proceedings of the 2nd author’s workshop bonn, germany, 18 ......associate professor dr. ram jakhu...

i

Proceedings of the 2nd Author’s Workshop

Bonn, Germany, 18 – 20 June 2009 Volumes II & III: The UN Treaties and GA

Resolutions relating to Outer Space

STEPHAN HOBE BERNHARD SCHMIDT-TEDD

KAI-UWE SCHROGL GÉRARDINE GOH

Institute of Air and Space Law of the University of Cologne

Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. German Aerospace Center

© DLR

iii

Stephan Hobe • Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd • Kai-Uwe Schrogl • Gérardine Goh

Proceedings

of the Second Authors’ Workshop, Bonn, Germany, 18 – 20 June 2009

for Volumes II & III: The United Nations Treaties and General Assembly Resolutions relating to Outer Space

of the Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL)

Institute of Air and Space Law of the University of Cologne

Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. German Aerospace Center

iv

Preface This document is based on the presentations and round-table discussions from the Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL) Second Authors’ Workshop held at the premises of the German Aerospace Center (DLR), in Bonn-Oberkassel, Germany, on 18 – 20 June 2009. The meeting gathered thirty legal academicians, practitioners and scientists to discuss the application of the rule of law to activities in outer space, in particular the relevance and practicability of the United Nations Treaties and General Assembly Resolutions relating to Outer Space. The Workshop was held in the framework of the Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL), a joint undertaking between the Institute of Air and Space Law (ILWR) of the University of Cologne and the DLR. This collaboration builds on the scientific proficiency of the Institute and the technical capacity of the DLR. Leveraging this unique partnership, the CoCoSL Project aims to provide a detailed commentary on the output of forty years of space law-making in the United Nations, in a format useful to academics, practitioners and technicians from the field of space law and beyond. The output of the CoCoSL Project comprises a three-volume, provision-by-provision Commentary on the five United Nations treaties on outer space and the relevant major UN General Assembly resolutions. The CoCoSL Project will take a closer look at the written norms of space law, taking into account space law provisions developed outside the United Nations, as well as the associated State practice, with a special emphasis on the European perspective of space activities and space law. The first Volume of the Commentary has been completed, and is slated for a September 2009 publication date, following on the heels of a very successful First Authors’ Workshop that was held in Vienna, Austria, on 10 – 11 January 2008. Volume I of CoCoSL focused on the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 2222 (XXI) and opened for signature on 27 January 2008. It entered into force on 10 October 1967, and as of 01 January 2009, has received 100 ratifications and 27 signatures. Volume I of CoCoSL provides a historical overview of the Outer Space Treaty, including a provision-by-provision review as to its present-day applicability. Insights into the negotiations and drafting history, a commentary on the text of each Article, and future perspectives were also considered. A total of twenty Authors contributed to Volume I, with each substantive Article being discussed in a dedicated chapter. The second Volume will see a provision-by-provision Commentary of the four other United Nations Treaties relating to Outer Space: The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of

Objects Launched into Outer Space (“Rescue Agreement”, or ARRA);

© DLR

v

The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (“Liability Convention”, or LIAB);

The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (“Registration Convention”, or REG); and

The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (“Moon Agreement”, or MOON).

The Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly relating to outer space provide the focal point of the third Volume of the Commentary. Six major resolutions will be addressed, which are: The Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International

Direct Television Broadcasting (UN GA Resolution 37/92 of 10 December 1982) The Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space (UN GA

Resolution 41/65 of 03 December 1986) The Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space (UN GA

Resolution 47/68 of 14 December 1992) The Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for

the Benefit and in the Interest of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries (UN GA Resolution 51/122 of 13 December 1996)

Application of the concept of the "launching State" (UN GA Resolution 59/115 of 10 December 2004)

Recommendations on enhancing the practice of States and international intergovernmental organisations in registering space objects (UN GA Resolution 62/101 of 17 December 2007).

The Second Authors’ Workshop involved members of the Project’s Scientific Advisory Board, its Editors, and Authors of Volumes II and III. Work on Volumes II and III is being undertaken simultaneously, with a publication date planned for 2011. Several people were instrumental in the organisation of the Second Workshop. Julia Dornbusch, Anne Hurtz, Erik Pellander, Majid Salehi and Kaniska Wiar of the ILWR provided the logistical support that ensured the flawless execution of the Workshop, and also acted as rapporteurs for the Workshop and Splinter Meetings thereafter. Oliver Huth and Julia Neumann provided invaluable assistance as rapporteurs to the first two sessions. We are grateful to the members of the Scientific Advisory Board and to the Authors who participated in the Workshop. It was with the insight, dedication and energy of all the participants that the three-day Workshop resulted in such fruitful and exciting scientific discussions. Stephan Hobe ILWR

Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd DLR

Kai-Uwe Schrogl ESPI

Gérardine Goh DLR / ILWR

vi

Contributors Professor Dr. Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel Member of the Scientific Advisory Board khbö[email protected] Dr. Ulrike Bohlmann Legal Department, Office for Institutional Relations, European Space Agency Siège, 8 – 10 rue Mario Nikis, F-75738 Paris Cedex 15, France [email protected] Ms. Julia Dornbusch Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Cologne, Germany [email protected] Associate Prof. Steven Freeland Faculty of Law, University of Western Sydney Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South Distribution Centre, NSW 1797, Australia [email protected] Professor Dr. Joanne Gabrynowicz Director, National Remote Sensing and Space Law Center University of Mississippi School of Law, University, MS 38677, United States of America [email protected] Dr. Gérardine Goh German Aerospace Center Königswinterer Straße 522-524, 53227 Bonn-Oberkassel, Germany [email protected] Prof. Ray Harris Executive Dean, Faculty of Social and Historical Science University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom [email protected] Mr. Niklas Hedman Office for Outer Space Affairs, United Nations at Vienna PO Box 600, 1400 Vienna, Austria [email protected] Prof. Dr. Stephan Hobe Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Cologne, Germany [email protected] Ms. Anne Hurtz Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Cologne, Germany [email protected]

vii

Mr. Oliver Huth SES L-6815 Château de Betzdorf, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Luxemburg [email protected] Associate Professor Dr. Ram Jakhu Institute of Air and Space Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University 3661 Peel Street, Montreal QC H3A 1X1, Canada [email protected] Professor Armel Kerrest Faculté de droit de Bretagne Occidentale 34 route de Milizac, F-29820 Guilers, France [email protected] Professor Vladimír Kopal Member of the Scientfic Advisory Board Professor V.S. Mani Director, School of Law and Governance Jaipur National University, Jagatpura, Jaipur 302 025, India [email protected] Mr. Leopold Mantl European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry Unit H5 - GMES Bureau, B-1049 Brussels, BREY 09/226, Belgium [email protected] Professor Dr. Irmgard Marboe Abteilung für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Universität Wien, Schottenbastei 10-16, Stiege 2, 5. Stock, A-1010 Vienna, Austria [email protected] Mrs. Tanja Masson-Zwaan International Institute of Air and Space Law, Leiden University Steenschuur 25, PO Box 9520, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands [email protected] Ms. Julia Neumann c/o Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Cologne, Germany [email protected] Dr. Daniela Nießen German Aerospace Center Königswinterer Straße 522-524, 53227 Bonn-Oberkassel, Germany [email protected] Mr. Erik Pellander Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Cologne, Germany [email protected]

viii

Dr. Nicola Rohner-Willsch German Aerospace Center Linder Höhe, 51147 Cologne, Germany [email protected] Mr. Majid Salehi Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Cologne, Germany [email protected] Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd German Aerospace Center Königswinterer Straße 522-524, 53227 Bonn-Oberkassel, Germany [email protected] Prof. Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl European Space Policy Institute Schwarzenbergplatz 6, A-1030 Vienna, Austria [email protected] Prof. Dr. Lesley Jane Smith Weber-Steinhaus & Smith Baumwollboerse Zi 223, Wachtstrasse 17-24 , 28195 Bremen, Germany [email protected] / [email protected] Ms. Olga Stelmakh Chief Specialist, International Relations Department National Space Agency of Ukraine, 8 Moskovska Str.,, Kyiv, Ukraine [email protected] Dr. Leslie I. Tennen Law Offices of Sterns & Tennen 6903 West Thomas Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85033, United States of America [email protected] Mr. Kanishka Wiar Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Cologne, Germany [email protected] Professor Dr. Haifeng Zhao Professor and Dean, Harbin Institute of Technology School of Law 92 West Dazhi Street, P.O. Box 235, Harbin, 150 001, China [email protected]

1

Contents Opening 3 The CoCoSL Project: Overview Presentation 5 Programme 14 Session 1: Authors’ Overview of Volume II 17

1968 Rescue Agreement 18

Presentation 18 Rapporteur’s Notes 23

1972 Liability Convention 24 Presentation 24 Rapporteur’s Notes 30

1975 Registration Convention 31 Presentation 31 Rapporteur’s Notes 37

1979 Moon Agreement 38 Presentation 38 Rapporteur’s Notes 43

Session 2: Authors’ Overview of Volume III 44

1982 Direct Broadcasting Principles 45

Presentation 45 Rapporteur’s Notes 51

1986 Remote Sensing Principles 53 Presentation 53 Rapporteur’s Notes 62

1992 Nuclear Power Sources 64 Presentation 64 Rapporteur’s Notes 77

1996 Space Benefits Declaration 78 Presentation 78 Rapporteur’s Notes 83

2004 Launching State Resolution 85 Presentation 85 Rapporteur’s Notes 89

2007 Registration Resolution 90 Presentation 90 Rapporteur’s Notes 95

Splinter Meetings: Working Group 1 96 Splinter Meetings: Working Group 2 97 Splinter Meetings: Working Group 3 98 Sessions 3 and 4: Report of Working Group Splinter Meetings Part A – Volume III 99

