in such ventures. In such a complex environment, legal security is difficult to achieve especially because of the connections with numerous legal systems, and because of the uncertainties in the flow down of the provisions concerned. Some of the legal loopholes or contradictions that exist in the present environment have been highlighted in the small number of cases brought to court, until now, on issues related to liability for damage caused by launch activities. Cases up to now usually involved the top level actors (satellite owner, satellite manufacturer, launch provider), but

(21)

(...continued) (accessed: 01/2001).

(22)

See on this subject D.R. Connolly, “Insurance: The Liability Messenger” in J.R. Hunziker & T.O. Jones, ed, Product Liability and Innovation, Managing Risk in an Uncertain Environment (Washington: National Academy Press, 1994), at 131.

15 even for them the scrutiny may go down to component level.(23) Liability risk management is important even for minor contributors to a space activity, to avoid exposure to virtually disastrous liability claims, especially as the risk allocation provisions agreed between the top participants (for instance the launch company and the satellite owner) are often not flowed down adequately to the very lowest contractual levels. The primary need for the legal counsel is to know the overall environment in which he operates. This is a pretty daunting task in the field of liability for launch activities. We have attempted to gather an overall picture of the liability environment for launch activities, de lege lata, in our Part I (The Labyrinth of Daedalus) which follows a top down approach. The public international space law framework is analyzed first, its liability provisions are highlighted, and some examples are provided of the practice of States and international organizations on the subject of liability, in their cooperation agreements (Chapter 2). The complexity ofthe legal environment also lies in the varying approaches adopted by the space faring nations towards fulfilling their international obligations regarding non-governmental launch activities, and the resulting legal frameworks, with the examples of the US regulations and of the Ariane framework (Chapter 3). The domestic laws of contracts and torts play, of course, a significant part and we chose to analyze particularly the US law and French law, as well as an example of satellite procurement contracts practice, that of the European Space Agency (Chapter 4). Our Part 2 (Escaping the Labyrinth) is an attempt to focus on the main issues which hamper the achievement of adequate liability risk management in today’s legal framework, and to offer suggestions, de lege ferenda, to address these main issues (Chapter 5). As suggestions and proposals may often be abstract to the reader, we have also attempted to develop texts and language to support our proposals with actual draft clauses and an international instrument (Chapter 6). Discussions with practitioners in the field have often revealed that, while the space business developed a mode of legal risk management which meets the present needs , there is a doubt in the mind of such practitioners as to its actual adequacy. The pressures of daily work and deadlines prevent them from studying in depth the legal ramifications of all situations and they often get the uneasy feeling that their legal provisions are not “water tight”. A number of court cases, in particular in the United States, have shown the occasional inadequacies of the legal framework set up for a particular launch or activity. These discussions prompted on our part an interest in looking into these issues and we believe that today’s environment is a labyrinth of norms, some of them purely contractual and often highly unreliable, and some international but unadapted the realities of the launch business. There is the need for initiating a consistent effort with a view to harmonizing the practices on the launch market and modernizing a body of space law which still constitutes our present roots. As J.K. Galbraith put it, “ Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”. We chose not to get busy on the proof, and to question the (23)

“Unprecedented Lawsuit Targets Spar Aerospace”, (August 1997) 1 Space News, at 1 & 21. A settlement was later reached out of court. See “Spar Announces Settlement of AMSC Litigation”, online at: < City Insurance: http:/www.city-ins.com/winter1999.htm#Spar Aerospace settles satellite lawsuit for $15 million> (accessed 01/2001)>

16 current legal framework for launch activities undertaken by private companies, or in general non-governmental entities, and we believe that change is needed for a more coherent and safer legal environment where launch providers will ultimately be able to take more responsibilities, while improving launch prices and thereby allowing access to space for exploration and use by all mankind.

ANNEX 1 SUMMARY OF MAIN TYPES OF SPACE INSURANCE

19

Insurance type

Pre-launch insurance

Launch insurance

Generic aim of the coverage

Insurance of the physical damage to Insurance of the physical damage to or loss the satellite before the intentional of the satellite at launch. ignition of the launch vehicle engines (lift-off)

Risk covered

Sequence of coverage can be: - during satellite manufacturing - during satellite testing - payload storage/processing - transportation of the satellite to the launch facilities - integration of the satellite with the launch adaptor and launch vehicle. Coverage can be bought for all or some of these. Coverage covers the repair cost. Coverage may include consequential damages (penalties for launch delay, loss of revenues, payload storage costs) and some force majeure events resulting in delays.

Buyer of insurance

Satellite manufacturer (he will Provider of turn key satellite Satellite owner normally bear risk until lift-off) Provider of turn key satellite (normally also satellite manufacturer) Owner of the satellite, to cover risk beyond contractual liquidated damages, e s p e c i a l l y for consequential damages

Insurance provider

Insurance company

It normally covers the risk after lift-off and up to a period of 120 to 180 days after successful injection of the satellite on orbit, or until in-orbit commissioning of the satellite. May include cost of the launch, as well as loss of revenues and other expenses caused by the launch failure. Launch risk guarantees normally stop upon separation of the satellite from the launch vehicle.

Insurance company Launch provider (launch risk guarantee, relight-refund guarantee)

20

Insurance type

In-orbit insurance

Third-party liability insurance

Generic aim of the coverage

All risk coverage against partial or Coverage against liability due to loss or total failure of the satellite after on- damage caused by the satellite, launch orbit commissioning. vehicle or personnel to third parties.

Risk covered

Coverage starts in principle right Coverage needed at all stages from satellite manufacturing up to on-orbit, after the launch insurance. Duration: 1 or 2 years. Renewed and even at discarding a dead satellite. yearly after check up of the health No coverage today for dead satellites. Variable duration. of the satellite. Third-party liability insurance provided Variant of the in-orbit insurance: by launch company normally starts at service interruption coverage arrival of customer’s payload and protects the transponder owner or personnel at launch site and stops about lessee against failure of the 30 days after injection of payload in orbit/transfer orbit. transponder and consequences.

Buyer of insurance

Satellite owner Transponder owner Transponder lessee

Manufacturer (manufacturing, testing, transportation...) Launch company (launch site and launch operations) with customer as named insured as well as his contractors and subcontractors. Satellite owner (launch site operations depending on contractual allocation with launch company; on orbit damage to other satellites)

Insurance provider

Insurance company

Insurance company

CHAPTER 2.- THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK.