2

Session 5: Report of Working Group Splinter Meetings Part B – Volume II 100 Closing and Conclusions 101 Appendix A: Photographs 111 Appendix B: Volumes II and III – Authors’ Guidelines 120 Appendix C: Volumes II and III Suggested Literature 126

General Literature 126 1968 Rescue Agreement 126 1972 Liability Convention 126

1975 Registration Convention 127 1979 Moon Agreement 128 1982 UNGAR Direct Broadcasting Principles 129 1986 UNGAR Remote Sensing Principles 129 1992 UNGAR Nuclear Power Sources Principles 131 1996 UNGAR Benefits Declaration 131 2004 UNGAR Concept of the Launching State 131 2007 UNGAR Practice of Registration Resolution 132

Appendix D: Citation Guidelines 133 Appendix E: CoCoSL Project Participants 140

3

Opening The Second Authors’ Workshop of the Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL) started punctually at noon on Thursday, 18 June 2009 with registration and a welcome luncheon for all participants at the premises of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) in Bonn-Oberkassel, Germany. The Editors, Prof. Dr. Stephan Hobe, Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd and Prof. Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl, were on hand to welcome the participants. The informal atmosphere created by the buffet luncheon allowed participants, most of whom were acquainted, to renew working relationships and catch up on recent developments. Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd, as representative of the host German Aerospace Center, welcomed the participants to Bonn. He spoke of the importance of the cooperation between the German Aerospace Center and the Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne, and the many years of history between the two institutions. He also highlighted the significance of the development of space law and policy. Dr. Schmidt-Tedd concluded with the hope that the participants will find the discussions to be fruitful and thought-provoking, and that the Workshop will set the tone for the further progress of the CoCoSL Project. Prof. Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl then addressed the participants, welcoming them to the Workshop as an Editor of the Project. He introduced the Project format and participants, noting that many of the authors for Volumes II and III of the Commentary were also important contributors to the first Volume of the Commentary. He noted that there would be a change in the format of the cooperation. The first Volume took a chapter-per-provision approach in commenting on the Outer Space Treaty. However, Volumes II and III will take a Part-by-Part format, with each part commenting on a different UN document. Prof. Dr. Stephan Hobe, acting in his capacity as academic director of the Project, then took the podium to give a brief scientific introduction to the Project. In addition to the high scientific standards of the Project, Prof. Dr. Hobe also underlined the importance of sound research and critical analysis so as to ensure a reliable and practicable commentary to the written norms of space law. Prof. Dr. Hobe also asked authors to raise any contentious issues arising in the course of the preparations of their contributions, especially in the case where there may be conflicting opinions between authors. He emphasised the importance of a coherent, scientific output, and also asked authors to raise any issues relating to logistics, scheduling difficulties or lack of resources. Prof. Dr. Hobe then handed the floor over to Dr. Gérardine Goh for an overview presentation of the CoCoSL Project. Dr. Gérardine Goh, as Project Manger and Assistant Editor of the first Volume of the Commentary, then gave a short status overview and introduction to the second phase of the Project.

© DLR

4

Welcome Address: Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd, Editor, CoCoSL

Distinguished members of the Scientific Advisory Board, Prof. Kopal, Prof. Böckstiegel, authors and friends, A very warm welcome here in Bonn on the premises of the DLR Space Agency. I address a particular thank to these participants who came here from far away. Despite the smallness of our group, most regions are represented. This broad regional representation is a special concern of our project. It has now been one and a half year that our first authors’ workshop following an invitation by ESPI took place in Vienna. The crucial point is that today the plans of that time have been implemented and Volume 1 has been delivered to the publisher this being a prerequisite for the publication in time at the IAC Congress 2009. This second CoCoSL authors’ workshop is on the one hand the kick off meeting for Volumes 2 and 3 and at the same time a sort of midterm review concerning the experience made up so far. What is exceptional about our CoCoSL project is the format of a legal commentary. There are a lot of publications and interpretations of the Outer Space Treaties, among them as well very many individual perspectives. By choosing deliberately the format of a legal commentary we wanted to contribute to a most authentic interpretation of the UN Treaties and underline this as well by the format. Obviously, a commentary is not an anthology of eccentric interpretations. At the beginning of our project, the format was not familiar to everybody. However, the final product of Volume 1 shows conclusive proof that the efforts have been rewarded. We should take advantage of the next days to exchange detailed experiences in order to be better prepared for Volumes 2 and 3. Drawing on very different experiences in our international authors’ team, there will be a lot of topics of conversation. The common belief in intending to make a best possible contribution to the adequate interpretation of the UN Space Treaties will be crucial as a result. This is today of special importance in view of the (protagonists’) alternation of the generations as only very few remain having a direct own impression of the negotiations of the UN Space Treaties. I think all of us are aware of the fact that the consensus forming the basis of the UN Space Treaties could hardly be reached if the treaties were renegotiated today. Stressing the value of the basic principles contained in the UN Treaties is all the more important in the process of enhancing space law. Everybody approaching solutions of current problems in accordance with this basic conviction will be pleasantly surprised how much perspective substance is contained in the UN Treaties. Dealing with Soft Law in Volume 3 will give an opportunity to look into the difficulties with respect to the enhancement of the Treaties. The program of the workshop is arranged so as to allow ample opportunity to informal talks as well. I hope you will enjoy your stay here in Bonn and take many positive impressions of the region back home. I wish all participants every success and in this workshop.

5

The CoCoSL Project: Overview Presentation By Dr. Gérardine Meishan Goh, DLR, Germany

14

Programme DAY 1: THURSDAY 18 JUNE 2009 11:00 Registration / Lunch 12:00 Welcome

Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI)

12:30 The CoCoSL Project

Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne) Session 1: Authors’ Overview of Volume 2 Chairpersons: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (CoCoSL SAB) Rapporteur: Oliver Huth (SES Astra) 13:00 1968 Rescue Agreement (ARRA)

Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Andre Farand (ESA, in abstentia), Irmgard Marboe (University of Vienna), Julia Neumann (University of Cologne)

13:30 1972 Liability Convention (LIAB)

Armel Kerrest (ECSL / University of Brest), Sergio Marchisio (ECSL / University of Rome, La Sapienza, in abstentia), Lesley Jane Smith (University of Lüneburg)

14:00 1975 Registration Convention (REG)

Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Ulrike M. Bohlmann (ESA), Natalya Malysheva (University of Kiev, in abstentia), Olga S. Stelmakh (National Space Agency of Ukraine), Leslie Tennen (Sterns and Tennen)

14:30 1979 Moon Agreement (MOON)

Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Ram Jakhu (McGill University), Steven Freeland (University of Western Sydney)

Session 2: Authors’ Overview of Volume 3 Chairpersons: Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Vladimír Kopal (CoCoSL SAB) Rapporteur: Julia Neumann (University of Cologne) 15:30 1982 Direct Broadcasting Principles

Marco Ferrazzani (ESA, in abstentia), Oliver Huth (SES Astra) 16:00 1986 Remote Sensing Principles

Joanne Gabrynowicz (University of Mississippi), Leopold Mantl (European Commission), Ray Harris (University College London), Balakista Reddy (NALSAR University of Law, in abstentia)

16:30 1992 Nuclear Power Sources Principles

Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne), Tanja Masson-Zwaan (Leiden University) 17:00 1996 Space Benefits Declaration

Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), V.S. Mani (Jaipur National University), Haifeng Zhao (Harbin Institute of Technology)

DLR

© DLR

© DLR

15

17:30 2004 Resolution on the Definition of the “Launching State”

Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Frank Riemann (ESA, in abstentia)

18:00 2007 Registration Resolution Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Niklas Hedman (UN OOSA)

19:45 Workshop Dinner DAY 2: FRIDAY 19 JUNE 2009 10:00 – 12:30 Working Group Splinter Meetings Working Group 1: Chairpersons: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (REG / Reg. Resolution), Vladimír Kopal (CoCoSL SAB) Rapporteur: Anne Hurtz, Kanishka Wiar Members: Ulrike M. Bohlmann (REG), Olga S. Stelmakh (REG), Leslie Tennen (REG), Niklas

Hedman (Registration Resolution), Joanne Gabrynowicz (RS), Leopold Mantl (RS), Ray Harris (RS)

Working Group 2: Chairpersons: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ARRA / Launching State), Gérardine Goh (NPS) Rapporteur: Julia Dornbusch Members: Irmgard Marboe (ARRA), Julia Neumann (ARRA), Armel Kerrest (LIAB), Lesley Jane

Smith (LIAB), Tanja Masson-Zwaan (NPS) Working Group 3: Chairperson: Stephan Hobe (MOON / Space Benefits), Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (CoCoSL SAB) Rapporteur: Majid Salehi Members: Ram Jakhu (MOON), Steven Freeland (MOON), V.S. Mani (Space Benefits), Haifeng

Zhao (Space Benefits), Oliver Huth (DBS) 12:30 Lunch 14:00 – 15:30 Splinter Group Meetings Session 3: Volume 3 Working Group Results (Part One) Chairperson: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Vladimír Kopal (CoCoSL SAB) Rapporteur: Anne Hurtz (University of Cologne) 16:00 1982 Direct Broadcasting Principles

Marco Ferrazzani (ESA, in abstentia), Oliver Huth (SES Astra)