The international legal framework which has developed over the years in the field of space activities is extensive and complex. It is composed of treaties, agreements and documents such as UN Resolutions which are binding in various degrees and are either multilateral or bilateral. The original texts of space law were developed during the Cold War and they still bear the mark of their historical context. They were developed by States to govern activities of States. They did not address the commercial activities and the activities downstream of the activities of States, mostly due to the fact that at that time, space applications were not commercialized and non-governmental entities activities were seen as sort of a science fiction prospect. The texts were elaborated essentially to maintain a balance between States carrying out space activities and avoiding that those be used as instruments of conquest, war and domination. The space Treaties therefore have to be read with this context in mind, which permits the understanding of their limitations. In this Chapter, we will provide an overall presentation of this framework, and illustrate its practice further with examples of agreements entered into for specific cooperation. The main space law treaties do not always have direct relevance to the issue of liability, and cover a larger array of subjects, but we chose to devote some discussion to them in order to provide some general background,(24) and to provide for a contextual reading of (24)

For reading on space law in general, the following books can be consulted: M.S. McDougal, H.D. Lasswell & I.A. Vlasic, Law and Public Order in Space (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963) C. Chaumont, Le Droit de l’Espace, Collection Que Sais-Je, No 883 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1970) M.G. Markov, Traité de droit international public de l’espace (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1973) C.Q. Christol, The Modern International Law of Outer Space (New York: Pergamon Press, 1982) G.P. Zukho v & Y. Kolosov, International Space Law (New York: Praeger, 1984) N.M. Matte ed., Space Activities and Emerging International Law (Montreal: McGill Institute of Air and Space Law, 1984) [hereinafter referred to as “Emerging International Law”] G. Reynolds & R. Merges, Outer Space: Problems of Law and Policy (Boulder: Westview Press, 1989) C.Q. Christol, Space Law: Past, Present and Future (Deventer, Boston: Kluwer, 1991) S. Gorove, Developments in Space Law (Dordrecht, Boston: MartinusNijhoff,1991) P.M. Martin, Le Droit de l’Espace, Collection Que Sais-Je, No 883 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1991) N. Jasentuliyana, Space Law, Development and Scope (Westport Conn.: Praeger, 1992) [hereinafter referred to as “Space Law Development” L. Peyrefitte, Droit de l’Espace (Paris: Dalloz, 1993) I.H.Ph Diederiks-Verschoor, Introduction to Space Law (Deventer: Kluwer, 1993) B. Cheng, Studies in International Space Law (Oxford: (continued...)

23

24 the specific liability provisions. These texts are important for those who practice international space cooperation in an international governmental environment. They also impact to a certain extent, and in general indirectly, upon the activities ofprivate operators and need to be properly understood to allow private operators to comprehend the main issues they may encounter in their activities .

2.1.- SPACE TREATIES AND RESOLUTIONS From the early stages of space exploration until now, international space law has developed tremendously in particular through the work of the United Nations, especially its Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS).(25) Very early, States represented in the UNCOPUOS realized thei mportance of establishing rules of conduct for these new activities. At the time, a great energy and willingness existed to bring into existence an increasingly comprehensive body of law to govern these activities. From general resolutions to specific treaties, States built up this body of law and laid down the fundamental principles of space law. In order to provide an over view and background prior to going into the detail concerning liability provisions, the table in Annex 1 to this Chapter presents the various UN resolutions, treaties and conventions adopted in the field of space, with their main features and principles, as well as bibliographical references. The main principles are also summarized below.

(24)

(25)

(...continued) Clarendon Press, 1997). For information on the United Nations Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) and its legal and scientific subcommittees, see: E.M. Galloway, “Consensus Decision making by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space” (1979) 7 Journal of Space Law, 3 V. Kopal, “Evolution of the Main Principles of Space Law in the Institutional Framework of the United Nations” (1984) 12 Journal of Space Law, 12 M. Benkö, W. De Graaf & G.G.M. Reijnen (eds), Space Law in the United Nations (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985) N. Jasentuliyana, “Treaty Law and Outer Space: Can the United Nations Play an Effective Role?” (1986) XI Annals of Air and Space Law, 219 United Nations, Space Activities of the United Nations and International Organizations (New York, 1992) at 1 (UN Doc A/AC. 105/521, Sales No. E.92.I.30) N. Jasentuliyana, “The Lawmaking Process in the United Nations”, in N. Jasentuliyana, Space Law Development and Scope, supra note 24, 33 N. Jasentuliyana, “Space Law and the United Nations” (1992) XVII-I, Annals of Air and Space Law, 127 M. Benkö & K.U. Schrogl, International Space Law in the Making, Current Issues in the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (Gif-sur-Yvette: Frontières, 1993) [hereinafter referred to as “ International Space Law in the Making” ], at 1 L. Peyrefitte, Droit de l’espace, supra note 24, at 15 N. Jasentuliyana, “The United Nations: Its Role in the Progressive Development of Space Law”, in Proceedings of the Third European Centre for Space Law (ECSL) Summer Course on Space Law and Policy (Paris, ECSL, 1994), 5 M. Andem, “United Nations Functioning with Respect to Space Activities, in Proceedings of the Third European Centre for Space Law (ECSL) Summer Course on Space Law and Policy (Paris, ECSL, 1994), 29 B. Cheng, Studies in International Space Law, supra note 24, at91 F. Pocar, “The Normative Role of UNCOPUOS”, in G.Lafferranderie & D.Crowther eds, Outlook on Space Law Over the Next 30 Years, supra note 14, 415 The UN Office for Outer Space Affairs is online : (accessed 01/2001).

25

2.1.1.- Main Principles of Space Law: The Context This section only provides a global summary ofthe main principles which, though they are not of direct relevance to the subject of responsibility and liability, constitute the environment within which liability provisions are ultimately interpreted and implemented. i)

Principle of freedom of exploration and use

This is one of the most important principles which has been recognized since the early 1950's and first practically accepted during the International Geophysical Year,(26) with the absence of protests from States to the overflight of their territories by satellites launched on this occasion. This principle was incorporated in the first space law provisions elaborated in the United Nations,(27) and was repeated(28) in the Outer Space Treaty. It covers three basic rights: right of free access, right of free exploration and right offree use. The definitions ofthe terms “exploration” and “use” are difficult to ascertain, since most of the terms used in the space law texts are not precisely defined or not defined at all. Generally, “exploration” is interpreted in the scientific sense (e.g. scientific satellites for the exploration of planets, for astronomy or fundamental research), while “use” is related to space applications which take advantage of the space environment (e.g. telecommunications satellites). This principle of freedom of exploration is limited by other principles of space law. As for most Earth-based activities, operators of space activities enjoy freedom so long as they do not interfere with freedoms or rights of other operators, and this directly or indirectly linked to principles such as that of non discrimination and equality, common benefit and common interest, non appropriation, responsibility and liability.

(26)

For developments on this period, see B. Cheng, “Recent Developments in Air Law (1956) 9 Current Legal Problems, 208. This article is partly reproduced in B. Cheng, Studies in International Space Law, supra note 24, at 3 N.M. Matte ed, Emerging International Law, supra note 24, at 253.

(27)

The Declaration of Principles provided in its principle 2: “Outer space and celestial bodies are free for exploration and use by all States on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law ”. Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, UNGA Res 1962 (XVIII), in: N.M. Matte ed, Emerging International Law, supra note 24, at 537 UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space (New York, 1996) UN Doc A/AC.105/572/Rev 1 [hereinafter referred to as UN OOSA “Treaties and Principles” ], at 37 Online (accessed 01/2001). Also online at (accessed 01/2001) The principle was further reproduced in the Outer Space Treaty in its Article I On this principle and its evolution, see N.M. Matte, Emerging International Law, supra note 24, at 269 and L. Peyrefitte, Droit de l’Espace, supra note.24, at 55.

(28)

Article I, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies [hereinafter referred to as “ Outer Space Treaty” ], UNGA Res 2222 (XXI) in: N.M. Matte ed, Emerging International Law, supra note 24, at 543 UNOOSA, Treaties and Principles, supra note 27, 4 610 UNTS 205 18 UST241 TIAS 6347 (1993) XVIII-II Annals of Air and Space Law, 615 Online, Office of Outer Space Affairs and McGill Institute of Air and Space Law, supra note 27.

26 The principle of freedom of access and use has played an important role in the development of space law, in particular when combined with the principle of nonappropriation. The elimination by these two principles of the concept of sovereignty in the field of space activities, has certainly also prevented the elaboration of detailed space law regulations.(29)

ii)

Principle of non-appropriation

This principle is directly linked to those of freedom of exploration and use and of common interest, as one of the guarantees of the enjoyment of their rights by other States so that none of them can exercise exclusive control or exclusive use of outer space or celestial bodies on a permanent basis with the intent to do so.(30) Given the repetition of this principle in the Declaration of Principles(31) and in the Outer Space Treaty,(32) as well as a long standing compliance by States, we tend to share the opinion of those who consider that it has become a norm of jus cogens(33) and therefore, applicable even to those States not Parties to the Outer Space Treaty.(34) There is therefore a fundamental difference between Earth and space with respect to the possibility for a State to claim sovereignty over an area. On Earth, and with respect to airspace, State sovereignty is a fundamental element of the legal regime applicable to those areas.(35) Outer space escapes this sovereignty. This difference of regimes could lead to difficulties in the future, in particular as the limit between airspace, subject to such sovereignty, and outer space, has (29)

See also further, para ii).

(30)

N.M. Matte ed, Emerging international Law, supra note 24, at 275

(31)

Declaration of Principles, supra note 27, Principle 3.

(32)

Outer Space Treaty, supra note 27, Article II.

(33)

On the definition of jus cogens, one can refer to the Vienna Convention on the Lew of Treaties, UN Doc A/CONF.39/11/Add.2; 1155 UNTS, 331; (1969) International Legal Material, 679; Online:

(accessed 01/2001). Adopted on 22 May 1969. Entered into force 27 January 1980. Article 53 of the Convention states: “ Article 53.- Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens).- A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purpose of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character”. On this subject see also M.N. Shaw, International Law, 4th edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), at 97.

(34)

I.A. Csabafi, The concept of State Jurisdiction in International Space Law (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1971), at 47.

(35)

V. Kayser, “Aux confins de l’air et de 1’espace. D’Accursius à 1’avion spatial” (1994) XIX-II Annals of Air and Space Law, 465, at 466. The key principle in air law comes from the latin formula cujus est solum ejus usque ad coelum, which first applied to private law to govern the rights of the owner of a piece of land on the usable space directly over this property, and has become a fundamental principle of air law. The Chicago Convention confirms this principle in its Articles 1 and 2 Convention on International Civil Aviation, ICAO Doc 7300/6 (1980) 15 UNTS 295 (1993)XVIII-II Annals of Air and Space Law, 3 Online: (accessed 01/2001).

27 not been agreed, although this subject has been discussed since the establishment of the UNCOPUOS in 1957.(36) This fundamental divider of sovereignty, in view of the various disciplines of law concerned, could create difficulties in determining the regime applicable to a future space plane.(37) These fundamental differences between air and space law, revolving around the concept of sovereignty, have, in our opinion, strongly differentiated the level of regulation between these two areas. In the field of air law, the strength of the concept of sovereignty has left States much more in control of the rules applicable to the circulation of aircraft over their territories. This has ultimately forced them, in order not to hamper air traffic, to coordinate their regulatory actions and framework. For example, this has been the case in the area of mutual recognition of certificates of airworthiness, certificates of operating crew, and conditions to be fulfilled by aircraft, especially when overflying another State.(38) Thereby, a rather regulated control over aircraft flight has been put into place over the years through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), implementing the Chicago Convention, and the mechanism of standards and recommended practices. As we will see further on in this Chapter, although the United Nations established a legal framework for space flight, this framework is looser than the one established in the field of air law. The major reason for this difference is to be found in the principles of free access, free use, and non-appropriation. By depriving States of the attribute of sovereignty in relation to outer space, these principles have also worked against the motivation of States for establishing a detailed regulatory framework, since such a framework is not needed to ensure their compliance with the international framework which governs their activities in the space (36)

The doctrine has also addressed the issue of appropriation of resources, versus appropriation of the areas. Also, certain authors have argued that while States could not appropriate, private entities could. On these debates, the reader may consult N.M Matte ed., Emerging International Law , supra note 24, at 275. On delimitation between airspace and outer space see: For the latest documents available on the works of the UNCOPUOS: online Office of Outer Space Affairs, supra note 27. For literature: B. Cheng, “The Legal Regime of Airspace and Outer space: The Boundary Problem. Functionalism Versus Spatialism: The Major Premises” (1980) V Annals of Air and Space Law, 323 H. Qizhi, “The Problem of Definition and Delimitation in Outer Space” (1982) 10 Journal of Space Law, 157 M. Benkö & J. Gebhard, “The Definition/Delimitation of Outer Space and Outer Space Activities Including Problems Relating to the Free (Innocent) passage of Spacecraft Through Foreign Airspace for the Purpose of Reaching Orbit and Returning to Earth”, in M. Benkö & K.U. Schrogl eds, International Space Law in the Making, supra note 25, Chapter C., 1 1 1 .

(37)

V. Kayser, “Aux confins de l’air et de l’espace. D’Accursius à l’avion spatial”, supra note 35, at 470 Société Française de Droit Aérien et Spatial, Actes du Colloque L ’avion Spatial et le droit (1991) 180:4 Revue Française de Droit Aérien (complete issue devoted to the subject) T. Masson-Zwaan, “Legal Aspects of Aerospace Planes”, in European Center for Space Law ed, ECSL Space Law and Policy Summer Course, Basic Materials (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1994), 307 S. Courteix, “L’avion spatial et le droit”, in European Center for Space Law ed, ECSL Space Law and Policy Summer Course, Basic Materials, (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1994), 255.

(38)

On the parallel with Air Law, and the concept of sovereignty in Air Law, see: B. Cheng, Studies in International Space Law, supra note 24, 31 M.N. Shaw, International Law, supra note 33, at 369 Shawcross & Beaumont, Air Law (London: Butterworths, 1966-; loose leaf regularly updated) M.de Juglart, Traité de Droit Aérien (Paris: LGDJ, 1989) I.H.Ph.DiederiksVerschoor, An Introduction to Air Law (The Hague: Kluwer, 1997).