16:15 1986 Remote Sensing Principles



Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne), Tanja Masson-Zwaan (Leiden University)

© DLR

© DLR

16

Session 4: Volume 3 Working Group Results (Part Two) Chairpersons: Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR) Rapporteur: Anne Hurtz (University of Cologne) 16:45 1996 Space Benefits Declaration


17:00 2004 Resolution on the Definition of the “Launching State” Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Frank Riemann (ESA, in abstentia) 17:15 2007 Registration Resolution

Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Niklas Hedman (UN OOSA) 17:30 Discussion: Wrap-Up of Volume 3 Led by Session Chairs 19:00 Workshop Dinner 2 DAY 3: SATURDAY 20 JUNE 2009 Session 5: Volume 2 Working Group Results Chairpersons: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne) Rapporteur: Anne Hurtz, Kanishka Wiar (both University of Cologne) 09:30 1968 Rescue Agreement (ARRA)

Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Andre Farand (ESA), Irmgard Marboe (University of Vienna), Julia Neumann (University of Cologne)







11:30 Conclusion Discussion led by Session Chairs, Rapporteur: Kanishka Wiar (University of Cologne) 12:30 Working Lunch

© DLR

17

Session 1: Authors’ Overview of Volume II Thursday, 10 January 2008

Moderators: Professor Dr. Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel Member of the Scientific Advisory Board, CoCoSL Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd Editor, CoCoSL, and Head, Business and Legal Support: Space Agency, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Germany Rapporteur: Mr. Oliver Huth Legal Counsel, SES

13:00 1968 Rescue Agreement (ARRA)

Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Andre Farand (ESA, in abstentia), Irmgard Marboe (University of Vienna), Julia Neumann (University of Cologne)







© DLR

DLR

© DLR

18

1968 Rescue Agreement

Presentation

23

Rapporteur’s Notes (Oliver Huth)

The authors’ overview on the planned article regarding this UN Treaty was given by Ms Julia Neumann (University of Cologne). Julia Neumann stresses that this Treaty was the first after the OST and that its conclusion had been accelerated by casualties (death of astronauts) in 1967. The authors will concentrate on the two major subject-matters dealt with under the ARRA : “personnel of a spacecraft” and “space objects”. Julia Neumann points out that the ARRA foresees regulation regarding cost bearing for the return of space objects, but not regarding the rescue of personnel. The reasons of the non-regulation of this topic might be an area of further in-depth analysis. The authors will attempt to clarify the reasons for this potential gap. Further subject to discussions will be the definition of “personnel of a spacecraft”, especially delimiting it against the use of the word “astronaut”. The team will also focus on the term “launching authority” (as opposed to “Launching State”). The relevance and impact of the ARRA on the ISS IGA will be analysed. Finally, attention will also be given on the benefits that developing countries derive from the ARRA.

24

1972 Liability Convention

Presentation

30


Authors: Armel Kerrest (University of Brest), Sergio Marchisio (ECSL/University of Rome, La Sapienza), Lesley Jane Smith (University of Lüneburg) The overview on the article is presented by Lesley Jane Smith (University of Lüneburg) and Armel Kerrest (ECSL/ University of Brest). The authors highlight the importance of the genesis of the Liability Convention (was already being developed during the negotiations of the OST). They inform that they will focus on the fault/ non-fault dichotomy of the liability regime introduced and will reflect on its appropriateness. Another area of legal analysis will be the issue of applicability of the OST where the Liability Convention does not apply. The topic of apportionment of fault/damages in the case of joint launches as well as with regard to third party states will also be analyzed. The relation and interaction with national space laws constitutes another section of the article. The increasing number of private-lead launching activities and the existing State liability regime are seemingly distant from one another: this “commercialization” aspect and its impact on the Liability Convention (as well as related enforcement issues) will also be focused on. Finally, the authors point out that the Iridium collision in Jan/Feb 2009 will certainly draw increased attention to their chapter (and thus, the Iridium case will be analyzed to the extent information is available).

31

1975 Registration Convention

Presentation

37


Authors: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Natalya Malysheva (University of Kiev), Olga Stelmakh (National Space Agency of Ukraine) Leslie Tennen (Sterns and Tennen) The article overview is given by Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR). Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd outlines the structure of the planned article, which follows the structure “(I) Introduction, (II) Negotiation and Drafting History, (III) Interpretation of Provisions, (IV) Future Perspectives”. The basis of the REG, Article VIII OST and the 1961 UN GA Resolution, are of great importance for the history and genesis of the REG. National registries and State registration practices will be presented and analyzed. In relation to such practice, the question of non-acceptance of the REG and the reasons behind such refusal will be clarified. The special case of IGO registries and the problems/issues related to such a registration constitute another area to which the contribution will draw special attention to.

38

1979 Moon Agreement

Presentation

43

Rapporteur’s Notes (Oliver Huth) Authors: Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Ram Jakhu (McGill University), Steven Freeland (University of Western Australia) The presentation of the overview on this article is given by Prof Hobe (University of Cologne). He begins with stating that especially this treaty had been subject to misuse by propaganda in its early days. The agreement is now experiencing a “revival”, given the new interest by States and their space agencies in the exploration of the moon. The authors of this article will analyze the hesitance of the industrialized nations with regard to ratifying this treaty. Further, the concept of “non-appropriation” will be commented. In addition, the ideas of “non use of force”, “environmental protection” and “common heritage of mankind” will be put into perspective with regard to the Moon Agreement. Art. 11 7 d) of the Moon Agreement and its relation/potential conflict with the OST will be examined. Finally, comparative analyses will be contemplated with the Antarctica Treaty, the Law of the Sea Convention as well as with the ITU Constitution Governing the Geostationary Orbit.

44

Session 2: Authors’ Overview of Volume III

Thursday, 18 June 2009

Moderators: Professor Dr. Vladimír Kopal

Member of the Scientific Advisory Board, CoCoSL

Professor Dr. Stephan Hobe

Editor, CoCoSL and Director, Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne, Germany

Rapporteur: Ms. Julia Neumann

Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne, Germany

15:30 1982 Direct Broadcasting Principles

Marco Ferrazzani (ESA, in abstentia), Oliver Huth (SES Astra) 16:00 1986 Remote Sensing Principles



Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne), Tanja Masson-Zwaan (Leiden University) 17:00 1996 Space Benefits Declaration


17:30 2004 Resolution on the Definition of the “Launching State”

Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Frank Riemann (ESA, in abstentia)

18:00 2007 Registration Resolution Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Niklas Hedman (UN OOSA)

18:30 End of Session

19:45 Workshop Dinner Till late Weinrestaurant Zur Lese, Adenauerallee 37, 53113 Bonn

© DLR

45

1982 Direct Broadcasting Principles

Presentation

51

Rapporteur’s Notes (Julia Neumann)

1. Presentation

Oliver Huth started his presentation by giving an overview in which he summarized that there are 15 Principles, with Principle 1 being the most important one. He asked for specific feedback on Principle 4 and pointed to state responsibility being dealt with in Principle 8. The contribution will be considering principle by principle, the division of labour still having to be determined. He also emphasised that there are various actors in direct broadcasting by satellites (DBS), such as satellite operators, and that SES was created only 3 years after the DBS Principles. He indicated that the principle of free flow of information was very important to operators such as SES. As to the chapter structure, the author pointed to the issue of different interests between developing states and industrial states. Also, the meaning of eg TV broadcasting should be clarified, and whether internet via satellite can be regarded as such. Huth indicated that cross-references with other UN treaties, or treaty provisions, would be included. Moreover, reference would be made to conflicts with legislation enacted subsequently to the DBS Principles, such as by the Council of Europe and EU legislation. Specifically, he asked whether there existed similar American agreements. Subsequently, the author presented definitions to be agreed upon among authors, such as

- broadcasting state - receiving state - international TV DBS.

In this respect, Armel Kerrest made the remark that reference should be made to Article VI OST, and Tanja Masson-Zwaan that reference must be made to human rights.

Lastly, Huth requested specific feedback on the questions of on which other legal conventions and provisions the authors on the DBS Principles should focus, and whether the subject was already dealt with to some extent in Vol. I.

2. Discussion

V. S. Mani started the discussion by pointing to a previous convention on programmes carrying of 1972.

Joanne Gabrynowicz pointed out that there was an equivalent to the EC telecoms TV frontier directive in the US, and that this was an enormous area of law. She continued by asking to what degree other countries should be brought in. Of all topics, she mentioned, the DBS Principles were influenced by an enormous volume of extra-space law rules.

Huth acknowledged this remark and emphasised the need to prioritize in this respect.

In the same line, Jakhu commented that there was an enormous amount of documents that should be consulted. He also raised the issue of what can be called “space law”. Specifically in regard to DBS, he pointed out that the meaning of “broadcast” had to be defined. The whole ITU regulatory framework, esp. the Radio Regulations and the 2007 amendments hereto (Art. 8 or 15, which defines radio broadcasting) had to be considered. As to the meaning of “direct” broadcasting, the change of its meaning over time had to be taken into account (ITU-RR; special ITU agreements dealing specifically with satellite broadcasting). Overall, Jakhu was of the view that the ITU regulations were extremely important. Moreover, he pointed to the 1986 Broadcasting Convention and the Brussels Convention. Especially in Europe, legislation with regard to piracy stations should be considered. Jakhu emphasized the importance of Principles 13, 14, 15, and 10 of the DBS Principles. With regard to certain aspects, esp. the exact meaning of the term “unavoidable spill-over”, he indicated the need to go beyond space law.