28

sector, and is therefore not a prerequisite to the performance of any business related to space, in particular the launch operations. iii)

Principle of applicability of international law

Due to the origins of space activities, space law has developed as, and still is, a branch of public international law,(39) and as such, governs the relationship of States which conduct space activities or whose nationals conduct space activities.(40) The principle of applicability of international law is laid down in Article III of the Outer Space Treaty and is one of the fundamental principles of space law.(41) There has been some debate over the years as to whether international law applies anyway per se, which would mean in the absence of any “codification” in the Outer Space Treaty, or if it needed to be expressly referred to.(42) Article III of the Outer Space Treaty concluded this debate by clarifying the applicability of international law to space activities. This debate has little practical impact for the activities concerned in this thesis, in case they are carried out in States which are Parties to the Outer Space Treaty, since Article III makes the rule clear between them. Most countries involved in space activities are Parties to the Outer Space Treaty.(43) The problem would nevertheless arise where States not Parties to the Outer Space Treaty, or their nationals, would undertake space activities, or even in the case where these activities would be conducted from the high seas. Indeed, in this case, one would be again in the situation where debate could arise as to whether international law applies per se, with the Outer Space Treaty having only played a declaratory role, or if on the contrary, Article III created the rule itself. However, one may argue that due to its wide acceptance and long standing practice, this principle of applicability of international law to space activities can now be considered a general principle of international law.

(39)

Space law has been referred to as lex specialis of international law. H.A. Wassenbergh, “The Exploration and Use of Outer Space as the ‘Province’ of the Society of States (The Moon Agreement in Prospect)”, in H.A.Wassenbergh, Principles of Outer Space Law in Hindsight (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991) P. Malanczuk; “Space Law as a Branch of International Law”, in European Center for Space Law ed, ECSL Proceedings of the Third ECSL Summer Course on Space Law and Policy (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1994), 73.

(40)

The subjects of space law will be analyzed more in detail in the context of the developments devoted to liability provisions in space law, further in this Chapter 1.

(41)

Outer Space Treaty, supra note 27, Article III: “States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and understanding”.

(42)

N.M. Matte ed, Emerging International Law, supra note 24, at 286, providing explanations as to the three main views (general international law applicable per se to outer space; international law not adapted to space activities with the need for specific codification; international law applicable both to earth and outer space, with a need for developing specific rules for space).

(43)

It is interesting to note in this respect that Kazakhstan is a Party to the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention. The launch facilities of Baikonur are located in that State. Besides, an agreement has been concluded between Russia and Kazakhstan whereby the Baikonur area is leased by Russia and under Russian control. In these circumstances Russia is the main actor.

29

This principle, although presented here mostly as a background, has relevance in the context of the launch activities in relation to 1) the status of launch companies with regard to the space treaties and the rights and obligations laid down therein (are they subjects of space law, directly or indirectly?), 2) the applicability of space law to launch companies (which rules of space law are to be applied to them?, what are the obligations of States to regulate the launch business?) and 3) the treatment of claims (via the diplomatic channels). We will return to these subjects as we study the liability issues. iv)

Restrictions on military activities

Activities in the exploration and use of outer space have to be carried out for peaceful purposes.(44) Space and celestial bodies have been demilitarized to different degrees. Space law prohibits the use of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in space. The demilitarization status of the Moon and other celestial bodies has been made even more stringent. v)

Responsibility and “liability”

Responsibility and liability in the context of space activities are examined in full detail below.(45) In this area, space law contains a significant number of provisions which prescribe both a principle of responsibility in international law and a number of provisions on liability for damage caused by space objects and space activities. vi)

Common interest and common heritage principles

The exploration and use of space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development and shall be the province of all mankind. This has been explained as effectively meaning “that space activities cannot be pursued to the sole advantage of the big powers or, in other words, for those countries which only are capable of doing so”.(46) There has been some debate as to whether this provision is directly applicable and it is in fact rather difficult to imagine when such a principle could be directly applied, since the (44)

On outer space and military activities: I.A. Vlasic, “Disarmament Decade, Outer Space and International Law”, (1980) 26 McGill Law Journal, 135 N.M Matte ed, Arms Control and Disarmament in Outer Space, 4 Volumes, (Montreal: McGill University Center for Research in Air and Space Law, 1985-1991) B. Jasani ed, Peaceful and Non-Peaceful Uses of Space: Problems of Definition for the Prevention of an Arms Race (Bristol PA: Taylor and Francis, 1991) P. Jankowitsch, “Legal Aspects of Military Space Activities”, in N. Jasentuliyana ed, Space Law Development and Scope, supra note 24, 143 S. Hobe, “Peaceful and Military Uses of Outer Space and Space Technology: The Importance of Space Technology to International Space Law”, ECSL Proceedings of the Third Summer Course on Space Law and Policy (Dordrecht: Martinus NijhoffPublishers, 1994), 165 J. M. Filho, “Total Militarization of Space and Space Law: The Future of The Article IV Of The 67' Outer Space Treaty” (1997) 40 Colloquium, 358 B. Cheng, Studies in International Space Law, supra note 24, 513 (Part V).

(45)

See paragraph 2.1.2 below.

(46)

S. Hobe, “The International Legal Order for Outer Space Activities. An Introduction”, in ECSL Space Law and Policy Summer Course, Basic Materials (I) (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993), 28, at 29.

30 provisions of space law in this respect lack specificity. Except for the provisions made for the Moon, where the principle would be implemented via an international regime for the exploitation of the Moon resources, it is difficult to determine how to transpose this principle to other applications. This principle of common interest was further developed in the Moon Agreement into the principle of common heritage of mankind which is stronger and directly relates to the setting up of the international regime mentioned above, as it was also done in the context of the regime of the deep seabed in 1982.(47) These two principles are truly international law principles which govern States. It would be difficult to relate them directly to individual entities and they do not have a direct practical application in the area of the developments in this book. As in the case of the principles of freedom and of non appropriation, this principle of common interest is not working in favor of the development of a detailed regulatory framework for space activities. Indeed, the self-interest of States is certainly an important factor in securing a detailed regulatory framework in a competitive environment, as it has been the case in the area of aviation. The principle of common interest in the field of space activities creates a very different environment. It is important, however, not to overestimate the impact of this principle which remains very difficult to translate in practical terms. There is nowadays a great deal of competition in the field of space activities, and launch and telecommunications activities in particular, and the principle of common interest is certainly not the sole explanation for a loose regulatory environment. vii)

International Cooperation

The principle of international cooperation(48) is applicable in priority to States as well. It was recently detailed in the UNGA Resolution on the Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries.(49) Although individual entities are not directly bound by such a principle, they are influenced by all these principles when taking part in cooperative projects where they belong to a larger group of actors that cannot ignore those principles.

(47)

P. Minola, “The Moon Treaty and the Law of the Sea (1981) 18 San Diego Law Review, 455 S.H. Lay, “Some Comparisons of the Draft Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies” (1984) 37 Vanderbilt Law Review, 599 S.M. Williams, “The exploitation and Use of Natural Resources in the New Law of the Sea and the Law of Outer Space” (1986) 29 Colloquium, 198 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/122; (1982) 21 ILM 1261 and Online:

Kopal V.

“Evolution of the Main Principles of Space Law in the Institutional Framework of the United Nations” (1984) 12 Journal of Space Law, 12.

Kosmo F.

“The Commercialization of Space: A Regulatory Scheme that Promotes Commercial Ventures and International Responsibility” (1988) 61 Southern California Law Review, 1055.

Kriege J.

“An Historian Looks at the ESA Convention”, in European Center for Space Law Ed., The Implementation of the ESA Convention, Lessons from the Past, Proceedings of the ESA/EUI International Colloquium, supra books.

Kriege J.

“The Commercial Challenge to Arianespace: the TCI Affair” (1999) 15 Space Policy, 87.

Kröner R.

“Recent Case Law on Problems Surrounding Launches”, paper presented at the European Centre for Space Law First Practitionners’ Forum, Paris, November 18, 1992.

Kuskuvelis I.I

“Space Insurance”, in K.Tatsuzawa ed, Legal Aspects of Space Commercialization, supra books, at 60.

Kuskuvelis I.I

“The Space Risk and Commercial Space Insurance” (1993) 9:2 Space Policy, 109.

Lafferranderie G.

“Responsabilité juridique internationale et activités de lancement d’objets spatiaux au CSG” (1994) 80 ESA Bulletin, 58 and online at

Lafferranderie G.

“La notion d’activités opérationnelles dans la Convention de l’Agence” (1984) 37 ESA Bulletin, 48.

Lafferranderie G.

“L’application par l’Agence Spatiale Européenne de la Convention sur l’immatriculation des objets lancés dans l’espace extra-atmosphérique” (1986) XI Annals of Air and Space Law, 229.

Lafferranderie G.

“Les accords relatifs à la station spatiale internationale” (1989) 93:2 Revue Générale de Droit Intenational Public, 318.

Lafferranderie G.

“The European Space Agency (ESA) and International Space Law”, in Proceedings of the Third ECSL Colloquium, International Organizations and Space Law, supra books, at 19.

Langereux P.

“Lancement réussi de la première fusée privée américaine” (18 Septembre 1982) 920 Air & Cosmos, 25.

368 Larroumet C.

“L’effet relatif des contrats et la négation d’une action nécéssairement contractuelle dans les ensemble contractuels” (1991) Semaine Juridique (JCP), I, 3531.

Larsen P.B.

“Cross-Waivers of Liability” (1992) 35 Colloquium, 91.

Lay S.H.

“Some Comparisons of the Draft Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies” (1984) 37 Vanderbilt Law Review, 599.

Lee-Miller S.

“Licensing and Regulating US Commercial Space Launches” (1989) 4:1 Journal of Law and Technology, at 45.

Lessard S. & Nordlund F.

“Les bases de lancements: évolution et aspects juridiques” (1990) XV Annals of Air & Space Law, 359.

Leturmy L.

“La responsabilité délictuelle du contractant” (1998) 4 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil, 839.

Leveneur L.

“Contrats entre professionnels et législation des clauses abusives”, (1996) Contrats, Concurrence et Consommation, Chron, at 4.

Loquin E., Veil P.F.

“La gestion contractuelle des risques de l’exploitation commerciale de l’espace”, in P. Kahn Ed., L’exploitation commerciale de l’espace, Droit positif, Droit prospectif, supra books, at 165.

Magdelénat J.L.

“Spacecraft Insurance” (1982) VII Annals of Air and Space Law, 363.

Malanczuk P.

“Space Law as a Branch of International Law”, in European Centre for Space Law ed, ECSL Proceedings of the Third ECSL Summer Course on Space Law and Policy, supra books, at 73.

Malaurie Ph.

“La révision judiciaire de la clause pénale” (1976) Répertoire Defrénois, at 533.

Maneggia A.

“Optional Binding Settlement of Disputes on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects”, in Proceedings of Third ECSL Colloquium, International Organisations and Space Law, supra books, at 423.

Maniatis D.

“The Law Governing Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects: From State Responsibility to Private Liability” (1997) XXII-I Annals of Air and Space Law, 369.

Marcus D.J.

“Spaceport Florida Ready to Buy Rockets” June 11-17, 1990, Space News, 32.

Margo R.D.

“Insurance Aspects of the New International Passenger

369 Liability Regime” (1999) XXIV:3 Air and Space Law, 134 Marshall H.R. Jr

“Outer Space Commercialization in the United States: Effects on Space Law and Domestic Law” (1984) Colloquium, 90.

Marty G.

“La relation de cause à effet comme condition de la responsabilité civile”, (1939) Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil, at 685.

Masson-Zwaan T.L.

“The Martin Marietta Case, Or How to Safeguard Private Commercial Space Activities” (1993) 35 Colloquium, 239.

Masson-Zwaan T.

“Legal Aspects of Aerospace Planes”, in European Centre For Space Law ed, ECSL Space Law and Policy Summer Course, Basic Materials, supra books, at 307.

Masson-Zwaan T.L.

“Liability for Private Space Activities and Litigation”, in ECSL ed, Proceedings of the Third ECSL Summer Course on Space Law and Policy, supra books, at 273.

Mc Kay J.S.

“Unlimited Liability” (1994) 6 Korean Journal Of Air and Space Law, 137.

McRae B.

“The Compensation Convention: Path to a Global Regime for Dealing with Legal Liability and Compensation for Nuclear Damage” (1998) 61 Nuclear Law Bulletin, 25.

Meredith P.L. & Robinson G.S.

“Domestic Commercialization of Space: The Current Political Atmosphere”, in National Legal Centre for the Public Interest, American Enterprise, the Law and the Commercial Use of Space (Washington DC: National Legal Center for the Public Interest, 1986), at 5

Meredith P. & Fleming S.P.

“US Space Technology Exports: The Current Political Climate” (1999) 27:1 Journal of Space Law, 35.

Meredith P.L.

“A comparative Analysis of United States Domestic Licensing Regimes for Private Commercial Space Activities” (1989) Colloquium, 373.

Meredith P.L.

“Risk Allocation Provisions in Commercial Launch Contracts” (1991) 34 Colloquium, 264.

Meurisse

“Les ayants cause agissant à titre personnel peuvent-ils se voir opposer la faute de la victime?” (1960) Gazette du Palais, II, Doctr, at 73.

Milde M.

“Warsaw System and Limits of Liability, Yet Another Crossroad” (1994) 6 Korean Journal of Air and Space Law”, 43

Milde M.

“Liability in International Carriage by Air. The New Montreal Convention of 28 May 1999" (1999) XXIV

370 Annals of Air and Space Law, 155. Miller S.L.

“Licensing and Regulating US Commercial Space Launches” (1989) 4 Journal of Law and Technology, 45.

Minola P.

“The Moon Treaty and the Law of the Sea (1981) 18 San Diego Law Review, 455.

Miyakazi S. & Fujikawa Y.