Kai-Uwe Schrogl in turn made some comments on the context of the DBS Principles. In that respect, he outlined the calls for a New World Information and Communication Order (NWIO), which was fought for in UNESCO, ITU and the UN system as a whole. In the ITU framework, WARC 1977 and 1983 were of specific importance. He thus suggested taking a look on how the work on the DBS

52

Principles reflects the already existing agreement reached by ITU in these conferences. Moreover, he pointed out that the text of the provisions was interesting, since the terms “shall” and “should” are used in different principles. With regard to State practice, he suggested taking a look at cases of deliberate interferences with regard to satellite transmissions. Also Schrogl emphasized that the Chapter on DBS Principles was the place in the Commentary where the regime established by the ITU should be dealt with.

Joanne Gabrynowicz drew attention to the fact that DBS was the only set of principles not adopted without vote, but with countervotes and 13 abstentions. She indicated that this should be acknowledged in the contribution.

Subsequently, Stephan Hobe asked whether the DBS Principles were still relevant. In this respect, he pointed to the fact that they had resulted from old political tensions and posed the question of whether they were outdated. He proposed to examine their relevance.

Vladimir Kopal agreed that the DBS Principles should be considered as an outcome of the past. But it should also be acknowledged that there was not only a strict wall between the East and the West, but also between the West and developing countries – the Group of 77 for instance had a unanimous position. Kopal also pointed out that within UNCOPUOS the adoption procedure was not “violated”, because consensus could not be reached up to the last minute and the Group of 77 decided to go straight forward to the General Assembly (GA), without agreement in UNCOPUOS. The UNGA then decided to vote, not COPUOS, in accordance with its rules of procedure.

Ram Jakhu mentioned that the trend today is to use fixed satellite services (FSS) for broadcasting services. This poses serious practical problems. He disagreed with Hobe in that he considered the DBS Principles as still very important today, even more so than in 1982. He pointed to a misconception: while there were differences between East and West, and developing countries, also the West was not agreed. Moreover, he indicated that this was the second time after the UNESCO Convention that a lot of countries refused to acknowledge the freedom of broadcasting

Steven Freeland made the remark that the freedom of broadcasting in customary law refers essentially to terrestrial broadcasting. The paradigm of broadcasting (including satellite broadcasting) is changing, however, the information flow going no longer in just one direction. Therefore, some of the fundamental arguments have changed and are not valid anymore.

Huth commented that there also is the issue of landing rights, eg India and Mexico, and that control mechanisms States try to employ could be considered. In this respect, Freeland referred to the example of Hong Kong and China.

Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd recommended to take the non-implemented DBS Principles, which had been adopted without consensus in the UNCOPUOS, as an example for the value of the consensus principle. In light of the negative experience with decisions adopted without consensus a particular section could be dedicated to the general working procedure and the consensus principle within the LSC because this procedure turned out to be an effective instrument for the implementation of UNCOPUOS decisions. The example of the DBS Principles illustrates that deviating from this practice is counterproductive to the effectiveness of the body.

V. S. Mani came back to the controversial background of the Principles and pointed to a contribution on the subject by R J Lee and S Freeland, and an article by Bin Cheng on the 1963 Space Declaration as customary international law. He also drew attention to the ICJ Nicaragua case, in which the ICJ regarded the Friendly Relations Declaration as opinio iuris and thus as part of customary international law.

53

1986 Remote Sensing Principles

Presentation

62


1. Presentation

Joanne Gabrynowicz started by providing the tentative work distribution. Subsequently, she gave a chapter overview, beginning with the Chapter’s introduction. She made reference to the potential Landsat commercialization and emphasized the significance of the Resolution, which was the first to be adopted by consensus after Resolution 1962 of 1963. With regard to the negotiations and drafting history, she pointed out that this was still to be determined by the travaux préparatoires, by which the authors would try to establish the context of the Principles. As to the interpretation, it would be necessary to provide definitions and compare them with national statutes. Reference would also be made to subsequent State practice. Gabrynowicz expects Articles IV and XII to require work with a bulk of material. She also mentioned that the term “open sky” – as used by commentators in the previous session, applies only to airplanes. Moreover, she noted that Articles X and XI are of increased relevance. The authors would include empirical material. As to future perspectives, she indicated that the authors would refer to possible developments in the law (esp. at national level), as well as to the present and future applicability of the Resolution (esp. with regard to protection of the environment and humankind). The possible effects on new developments in the field would also be addressed, particularly on commercialization, private spaceflight, national security and international peace. As to the research, emphasis would be placed on the travaux préparatoires, with most of the discussions having taken place between 1983 and 1986. An important question to be raised was the line between law and policy. To this end, data policies such as that of ESA, WMO, and EUMETSAT would be taken into account.

2. Discussion

Leslie Tannen started the discussion by asking how Google Earth fitted in. Gabrynowicz replied that Google will post everything that it finds, and that the biggest issue was whether it could be used as evidence in court. Ray Harris pointed out that it mainly depended on the data policies of the providers.

Niklas Hedman drew attention to the fact that the issue is still very sensitive and very difficult whenever mentioned in UNCOPUOS. Personally, he would like to see it implemented in a Treaty, and also some States would still like to have it as an agenda item. The situation is similar for the DBS Principles, although here only one State pushes for it to be put on the agenda.

Steven Freeland disagreed with Harris on Google Earth and provided an example of where they had to withdraw a page on Amsterdam for privacy reasons. Regarding the climate change discussions, he asked whether the use of remote sensing technology didn’t impact the law in so far.

Harris replied that the term “protection of environment” was being used, which has expanded hugely and could still be extended. Gabrynowicz added that it depends also on whether climate and environment are perceived as the same and gave the example of the IAEA.

Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd emphasized that high resolution data is a sensitive subject and is being dealt with by national laws. Regarding the structure of the Chapter, he recommended that it should be pointed out that Principles 2 and 3 reflected a contrast. The current questions should fit into the structure of the text.

Gérardine Goh made the remark that an operator did not just sell pictures but usually would create products out of it. She asked whether under the Principles, had such company the obligation to provide images? Gabrynowicz pointed to Principle 1 and mentioned that one of the biggest issues was where to find the line.

Vladimir Kopal made two remarks: firstly, that in the LSC the Remote Sensing Principles were often mentioned by the representatives of the sensed countries (eg Brazil), which requested actual access to the data and to the processed information, but that there were different viewpoints.

63

Secondly, he pointed out that the term “open skies” relates to air law, not space law and that there was a clear provision in this respect in Art. I (2) OST.

Kai-Uwe Schrogl mentioned that the set of principles is only laid down in a UNGA resolution, which is very specific and was at the time very relevant. However, the area covered had seen a huge development (monitoring, privacy etc.). He thus asked how these issues will be covered in the future. He raised the issue that UNCOPUOS was not the correct forum, the issue being too “sensitive”. That raised the question of how to deal with these issues, in which forum and in which format? He gave the example of the Charter on Space Major Disasters – which is not a UN instrument – so that there were other fora on the global level that could be used. Thus, ways and means exit to deal with these issues outside the UN system.

Leopold Mantl added that there were international satellite initiatives. To this end, meteorological works and international initiatives (eg climate change research) would be considered.

Harris provided the example of Nigeria, which requested data access for free so long as they were not themselves in the position to provide data, but had difficulties with providing data for free once in the position themselves.

Hedman wondered whether it should at all be proposed within COCOSL where, ie in which forum, the issues should be dealt with. Rather, remote sensing data was being increasingly used, and it would be interesting to see whether ICJ decisions and further case law used such data. He asked whether that would be taken into account.

Stephan Hobe pointed to the work by the international Law Association (ILA) and the dissertation by Jana Hettling on the use of satellite imagery for verification and enforcement of public international law.

Gabrynowicz concluded that she so far did not see evidence on this topic.

64

1992 Nuclear Power Sources

Presentation

77


1. Presentation

Tanja Masson-Zwaan started by providing an overview of their Chapter. She then pointed to specific issues for the introduction, which clearly focussed on the COSMOS-954 incident as the origin of the NPS Principles. Here, a Canada-led group of States had at the time taken the initiative. Reference would be made to the Preamble and the UN Charter. No reference, however, would be made to Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty (OST); rather, it is assumed that the NPS purposes are peaceful. The Preamble of the Principles recognizes the usefulness of NPS, but only for a non-propulsive purpose (ie general electrical power on board). The Preamble also foresees revision of the Principles every two years. Taking a look at the several Principles, Masson-Zwaan pointed to Principle 2, which contains terms such as “launching State” and “State launching”. Principle 3 appears most complicated, since it contains many imprecise terms. Principle 11 contains the already mentioned revision clause. In practice, regarding safety assessments the US has twice and Russia once reported to the UN Secretary-General. This shows that States are complying with the Principles despite its lack of legally binding force. Regarding national research on space debris, NPS and other related subjects, Masson-Zwaan pointed to the Office for Outer Space Affairs (OOSA) index, and national reporting. As to the actual revision, she took notice of the fact that in the UNCOPUOS LSC there still has been no review after 17 years, despite the issue being on the agenda as a single item. The UNCOPUOS Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (STSC) however provided an example of outside bodies working together, esp. the STSC/IAEA Safety Framework, which referred also to propulsion. Remaining issues were the follow-up, especially in the LSC, and whether the principles will be reviewed. Also the question remains of whether they will be extended to propulsion.

2. Discussion

Ram Jakhu underlined the serious definition problem, which was different from other Chapters and should be paid attention to. He also asked whether there have so far really been only three launches with a nuclear record, and what the State practice was in this respect. Also, he posed the question of whether the Principles can be considered customary international law.

Goh drew attention to the fact that the existing recording by States was due to planetary protection ideas and not due to taking into account legal principles.

Jakhu was of the view that it would still be useful to include a discussion on customary international law. With regard to Principle 3 one could consider to what extent general international law is consistent. In respect of State responsibility it was for instance not clear whether the “genuine link” is a necessity in this context.

Hobe pointed out that the meaning of “damage” has been enlarged, including damage to the environment, being recognized for the first time. He thought it necessary to make mention of such development.

Kopal had two remarks to make: first, Principle 3 (2) and (3) emphasise that it was for the first time that the term “sufficiently high orbit” was included and defined. Second, principles and declarations usually include legally relevant principles different from other UNGA resolutions. These may become legally binding on the basis of customary international law, which he considered should be mentioned.

78

1996 Space Benefits Declaration

Presentation

83


1. Presentation

Also Hobe started out with an overview of the Chapter and subsequently came to speak of the introduction, which would be characterized by the consequent delusion of hard law by “soft law”, the underlying reason being highly questionable. It would in any case be pointed out that there was a crisis of law-making after the Moon Agreement (MOON). Regarding the legislative history, it would be outlined that the agenda setting in UNCOPUOS was difficult and that there existed different proposals at the time. He considered the interpretation of the provisions as the crucial point. Pursuant to paragraph 2, it is up to States to determine their cooperation. This, Hobe mentioned, was in line with the developments in international economic law (WTO law) and resulted in a freedom of (developed) States to determine how and with whom to share. For an evaluation of the Space Benefits Declaration, it was interesting to note that it was adopted by consensus, that it was of relevance for the interpretation of Article I (1) OST, and that it served as subsequent State practice to Article I OST. Regarding future perspectives, he posed the question of whether the Declaration meant an end to the development struggle for space activities.

Mani added that, from a legal point of view, the relationship between the Space Benefits Declaration and the treaty framework was not entirely clear. The Space Benefits Declaration of 1996 had been in the pipeline ever since the UNISPACE II recommendations, the follow-up of which continued through the 1990s. Naturally, States finally wanted to have some resulting document. He pointed to the historical developments with the Cold War and developing countries realizing in the 1970s that there were benefits from outer space activities (satellite communications and remote sensing). Now there are regular programmes, including space applications, where developing countries would like to have a share. He was of the view that the contribution should highlight this, and also the fact that many of the provisions come from the OST. Particularly, the declaration still uses the term “mankind”. The wording “on fair terms” in paragraph 2 comes from the Remote Sensing Principles. Even if it is no legal document, the Declaration is still a political document. The role of the UN in this field should be highlighted. Also, countries like India have taken steps (remote sensing centre; institute for space technology). He added that a closer look at space-faring nations and their actions would be taken. In that respect, he mentioned the UNISPACE III Declaration, the Millennium Declaration, and the 2005 Summit Declaration.

Moreover, Haifeng Zhao made brief comments. First, he pointed out that there should be many cross-references in this chapter, which would find particular attention. Also, when interpreting, attention would be paid to the actual cooperation activities in outer space, eg regional space cooperation, such as ESA and the newly established Asia-Pacific space cooperation organisation, but also to obstacles for international cooperation, such as MTCI.

2. Discussion

Hedman asked why there is a reference to the Space Declaration in the Preamble of the Space Benefits Declaration. Moreover, he indicated that it would be interesting to look at regional cooperation and evolutions, which may be very similar to ESA (eg fair return). Hobe followed up that point and raised doubts as to the indicative value of the ESA-Convention.

Schrogl reflected on Hobe’s evaluation and agreed that a UN Resolution could not be regarded as an authoritative interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty (here related to Article I). That was not only true for the Space Benefits Declaration but also for the Launching State Resolution. Also, he indicated that UNGA resolutions were not a proper way of developing space law further, but one needed to acknowledge that UNCOPUOS could not work in more decisive ways during the last

84

years. As to the negotiation history, Schrogl pointed out that the basic question had emerged from UNISPACE II, where Ambassador Gonzalez (Chile) had raised the idea of a “New World Order”, which led to the idea for a draft resolution pursued in a UNCOPUOS LSC working group. The content of the draft principles very much related to the New World Order issues. When in the 1990s it became clear that a resolution would not find consensus, esp. Germany and France proposed to find a solution. At the same time, the idea of UNISPACE III emerged, so that there is a clear linkage. All this led to Principle 2, which included the freedom of cooperation but was not introduced “brutally”. For the first time, commercial cooperation is in principle accepted. He was of the view that in any case the UN system, but also national agencies, should consider space applications as development tools. Moreover, he highlighted that the Declaration mentions regional cooperation for the first time. All these, he admitted, were policy-related aspects and only to some extent relevant for international law.

85

2004 Launching State Resolution

Presentation

89


1. Presentation

Before going into any detail, Schrogl emphasized once more that the Resolution did not provide an interpretation or definition of the term “launching State”, but focussed only on the concept of a launching State, thereby trying to push forward a few aspects. In the introduction, he said, the authors would explain the context, especially regarding the commencement of the debate. Schrogl here made reference to a presentation by Armel Kerrest at the IISL Colloquium in 1997. As to the significance of the Resolution, he indicated that it served as a tool to make private space activities an issue on the global level, in particular with regard to national space legislation and the transfer of ownership in orbit. An authoritative interpretation of the term launching State was not allowed. Schrogl moved on to describe the negotiation history and indicated cross-references to Article VIII OST, Article I Liability Convention (LIAB) and Article I Registration Convention (REG), and the term “space objects”. The authors will take a look at the travaux préparatoires and reflect on the context with a multi-year programme. Regarding future perspectives, he outlined possible developments in the law, such as (1) the call to enact national space legislation, (2) inter party agreements (Article V(2) LIAB) and how these are dealt with in practice, (3) transfer in orbit, and (4) harmonization of national space legislations (“flag of convenience”). Regarding possible overlaps, he pointed to the term “launching authority” as used in the Rescue Agreement (ARRA).

2. Discussion

Kopal commented that it was more difficult to reach consensus on the Launching State Resolution than on the Registration Resolution.

Schrogl pointed out once more that the Chapter would not provide a definition of the launching State but would only deal with the subject matter of the Resolution, and no definition was included there.

90

2007 Registration Resolution

Presentation

95


1. Presentation

Schmidt-Tedd first gave an overview and presented the draft structure of the Chapter. The division of workload still had to be determined. Regarding interpretation of the provisions, he indicated that the Preamble reflected the motivation of the drafters, ie to effect comprehensive registration. Moreover, new item subjects were included in a sort of “back up solution”, such as a change in supervision and the proposal for a formal harmonization. Cross-references would include Article VIII and COCOSL Volume II (esp. Articles VI-VIII REG). Subsequently, he indicated several points for discussion, such as:

- solutions for the missing launching States agreement - harmonized registration practice - transfer of ownership in orbit - solutions for intergovernmental organizations - space debris, eg tracking system informal instrument - electronic access to the register.

Hedman added several aspects. First, certain elements had to be dealt with either in this Chapter or in the REG, such as the status of state practice. Second, the difficulties of including a definition of the term “State procuring the launch” within the Launching State Resolution were not resolved by the Registration Resolution. Moreover, the transfer of ownership in orbit was a terminology used in the preparation period but was left aside since it was too sensitive, which led to the formulation of paragraph 4. It should be indicated why that was such a sensitive issue, as well as the close link to Article VI OST. He also announced that UNOOSA attempted to implement its obligation under the Resolution and has prepared templates for registration to be used by all States, as well as explanations and guidelines how to fill in the respective forms. Both were presented to the audience.

2. Discussion

Kerrest pointed out to paragraph 3 (b) and (c) of the Resolution. Literal (c) refers to the fact that the most appropriate State is that which has international responsibility under Article VI OST, to encounter States’ tendencies to try and exclude private activity from their national space activities. The following State practice reflected by the Resolution shows that those States are wrong. Kerrest considered this an important aspect.

Schmidt-Tedd made the comment that this Resolution presented a step forward in getting the “back up solution” implemented.

Masson-Zwaan in turn posed a practical question, asking whether ESA was ever contacted by JAXA regarding how to register ISS module Kibo. Since the ISS was already registered, there was uncertainty how to proceed, and she could well imagine that similar issues came up with regard to Columbus. Ulrike Bohlmann explained that there is one registration number for the launched vehicle (major part) and then numbers a, b, c etc. would be added for registration of component parts. Hedman added that it was not up to OOSA to reject registration.

96

Splinter Meetings: Working Group 1 Friday, 19 June 2009 Chairpersons: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (REG/ Registration Resolution), Vladimir Kopal (SAB) Rapporteurs: Anne Hurtz and Kanishka Wiar (both University of Cologne) Members: Ulrike Bohlmann (REG), Olga Stelmakh (REG), Leslie Tennen (REG), Niklas Hedman (Registration Resolution)

97

Splinter Meetings: Working Group 2 Friday, 19 June 2009 Chairpersons: Kai- Uwe Schrogl (ARRA / Launching State), Gérardine Goh (NPS) Rapporteur: Julia Dornbusch (University of Cologne) Members: Irmgard Marboe (ARRA), Julia Neumann (ARRA), Armel Kerrest (LIAB), Lesly Jane Smith (LIAB), Tanja Masson- Zwaan (NPS), Oliver Huth (DBS) joined the session later

98

Splinter Meetings: Working Group 3 Friday, 19 June 2009 Chairperson: Stephan Hobe (MOON / Space Benefits) Rapporteur: Majid Salehi (University of Cologne) Members: Ram Jakhu (MOON), Steven Freeland (MOON), V.S. Mani (Space Benefits), Haifeng Zhao (Space Benefits), Oliver Huth (DBS).