“Recent Satellite Insurance and its Difficulties” (1994) 1 Telecommunications and Space Journal, 305.

Monk D.G.

“The Lessons of Airline Regulation and Deregulation: Will We Make the Same Mistakes in Space” (1992) 57 Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 715.

Monserrat Filho J.

“Recent Developments of the Brazilian Space Law” (1998) 41 Colloquium, 265.

Monserrat Filho J.

“Brazilian Launch Centre Goes Market” (1999) 15 Space Policy, 113.

Mossinghoff

“Managing Tort Liability Risks in the Era of the Space Shuttle” (1979) 7 Journal of Space Law, 121.

Muller R. & Muller M.

“Cooperation as a basic principle of legal regimes for areas beyond national sovereignty - with special regard to Outer Space Law” (1988) 31 German Yearbook of International Law, 553.

Myers J.R.

“Federal Government Regulation of Commercial Operations Using Expendable Launch Vehicles” (1984) 12:1 Journal of Space Law, 40.

Nesgos P.D.

“International and Domestic Law Applicable to Commercial Launch Vehicle Transportation” (1984) 27 Colloquium, 98

Nesgos P.D.

“Managing Liability Risks in US Commercial Space Transportation”, paper presented at Assicurazioni Generali, 5th International Conference on Space Insurance, Rome March 1987.

Nesgos P.D.

“Launch Liability Insurance and Contractual Risk Allocation”, paper presented at the Houston Space and Telecomm Symposium, June 1987.

Nesgos P.D.

“Recent Developments in Risk Allocation of Concern to the US Commercial Launch Industry And the Insurance Community”, paper presented at Assicurazioni Generali, 5th International Conference on Space Insurance, Rome, March 1989.

Nesgos P.D.

“The Challenges Facing the Private Practitioner: Liability and Insurance Issues in Commercial Space Transportation” (1989) 4 Journal of Law and Technology, 21.

Nesgos P.D.

“Satellite Launch Liability Risks, Products Available as

371 New Industry Gets Off the Ground” (Oct 29, 1990) Business Insurance, 25. Nesgos P.D.

“The practice of Commercial Space Law”, paper presented at the McGill University, Institute of Air and Space Law, 40th Anniversary Colloquium, Air and Space Law and the Challenges of the 21st Century, October 1991.

Nesgos P.D.

“Commercial Space Law: Practical Examples Relating to Contracts, Insurance and Finance”, paper present at the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, International Institute of Space Law, Symposium on Commercial Activities in Space, Vienna, March 1994.

Nesgos P.D.

“Briefing on Issues in Launch Contracts”, paper presented at the European Centre for Space Law, Third Practitioners’ Forum, Paris, November 1994.

Nesgos P.D.

“Trends in the Acquisition and Financing of Space Projects: Insurance Implications”, paper presented at the 8th Assicurazioni Generali International Conference on Space Insurance, Venice, March 1995.

Nesgos P.D.

“Recent Developments in Commercial Space Law” (1997) XXII-I Annals of Air and Space Law, 433.

O’Brien J.E.

“Allocation of Risk and The Commercial Use of Outer Space” (1986) 33:4 Federal Bar News & Journal, 169

Oehm M.

“Experiences of a German/Russian Commercial Launch Services Provider for LEO Satellites”, paper presented at Project 2001 Workshop on Commercial Launch Activities, Bremen 18-19 January 2000.

Paisant G.

“Dix ans d’application de la réforme des articles 1152 et 1231 du Code Civil relative à la clause pénale”, (1985) Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil, 647.

Perek L.

“The Scientific and Technological Basis of Space Law” in N.Jasentuliyana ed., Space Law, Development and Scope, supra books, at 175.

Perek L.

“The 1976 Registration Convention” (1998) 41 Colloquium, 374.

Pocar F.

“The Normative Role of UNCOPUOS”, in G.Lafferranderie & D.Crowther eds, Outlook on Space Law Over the next 30 Years, supra books, at 415.

Press release

“Starstruck Launches Prototype Dolphin Rocket in First Flight” (Aug 13, 1984) Aviation Week & Space Technology, 20.

Press release

Martin, Intelsat Agree to Settle Launch Suit, Space News, June 14-20, 1993, at 2

372 Press release

“Unprecedented Lawsuit Targets Spar Aerospace” (August 1997) 1 Space News, at 1 & 21

Press release

“Spar Announces Settlement of AMSC Litigation”, at: < City Insurance: online http://www.city-ins.com/winterl999.htm#Spar Aerospace settles satellite lawsuit for $15 million>

Press release

“Mars Climate Orbiter Team Finds Likely Cause of Loss”, Press Release 99-113 NASA JPL, Online a: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Press release

“Liability Coverage Ordered” (1999) 11:7 Space News, at 4 and 20.

Qizhi H.

“The Problem of Definition and Delimitation in Outer Space (1982) 10 Journal of Space Law, 157.

Radetzki M.

“Limitation of Third Party Nuclear Liability: Causes, Implications and Future Possibilities” (1999) 63 Nuclear Law Bulletin, 7.

Ravillon L.

“Droit des contrats spatiaux: quelques thèmes récurrents” (1998) 205:1 Revue Française de Droit Aérien & Spatial, 36.

Reese

“The Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Product Liability” (1974) 8 International Lawyer, 606.

Reese

Further Comments on the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Products Liability, (1978) 8 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 311.

Reibel D.E

“Space Insurance and the Legal Aspects of Allocating Risk and Liability Among State and Private Entities” (1993) 36 Colloquium.

Reibel D.E.

“Procurement of Launch Vehicles and Services” (1992) 35 Colloquium, 248.

Reif S.

“Project 2001: Shaping a Legal Framework for the Commercial Use of Outer Space” (1999) 15 Space Policy, 109.

Reis

“Some Reflection on the Liability Convention for Outer Space” (1978) 6 Journal of Space Law, 125.

Ritholz A.

“International and Domestic Regulation of Private Launching Ventures” (1985) 20 Stanford Journal of International Law”, 135.

Ritorto R. & Mitchell M.

“Telecommunication Satellites Insurance” (1993) XVIII:3 Air and Space Law, 136.

R.L. Rockett et al

Financial Protection Against Nuclear Hazards: Thirty Years Experience under the Price Anderson Act,

373 Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, January 19, 1984. Rodière R.

“La combinaison des responsabilités” (1950) Semaine Juridique (JCP), I, at 868.

Rodière R.

“L’écoulement du temps et la recevabilité de l’action en responsabilité du transporteur aérien”(1976) Recueil Dalloz (D), Chron, 265.

Russo A.

“History of the European Space Programmes”, in Proceedings of the Sixth ECSL Summer Course on Space Law and Policy, supra books, at 135

Salès J

“Why Judicial Precedent Is a Source of Law in France” (1997) 25:1 International Business Lawyer, at 20.

Sato M.

“The Japanese Legal Framework: Third Party Liability Resulting from NASDA Launch Activities” (1998) 41 Colloquium, 127.

Savaux E.

“La fin de la responsabilité contractuelle?” (1999) 1 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil, 1.