99

Sessions 3 and 4: Report of Working Group Splinter Meetings Part A – Volume III

Session 3: Volume 3 Working Group Results (Part One) Chairperson: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Vladimír Kopal (CoCoSL SAB) Rapporteur: Anne Hurtz (University of Cologne) 16:00 1982 Direct Broadcasting Principles

Marco Ferrazzani (ESA, in abstentia), Oliver Huth (SES Astra)

16:15 1986 Remote Sensing Principles


16:30 1992 Nuclear Power Sources

Principles Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of

Cologne), Tanja Masson-Zwaan (Leiden University) Session 4: Volume 3 Working Group Results (Part Two) Chairpersons: Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR) Rapporteur: Majid Salehi (University of Cologne) 16:45 1996 Space Benefits Declaration


17:00 2004 Resolution on the Definition of the “Launching State” Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Frank Riemann (ESA, in abstentia) 17:15 2007 Registration Resolution

Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Niklas Hedman (UN OOSA) 17:30 Discussion: Wrap-Up of Volume 3 Led by Session Chairs 18:00 End of Session 19:00 Workshop Dinner 2

100

Session 5: Report of Working Group Splinter Meetings Part B – Volume II Saturday, 20 June 2009

Chairpersons: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne) Rapporteurs: Anne Hurtz (University of Cologne) and Kanishka Wiar (University of Cologne) 09:30 1968 Rescue Agreement (ARRA)

Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Andre Farand (ESA), Irmgard Marboe (University of Vienna), Julia Neumann (University of Cologne)







11:30 Conclusion

Discussion led by Session Chairs 12:30 Working Lunch

© DLR

101

Closing and Conclusions The Second CoCoSL Authors’ Workshop was brought to a close with a round-table discussion, followed by conclusions from the three Editors of CoCoSL, Prof. Dr. Stephan Hobe, Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd and Prof. Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl. Documentation that will be sent to members of the Scientific Advisory Board and the Authors following the Workshop include

1. Proceedings of the Second CoCoSL Authors’ Workshop 2. CoCoSL Author Guidelines 3. CoCoSL Citation Guidelines

102

Summary of the Second Authors’ Workshop (Anne Maria Hurtz)

The Second Authors’ Workshop of the Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL) was held at

the premises of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) in Bonn-Oberkassel, on 18 – 20 June 2009. It

was organised in the framework of the CoCoSL Project, a joint undertaking between the Institute of

Air and Space Law of the University of Cologne and the German Aerospace Centre with the

ambition to provide a legal Commentary on the five United Nations (UN) Treaties on activities in

Outer Space supplemented by the relevant UN General Assembly Resolutions.1

Following a successful first conference in Vienna in early 2008 that dealt with the Outer Space

Treaty2,3 the ‘CoCoSL feeling’ experienced the year before also spilled over to the second workshop

resulting in inspiring and fruitful discussions. Twenty-four legal academics and practitioners from

around the globe were involved, focusing on the preparations for Volumes II and III that will cover

the other four UN Treaties as well as the analysis of several UN General Assembly Resolutions on

activities in outer space.

The workshop was opened by a welcome address from the three CoCoSL editors, Stephan Hobe

(University of Cologne) as Scientific Director, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR) and Kai-Uwe Schrogl

(ESPI). The three thanked in particular the attending contributors to Volume I for their immense

work and encouraged all authors to keep up this positive and highly scientific attitude of work in

Volumes II and III. In this context, the editors announced the publication date of Volume I in

September 2009 and its planned soft launch at the 60th International Astronautical Congress (IAC)

in Daejon, Korea in October this year.

Student Research Assistant, Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne, Germany. 1 For more information see the project website at <http://www.cocosl.com> accessed 23 June 2009. 2 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including

the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (opened for signature 27 January 1967, came into force 10 October

1967) 610 UNTS 205 (Outer Space Treaty). 3 For more information on the First Author’s Workshop see the report of the Conference: G M Goh, ‘The

Cologne Commentary on Space Law: First Authors’ Workshop 10 – 11 January 2008, Vienna, Austria’ (2008)

57 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 238.

103

The Workshop was divided into five working sessions, each chaired by the editors and members of

the scientific advisory board, with time slots for the presentation and discussion of each treaty or

resolution. In the first two sessions the authors presented an overview of the respective treaties to

be dealt with in Volume II and the resolutions to be analysed in Volume III, accompanied by

additional comments from the audience. All presentations thereby focused in particular on the

negotiation and drafting history, the interpretation of the respective provisions as well as on future

perspectives. Hereafter, a more detailed exchange of ideas took place in three Working Group

Splinter Meetings, each chaired by one of the editors. The fruitful outcome of these splinter

meetings was then shared with the other authors in the remaining three Sessions with the chance to

address crucial issues in more detail and exchange personal opinions on legal disputes.

I. Working Sessions on Volume II

The 1968 Rescue Agreement (ARRA)4

Authors: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), André Farand (ESA, in absentia), Irmgard Marboe (University of

Vienna) and Julia Neumann (University of Cologne)

The presentation on the Rescue Agreement Chapter was given by Neumann, who underlined the

political and society related background of the elaboration process of this first international space

treaty after the entry into force of the Outer Space Treaty (OST). In this context she also pointed out

the first two casualties in space exploration in the year 1967 that led to the elaboration of this

Agreement. Further attention was drawn to the use of the word ‘astronaut’ in other space treaties,

i.e. the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement (Article V OST, Articles X and XII MOON).

One question raised during the presentation was why there is no provision on costs regarding the

rescue of personnel, though there is one for the return of space objects (Article V ARRA). Other

issues mentioned were the definition of ‘personnel of a spacecraft’ and ‘space object’, the practical

relevance of the Rescue Agreement in terms of notifications to the UN Secretary General and actual

returns of space objects, as well as the question, whether the use of ‘Contracting Party’ implies that

international organisations are not included.

The 1972 Liability Convention (LIAB)5

4 Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into

Outer Space (opened for signature 22 April 1968, came into force 03 December 1968) 672 UNTS 119

(ARRA).

104

Authors: Armel Kerrest (ECSL / University of Brest), Sergio Marchisio (ECSL / University of Rome,

La Sapienza, in absentia) and Lesley Jane Smith (University of Lüneburg)

An overview on the Liability Convention commentary was given by Smith and Kerrest, who pointed

out the significance of the LIAB during the development of the OST and underlined its lex specialis

qualification. Furthermore the authors presented the historical background of the negotiation and

drafting by emphasising the elaboration of a United States and a Belgian draft in the context of the

early years of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS)

and against the political background of the Cold War. With respect to recent developments and

future perspectives, the authors focused on the establishment of national space laws dealing with

liability issues and their interaction with the LIAB. The authors plan to analyse the classification of

fault / damages in the case of joint launches as well as the question of third party liability. Finally,

the commercialisation of space activities - in particular private spaceflight - and several enforcement

issues raised hereby will be discussed in detail. In this regard one particular recent event that was

brought to discussion was the Iridium collision early 20096.

The 1975 Registration Convention (REG)7

Authors: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Ulrike Bohlmann (ESA), Natalya Malysheva (University of

Kiev, in absentia), Olga Stelmakh (National Space Agency of Ukraine) and Leslie Tennen (Sterns

and Tennen)

In the presentation on the Registration Convention, Schmidt-Tedd stressed that special attention

should be paid to the diversity in national registration practice. Additionally, the roots of the

Convention in Article VIII OST and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1721 B (XVI)8 were

outlined, whereas the author reminded, that the remaining dualism between the registration

according to the REG and the 1961 Resolution should not be underestimated. A further issue that

5 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (opened for signature 29 March

1972, came into force 01 September 1972) 961 UNTS 187 (LIAB). 6 For more information on the Collision see J Achenbach, ‘Debris from Satellites’ Collision Said to Pose Small

Risk to Space Station’ The Washington Post (Washington 12 February 2009)

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021103387.html> accessed 23

June 2009. 7 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (adopted 12 November 1974, came into

force 15 September 1976) 1023 UNTS 15 (REG). 8 UNGA Res 1721 B (XVI) (20 December 1961).

105

arose was the registration practice of international intergovernmental organisations (IGO) and the

role of their member states - in particular the interrelation between national registration practice and

IGO practice.

The 1979 Moon Agreement (MOON)9

Authors: Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Ram Jakhu (McGill University) and Steven

Freeland (University of Western Sydney)

The final presentation of the Working Session on Volume II dealing with the Moon Agreement

opened the floor for discussion of provisions from other space law treaties repeated in the

Agreement as well as an analysis of the key provisions not mentioned in a treaty before such as

non-use of force, environmental protection and common heritage of mankind. Referring to the

historical background, Hobe draw the audience’s attention to the misuse of the Agreement by

propaganda in its early days and the recent ‘revival’ of this instrument due to an increasing interest

by states and space agencies in the exploration of the moon. The author also raised the crucial

question as to the reasons for (non)ratification of the Moon Agreement and underlined the

importance of an analysis of state practice in relation to the Agreement’s main principles.

Furthermore, the author indicated the necessity for comparative analysis of other international legal

regimes, i.e. the Antarctic Treaty10, the Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS)11 and the

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Constitution Governing the Geostationary Orbit12.

II. Working Sessions on Volume III

The 1982 Direct Broadcasting Principles (DBS Principles)13

Authors: Marco Ferrazzani (ESA, in absentia) and Oliver Huth (SES)

9 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 05

December 1979, came into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 21 (MOON). 10 The Antarctic Treaty (signed 01 December 1959, came into force 23 June 1961) 402 UNTS 71. 11 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (concluded 10 December 1982, came into force 16

November 1994) 1833 UNTS 396 (UNCLOS). 12 Online accessible on the ITU website <http://www.itu.int/net/about/basic-texts/index.aspx> accessed 23

June 2009. 13 Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television

Broadcasting, UNGA Res 37/92 (10 December 1982) UN Doc A/RES/37/92.

106

In his presentation on the Chapter dealing with the 15 Principles on International Direct Television

Broadcasting adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1982, Huth inter alia focused on

an elaboration of the actual significance and impact of the principles with regard to the DTH (Direct-

To-Home) business of satellite operators, also stressing the question, if there is any legally binding

nature of these principles. The author also pointed out the importance of taking a close look at the

interaction of other instruments, conventions and provisions regulating Television Broadcasting via

satellites, in particular ITU instruments, the European Convention on Transfrontier Television14, the

European Union (EU) “Television without Frontiers” Directive15 as well as the Role of the European

Broadcasting Union (EBU)16. In the end of his overview the author also pointed out that with regard

to the DBS Principles three terms had to be discussed in depth: ‘broadcasting state’, ‘receiving

state’ and ‘international direct television broadcasting by satellite’.

The 1986 Remote Sensing Principles (RS Principles)17

Authors: Joanne Gabrynowicz (University of Mississippi), Leopold Mantl (European Commission),

Ray Harris (University College London) and Balakista Reddy (NALSAR University of Law, in

absentia)

Representing the authors of the Remote Sensing Principles Chapter, Gabrynowicz divided her

presentation into four pillars: the development of the Principles in the UN, the adoption of national

laws and policies, the adoption of bilateral and multilateral agreements and the relationship of the

principles to subsequent agreements and practices. Regarding the history of the Principles, the

author pointed out, that the object and purpose of the resolution was to balance rights and

obligations of the sensed and the sensing state. It was also stressed, that a disproportionate amount

of energy was put into the formulation of Principles II, IV and XII and that Articles X and XI were of

particular relevance. Regarding the future development, the author emphasised a trend from

international to national legislation and a discussion out of UN to external fora. Therefore future

legislation and enforcement is expected to take place primarily on the national level. Moreover, it

was underlined, that current and future applicability would be of special importance in the area of 14 European Convention on Transfrontier Television (opened for signature 05 May 1989, entered into force 01

May 1993) European Treaty Series (ETS) No. 132, text of the treaty online accessible at

<http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/132.htm> accessed 02 July 2009. 15 Relevant documents are available at <http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/reg/tvwf/index_en.htm> accessed 02

July 2009. 16 For more information see the website of the EBU <http://www.ebu.ch> accessed 02 July 2009. 17 Principles relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space, UNGA Res 41/65 (03 December

1986) UN Doc A/RES/41/65.

107

environmental protection, and therefore attention was drawn to the interaction of Articles X and XI

with the Disasters Charter18. Gabrynowicz also addressed the essential question of the line

between law and policy and highlighted in this respect that data policies of organisations like the

European Space Agency (ESA), the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and EUMETSAT

had to be taken into account when analysing the RS Principles.

The 1992 Nuclear Power Sources Principles (NPS Principles)19

Authors: Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne) and Tanja Masson-Zwaan (Leiden

University)

The presentation on the Nuclear Power Sources Principles inter alia focused on most recent

developments in line with the NPS Principles, i.e. the International Framework Conventions on

Radiological Uses and Environmental Protection as well as the European Cooperation for Space

Standardization (ECSS) Standards20. Masson-Zwaan pointed out some cross-references in the NPS

Principles to other treaty provisions and non-binding regulations. In this context a possible conflict of

the term ‘launching state’ / ‘state launching’ and a state that has ‘jurisdiction and control’ was put

forward. Referring to the provisions of the OST, the author in particular questioned why there was a

divergence in the meaning of the term within the same instrument – Article 7 OST would make a

broad definition, Article 8 OST would follow a narrower definition. With respect to the legal status,

the non-binding character of the principles was stressed. However, it was also underlined that the

NPS Principles were adopted without a vote and that in practice states were actually reporting the

safety assessment without the principles being legally binding. Highlighting the action taken in the

Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the UNCOPUOS, attention was drawn to the recently

adopted Safety Framework for Nuclear Power Sources Applications in Outer Space21 that serves

the protection of people and the environment in the Earth’s biosphere. In the context of the adoption

of the Safety Framework the authors raised the question whether in the future more action can be

18 Charter on Cooperation to Achieve the Coordinated Use of Space Facilities in the Event of Natural or

Technological Disasters (declared formally operational 01 November 2000) (International Charter on Space

and Major Disasters), text of the Charter available at <http://www.disasterscharter.org/charter_e.html>

accessed 02 July 2009. 19 Principles relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space; UNGA Res 47/68 (14 December

1992) UN Doc A/RES/47/68. 20 For more information see <http://www.ecss.nl/> accessed 02 July 2009. 21 UNCOPUOS ‘Safety Framework for Nuclear Power Sources Applications in Outer Space’ (19 May 2009)

UN Doc A/AC.105/934.

108

expected by the Legal-Subcommittee of UNCOPUOS, e.g. if the Principles would be extended to

propulsion and if they might evolve into a legally binding instrument.

The 1996 Space Benefits Declaration22

Authors: Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), V.S. Mani (Jaipur National University) and Haifeng

Zhao (Harbin Institute of Technology)

The Presentation of the chapter on the Space Benefits Declaration started with Hobe drawing

attention to the legislative history and the difficulties with the agenda setting in UNCOPUOS as well

as the different proposals presented at the time. After a short overview of the different paragraphs of

the Declaration the author underlined the importance of the adoption by consensus for the

evaluation of the Declaration. It was also stressed that the Benefits Declaration is of important

relevance for the interpretation of the ambiguous wording of Article I Paragraph 1 OST, which leads

to the crucial question whether the use of a UN Resolution as a means of interpretation of binding

treaty law weakens the principle of the rule of law and if this will lead to the highly questionable

issue of the dilution of hard law by so called ‘soft law’. Concerning future perspectives, the question

was raised whether the Declaration would indicate an end of the “development struggle” (since the

1960ies) for outer space activities. Regarding the negotiation background of the Declaration Mani

added that it been in the pipeline ever since the UNISPACE II recommendations and that the

Declaration was the result of the ambition of states to have a resulting document. Considering

recent actions taken the author referred to the UNISPACE III Declaration23, the UN Millennium

Declaration24 and the 2005 Summit Outcome25. Finally, Zhao added, that attention would have to be

paid to the actual cooperation practice in outer space. This would hold true in particular with regard

to regional space cooperation by ESA and the newly established Asia Pacific Space Cooperation

Organization (APSCO)26.

22 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in

the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries, UNGA Res

51/122 (13 December 1996) UN Doc A/RES/51/122. 23 Vienna Declaration on Space and Human Development (adopted 30 July 1999) online accessible at

<http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/reports/unispace/viennadeclE.pdf> accessed 03 July 2009. 24 United Nations Millenium Declaration, UNGA Res 55/2 (08 September 2000) UN Doc A/RES/55/2. 25 2005 World Summit Outcome, UNGA Res 60/1 (16 September 2005) UN Doc A/RES/60/1. 26 For more information on the Organisation see <http://www.apmcsta.org/Apsco/Motives.aspx> accessed 03

July 2009.

109

The 2004 Resolution on the Definition of the ‘Launching State’27

Authors: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI) and Frank Riemann (ESA, in absentia)

Schrogl started the presentation on the Resolution on the Definition of the ‘Launching State’ by

stressing the context of growing privatisation in which the Resolution was adopted. Moreover, he

highlighted the significance of the Resolution with regard to such private space activities, raising

their attention on the global inter-governmental level. As particular issues in this respect, he

mentioned national space legislation and the transfer of ownership in orbit. At the same time the

author emphasised as crucial that the object and purpose of the Resolution was not an authoritative

interpretation of the term ‘launching state’, but that it was focused on the concept of the launching

state and thus only strived to raise awareness for the issue and the call for action in that regard. The

author pointed out the most important cross references to other provisions like Article VII OST,

Article I LIAB and Article I REG. Concerning the possible future effect of the Resolution on new

developments in the field, Schrogl mentioned further enactment and harmonisation of national

space legislation, the provision of information on the transfer of ownership in orbit as well as the

conclusion of agreements in accordance with Article V Paragraph 2 LIAB. Finally, the author

stressed a possible conflict of definitions, e.g. with the term ‘launching authority’ as used in the

Rescue Agreement (Article VI ARRA).

The 2007 Registration Resolution28

Authors: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR) and Niklas Hedman (UNOOSA)

In the presentation of the chapter dealing with the Registration Resolution Schmidt-Tedd identified

the motives of the drafters as being reflected in the preamble, in particular the pursuit of a

comprehensive registration. The author also pointed out the interrelation with Article VIII OST,

Article VIII REG and with the UN General Assembly Resolution 1721°B29 and stressed again in this

context that the subject of the Resolution was not to be an authoritative interpretation or

amendment. Other issues discussed by Schmidt-Tedd were the question of solutions in case of a

missing agreement between launching states, of a harmonisation of the registration practice, of

27 Application of the concept of the ‘launching State’, UNGA Res 59/115 (10 December 2004) UN Doc

A/RES/59/115. 28 Recommendations on enhancing the practice of States and international intergovernmental organizations in

registering space objects, UNGA Res 62/101 (17 December 2007) UN Doc A/RES/62/101. 29 International co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space, UNGA Res 1721 (XVI) (20 December 1961).