Schmidt-Tedd B.

“Best Efforts Principle and Terms of Contract in Space Business” (1988) Colloquium, 330.

Schrogl K.U.

“The UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Adoption of Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space and Other Recent Developments”, in Proceedings of the Sixth ECSL Summer Course on Space Law and Policy, supra books, at 77.

Schrogl K.U.

“Is the Legal Concept of Launching State still adequate?” in Proceedings of the Third ECSL Colloquium, International Organisations and Space Law, supra books, at 327.

Sekiguchi M.

“Why Japan Was Compelled to Opt for Unlimited Liability” (1995) XXII Annals of Air and Space Law, 337.

Sekiguchi M.

“The Passenger Liability Regime of the New Deal: But New Wine Must be Put Into Fresh Wineskins” (1995) XXII:II Annals of Air and Space Law, 249

Shettler D.M.

“Products Liability: A Comparison of US and EEC Approaches” (1986) 13 Syracuse Journal of International Law, at 155.

Showalter B.E.

“In Space, Nobody Can Hear You Scream ‘Tort’!” (1993) 58 Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 795.

Silane A.

“Civil Liability in Commercial Space Ventures under States Law”, in P. Kahn, L’exploitation commerciale de l’espace, Droit positif, Droit prospectif, supra books, at 233.

374 Silverstrov G.

“On the Notion of the ‘Appropriate’ State in Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty” (1991) 34 Colloquium, 326.

Sloan B.

“General Assembly Resolutions Revisited (Fourty Years Later)” (1987) 59 British Yearbook of International Law, 39

Sornarajah

“State Responsibility and Bilateral Investment Treaties” (1986) 20 Journal of World Trade Law, 79.

Spada M.

“Quality Control in Production of Space Objects and Liability in Outer Space Law”, in G.Lafferranderie & D.Crowther eds, Outlook on Space Law Over the next 30 Years, supra books, at, 191.

Starck G.

“La pluralité des causes de dommages et la responsabilité civile” (1970) Semaine Juridique (JCP), I, 2339.

Starck G.

“Observations sur le régime juridique des clauses de non-responsabilité ou limitatives de responsabilité” (1974) Recueil Dalloz (D), Chron, 157.

Steptoe E.J.

“United States Government Licensing of Commercial Space Activities by Private Enterprise” (1984) 26 Colloquium, 191.

Steptoe E.J.

“Regulation of Private Commercial Space Transportation by the United States Department of Transportation” (1985) 28 Colloquium, 240.

Sterns P.M & Tennen L.I.

“Commercial Spaceports: Preliminary Site Selection Criteria and Regulatory Considerations” (1999) 24:1 Journal of Space Law, 29.

Stewart J.T. Jr

“US Private Enterprise Enters the Space Arena. The Beginning” (1985) 26 Colloquium, 149.

Straubel M.

“The Commercial Space Launch Act: The Regulations of Private Space Transportation” (1987) 52 Journal of Air Law & Commerce, 941.

Tepfer R.A. Mjr

“Allocation of Tort Liability Risks in the Space Shuttle Program” (1982-83) Air Force Law Review, 208.

Terekhov A.D.

“UN General Assembly Resolutions and Outer Space Law” (1997) 40 Colloquium, 97.

Thieffry P,Van Doorn P,Lowe S

Strict Product Liability in the EEC: Implementation, Practice and Impact on US Manufacturers of Directive 85/374" (1985) Tort and Insurance Law Journal, at 65.

Thoma W.

“Launch Service Contracts” (1982) ESA Bulletin, 33

Thoma W.

“A Fresh Look at Launch-Service Contracts” (1988) ESA Bulletin, 49.

Tompkins G.N.

“The Future of the Warsaw Convention Liability System” (1999) 2 The Aviation Quarterly, 38.

375 Tompkins G.N.

“The Montreal Convention of 1999: This is the Answer” (1999) 3 The Aviation Quarterly, 114

Trinder R.B.

“Recent Developments in Litigation” (1990) 5 Journal of Law and Technology, 45.

Trinder R.B.

“Legal Aspects of Commercial Space Activities. US Space Law: Develoments in Case Law”, paper presented at the International Conference on Air Transport and Space Applications in a New World, The Use of Airspace and Outer Space for all Mankind in the 21st Century, Tokyo, June 1993.

Trippett L.M.

“Legislative Initiatives to Encourage Private Activity” (1989) 4:1 Journal of Law & Technology, at 49.

Tucker S.

“Some Strategic Defense Initiatives Toward Preventing US Space Insurance Related Disputes and Litigation” (1993) 21 Journal of Space Law, 123.

Tunc A.

“La distinction des obligations de résultat et des obligations de diligence” (1945) Semaine Juridique (JCP), I, at 449.

Turck F.

“L’évolution des obligations contractuelles du constructeur vis à vis de son client: ‘de l’obligation de moyens à l’obligation de résultats’”, in P. Kahn Ed, L’exploitation commerciale de l’espace, Droit Positif, Droit Prospectif, supra books, at 203.

Vasseur P.

“Une création de la pratique, les censeurs dans les sociétés anonymes” (1974) Recueil Dalloz (D), Chron, 67.

Vereschetin & Danilenko

“Custom as a Source of International Law of Outer Space” (1985)13 Journal of Space Law, 22.

Viney G.

“L’autonomie du droit à réparation de la victime par ricochet par rapport à celui de la victime initiale” (1974) Recueil Dalloz (D), Chron, 3.

Viney G.

“Vers un élargissement de la catégorie des personnes dont on doit répondre: la porte entrouverte sur une nouvelle interprétation de l’article 1384, al 1er du Code Civil” (1991) Recueil Dalloz, Chron, 157.

Vlasic I.A.

“Disarmament Decade, Outer Space and International Law” (1980) 26 McGill Law Journal, 135

Von der Dunk F.

“Liability versus Responsibility in Space Law: Misconception or Misconstruction?” (1991) 34 Colloquium, 363.

Von der Dunk F.

“A Two Stage Tool, Launching Activities and the Creation of Domestic Space Law, The Example of US Launching Regulations, in European Centre for Space Law Ed., Proceedings of the Third ECSL Summer Course on Space Law and Policy, supra books, at 245.

376 Von der Dunk F.

“The 1972 Liability Convention. Enhancing Adherence and Effective Application” (1998) 41 Colloquium, 366.

Wassenbergh H.A.

“The Exploration and Use of Outer Space as the ‘Province’ of the Society of States (The Moon Agreement in Prospect)”, in H.A.Wassenbergh, Principles of Outer Space Law in Hindsight, supra books.

Wassenbergh H.A.

“The Law Governing International Private Commercial Activities of Space Transportation”(1993) 21:2 Journal of Space Law, 97.

Wassenbergh H.A.

“The Right of States to Participate in Air and Space Transportation Activities”, Valedictory Lecture delivered on 2 September 1994 (Deventer: Kluwer, 1994).