110

solutions for IGO’s, of the transfer of ownership, of the perspectives in the field of registration and of

space debris as well as of the implementation of an electronic access to the register. Hedman

added, that the terminology ‘transfer of ownership in orbit’ was used during the negotiation period,

but because of political sensitivity was put to an end. Therefore it should also be analysed, why it

was such a sensitive issue. Concluding, he also indicated that UNOOSA established templates for

registration to be used by all states accompanied by explanations and guidelines how to proceed

with the respective forms.

III. Conclusions

At the end of the workshop inter alia the following conclusions were drawn:

- The authors agreed that the object of the CoCoSL Project was the elaboration of a legal

commentary which should help both, legal academics as well as practitioners to apply

existing legal provisions and act in conformity with relevant resolutions. However, it was

pointed out, that CoCoSL is a legal commentary on state practice and not primarily an

interpretation that only reflects the authors’ opinion on certain issues. Current state practice

should thus be reflected adequately and interpretation be undertaken where appropriate.

- It was also concluded that a clear distinction should be made between binding legal rules,

technical standards and non-binding so-called “soft law”, especially with regard to Volume III.

- The authors furthermore agreed that in the recent past a remarkable amount of national

space legislation was passed which should be analysed and reviewed with respect to its

conformity with international instruments and with a view to its impact on the corpus iuris

spatialis.

- Finally, any interpretation of international space law should keep into consideration future

commercial space activities such as e.g. space tourism.

111

Appendix A: Photographs

Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd gives the Workshop’s

Opening Address.

The Editors of the Cologne Commentary on Space Law (standing from left: Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Stephan Hobe and Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd) open the Workshop.

Kai-Uwe Schrogl introduces the authors of the 2nd and 3rd Volumes.

112

Workshop Participants Seated, anticlockwise: Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Vladimír Kopal, Julia

Neumann, Anne Hurtz, Leslie Tennen, Daniela Nießen, Ulrike M.

Bohlmann, Birgitta Staudt, Olga Stelmakh, Oliver Huth, Tanja L.

Masson-Zwaan, Gérardine M. Goh, Nicola Rohner-Willsch.

Standing, from left: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd, Kai-Uwe Schrogl,

Stephan Hobe.

Workshop Participants From top left, clockwise: VS Mani, Haifeng Zhao, Niklas Hedman, Ray Harris, Joanne Gabrynowicz, Armel Kerrest, Steven Freeland (just seen), Ram Jakhu (just seen), Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Vladimír Kopal.

Gérardine Goh gives an overview of the Project.

113

Workshop Participants From top left, clockwise: VS Mani, Haifeng Zhao,

Niklas Hedman, Ray Harris, Joanne

Gabrynowicz, Lesley Jane Smith, Armel Kerrest,

Steven Freeland, Ram Jakhu, Karl-Heinz

Böckstiegel, Vladimír Kopal, Bernhard Schmidt-

Tedd, Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Irmgard Marboe.

From left: Lesley Jane Smith, Armel Kerrest, Steven Freeland, Ram Jakhu, Stephan Hobe, Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Vladimír Kopal, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd.

Workshop Participants Seated, anticlockwise: Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Vladimír Kopal, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd, Irmgard Marboe, Julia Neumann, Anne Hurtz, Leslie Tennen, Daniela Nießen, Ulrike M. Bohlmann, Birgitta Staudt, Olga Stelmakh, Oliver Huth, Tanja L. Masson-Zwaan, Nicola Rohner-Willsch.

114

From left: Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Lesley Jane

Smith, Armel Kerrest, Ram Jakhu, Stephan Hobe.

Clockwise, from left: VS Mani, Haifeng Zhao, Niklas

Hedman, Ray Harris, Joanne Gabrynowicz,

Lesley Jane Smith, Armel Kerrest, Steven Freeland,

Ram Jakhu, Stephan Hobe, Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel.

From left: Steven Freeland, Ram Jakhu, Stephan Hobe,

Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd.

115

Julia Neumann makes the presentation on the 1968 ARRA.

Armel Kerrest and Lesley Jane Smith make the presentation on the 1972 LIAB.

From left: Ray Harris, Joanne Gabrynowicz, Lesley Jane Smith,

Armel Kerrest, Ram Jakhu.

116

Oliver Huth makes the presentation on the DBS Principles.

Standing from left: Leopold Mantl, Ray Harris, Joanne Gabrynowicz

From left: Haifeng Zhao, Niklas Hedman, Ray Harris, Joanne

Gabrynowicz.

From left: Stephan Hobe, Vladimír Kopal, Irmgard Marboe, Julia Neumann, Anne Hurtz, Leslie Tennen.

117

From left: Stephan Hobe, Gérardine Goh, Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd.

Workshop Dinner: Restaurant Zur Lese, Bonn

118

From left: Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Stephan

Hobe, VS Mani, Vladimír Kopal.

Seated from left: Haifeng Zhao, Lesley Jane Smith,

Steven Freeland, Ram Jakhu, Stephan Hobe.

Seated from left: VS Mani, Haifeng Zhao, Stephan Hobe, Steven Freeland, Ram Jakhu.

119

Participants of the Second Workshop

Front row, from left: Leslie I Tennen, Gérardine M Goh, Ray Harris, Joanne Gabrynowicz, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd, Julia Neumann, Olga Stelmakh, Ram Jakhu, Ulrike M Bohlmann,

Steven Freeland.

Middle row, from left: Niklas Hedman, Stephan Hobe, Armel Kerrest, Irmgard Marboe, Vladimír Kopal, Tanja L Masson-Zwaan, Lesley Jane Smith, Kai-Uwe Schrogl.

Third row, from left: VS Mani, Oliver Huth, Haifeng Zhao, Peter Stube, Anne Hurtz.

Back row, from left: Julia Dornbusch, Kanishka Wiar.

120

Appendix B: Volumes II and III – Authors’ Guidelines 1. Introduction 2. Content

2.1. Language 2.2. Style 2.3. Overlaps with other Contributions 2.4. Length

3. Structure 3.1. Text

3.1.1. Subheadings 3.1.2. References 3.1.3. Cross-References to other Contributions 3.1.4. Photograph, Table and Figure Formats

3.2. Select Bibliography 4. Citation Format 5. Schedule and Delivery Date 6. Delivery Media 7. Contact

1. Introduction The Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL) comprises a three-volume, provision-by-provision Commentary on the five United Nations treaties on outer space and the six major UN General Assembly Resolutions. The CoCoSL project was launched in January 2007, marking the fiftieth anniversary of space flight as well as the fortieth anniversary of international outer space legislation. The CoCoSL project is a joint undertaking between the Institute of Air and Space Law of the University of Cologne and the German Aerospace Center (DLR). It aims to provide a critical analysis of the evolution of the written norms of space law, current developments in the field, relevant State practice, and perspectives for the future. Volume I of CoCoSL focussed on an Article-by-Article commentary on the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Volume II will investigate the other four UN treaties, the 1968 Rescue Agreement (ARRA), the 1972 Liability Convention (LIAB), the 1975 Registration Convention (REG) and the 1979 Moon Agreement (MOON). Volume III deals with the six most relevant UN General Assembly Resolution.

1. The Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting (UN GA Res. 37/92 of 10 December 1982) (DBS)

2. The Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space (UN GA Res. 41/65 of 03 December 1986) (RS)

3. The Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space (UN GA Res. 47/68 of 14 December 1992) (NPS)

4. The Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries (UN GA Res. 51/122 of 13 December 1996) (SBD)

5. Application of the concept of the "launching State" (UN GA Res. 59/115 of 10 December 2004) (LSR)

6. Recommendations on enhancing the practice of States and international intergovernmental organisations in registering space objects (UN GA Res. 62/101 of 17 December 2007). (RR)

121

Authors are especially urged to elaborate on the current issues in the field, as well as the practical applicability of the law at present and in the future. Volume I of CoCoSL will be published in September 2009. Volumes II and III are planned for a 2011 publication date. All contributions will be reviewed by the editors of CoCoSL, which comprise Prof. Dr. Stephan Hobe, LL.M. (McGill)

Director, Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd

Head, Legal and Business Support Space Agency, German Aerospace Center Prof. Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl

Secretary General, European Space Policy Institute Additionally, a Scientific Advisory Board of highly distinguished lawyers and legal practitioners has been established to oversee the scientific standards of the Commentary. Its members are: Prof. Dr. Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Bergisch-Gladbach, Germany Prof. Jonathan Galloway, Burlington, Vermont, USA Judge Gilbert Guillaume, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France Prof. Peter P.C. Haanappel, Leiden, Netherlands Ambassador Dr. Peter Jankowitsch, Vienna, Austria Dr. Nandasiri Jasentuliyana, Corona Hills, California, USA Prof. Dr. Vladimír Kopal, Prague, Czech Republic Judge Abdul Koroma, The Hague, Netherlands Dr. Gabriel Lafferranderie, Paris, France Prof. José Monserrat Filho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Judge Vladlen Vereshchetin, The Hague, Netherlands

2. Content Authors are requested to observe the following guidelines in the preparation of their