Wassenbergh H.A

“A Launch and a Transportation Law Separate From Outer Space Law? It is Time to Legally Unburden the ‘Launching State’”(1996)21:1 Air and Space Law, 28.

Wassenbergh H.A.

“The Law of Commercial Space Activities”, in G. Lafferranderie & D.Crowther eds, Outlook on Space Law over the Next 30 Years, supra books, at 173.

Wassenbergh H.A.

“Elements of Future Legal Frameworks for Private Space Activities”, in Proceedings of the Sixth ECSL Summer Course on Space Law and Policy, supra books, at 121.

Wassenbergh H.A.

“The Art of Regulating International Air and Space Transportation. An Exercise in Regulatory Approaches to Analyzing Air and Space Transportation” (1998) XXIII Annals of Air And Space Law, 201.

Webber A.D.

“Launching the Rocket Industry in the United States: Domestic Regulation of Private Expendable Launch Vehicles” (1984) 49 Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 1, at 36.

Weber H.E.

“Concept and Problems of An Ariane 4 Launch Services Contracts” in European Centre for Space Law Ed., Proceedings of the Sixth ECSL Space Law and Policy Summer Course, supra books, at 213.

Wilkins

“Substantive Bases for Recovery for Injuries Sustained by Private Individuals” (1978) 6 Journal of Space Law, 161

Williams S.M.

“The exploitation and Use of Natural Resources in the New Law of the Sea and the Law of Outer Space” (1986) 29 Colloquium, 198.

Winnick J.S.

“Risk Allocation in Spacecraft Procurement Contracts” (1990) 5 Journal of Law and Technology, 13.

Wirin W.B.

“Practical Implications of Launching State -

377 Appropriate State Definitions” (1994) 37 Colloquium, 109. Yakovenko A.

“The Intergovernmental Agreement on the International Space Station” (1999) 15:2 Space Policy, 79.

Yelton K.G.

“Evolution, Organisation and Implementation of the Commercial Space Launch Act and Amendment of 1988" (1989) 4:1 Journal of Law and Technology, 117.

Yoshida H.

“Accidents of Space Activities and Insurance” (1993) 44 Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, 221.

Young A.J.

“ TheOuter Space Act 1986” (1986) XI Annals of Air and Space Law, 412.

INTERNET SOURCES

(All internet addresses reported below and in this thesis have been checked and accessed in January 2001. Due to the rapid evolutions on the internet, we have also provided the name of the web page concerned and some information on its contents to help the reader track them in case the corresponding sites are moved). Andrews Space & Technology : A comprehensive database on the existing launchers worldwide. Arianespace:

: The web site of the Arianespace company. General documentation about the company and the launchers.

Archimedes Institute:

: A resource for a large number ofspace law related documentation (treaties, domestic regulations, litterature)

Aviation Law

: product liability.

ECSL

: the home page of the European Center for Space Law, and also the entry point into the ESALEX database.

ESA ESTEC

: ESA Technical Centre website.

ESA ECSS Standards:

: ESA ECSS Standards, structure and texts of the standards.

ESA EEE Parts:

: ESA components page.

ESA ISS

: Information on ESA and its participation in the International Space Station Project.

ESA standards:

: ESA

resources

mostly on

378 PSS standards resource. Federal Register

: access to US official published federal regulations, public laws and presidential documents.

Hieros Gamos

: a general legal site providing information and powerful search capabilities into US laws, cases and litterature, and also international law, laws of various countries. By general topics or by areas of practice.

ICAO

: information on the organization

In Orbit Newsletter:

: Insurance information

Institute of Air and Space Law : Database on air and space law. International Court of Justice:

: home page of the International Court of Justice. : site of the international court of justice.

Mirror

Jane’s:

: Various information on the space business and space actors (commercial databases).

Jurist

: various resources on all field of law, courses and summaries, links.

Legal Information Institute

: various resources in the field of law.

Legifrance

: substantial French law web resources site with legislation, jurisprudence, codes, official journal.

LEXIS (lawschools)

: various information for law students with subject summaries etc.

NASA HQ Procurement Office : documentation used by NASA for its procurements. Regulations, contracts clauses. NASA EEE Parts:

: NASA components page.

NASA ISS:

: NASA International Space Station web page.

Office for Outer Space Affairs

: activities of the OOSA, space law treaties and declarations, status of parties, Unispace information.

UNIDROIT:

: general information about UNIDROIT and works of the UNIDROIT, UNIDROIT Conventions.

Uniform Commercial Code

: Access to the text of the UCC.

US Code

:

access to all

379 chapters of the US Code with cross references to corresponding public laws, amendments. US Department of Commerce

: web site of the Bureau of Export Administration. Extensive information on export controls, with regulations and links to other administrations with export control responsibilities.

Ward & Partners

: Australian Law Firm providing information about the new Australian licensing legislation.

OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, UNGA Res 2345(XXII), Adopted on 19 December 1967. Entered into force on 3 December 1968. Emerging International Law, at 550; UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space (New York, 1996), at 10 (UN Doc A/AC.105/ 572/Rev.1) [hereinafter Outer Space Office Texts]; 672 UNTS, 119; 19 UST 7570; TIAS 6599; (1993) XVII, Part II McGill Ann.Air & Sp.L., at 635. Online at the Institute of Air and Space Law (Ref above) Agreement Governing the activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Adopted on 5 December 1979, Entered into force: 11 July 1984. Emerging International Law, at 570; Outer Space Office Texts, at 28; (1993) XVIII Part II, McGill Ann.Air & Sp.L., at 691; UN Doc A/RES/34/68 of 5 December 1979; 18 ILM 1434; 1363 UNTS 3. Online at Office of Outer Space Affairs (Ref above) Code Civil (Paris: Litec, 1998-1999). Online at Legifrance (ref above) Commercial Expendable Launch Vehicle Activities. Executive Order 12465. February 24, 1984. 20 Weekly Comp Pres Doc. (1984) 49 Fed Reg Nb 40, Tuesday Feb 28, 1984. Commercial Space Launch Act, 49 USC, online at AST (see address above). Commercial Space Act 1998, Public Law 105-303, October 28, 1998, 112 Stat 2843. Convention on Liability For Damage Caused by Space Objects, UNGA Res 2777 (XXVI), Adopted on 29 November 1971, Entered into force on 9 October 1973. Emerging International Law, at 554; Outer Space Office Texts, at 14; 961 UNTS, 187; 24 UST, 2389; TIAS 7762; (1993) XVIII Part II McGill Ann.Air & Sp.L., at 651. Online at Office of Outer Space Affairs (Ref above). Convention on Registration of Objects Launched in Outer Space, UNGA Res 3235(XXIX), Adopted on 12 November 1974, Entered into force on 15 September 1976. Emerging International Law, at 564; Outer Space Office Texts, at 23; 1023 UNTS, 15; 28 UST, 695; TIAS 8480; (1993) XVIII Part II, McGill Ann.Air & Sp.L., at 677; Online at Office of Outer Space Affairs (Ref above) Convention on the Law of the Sea, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/122; (1982) 21 ILM 1261 and Online: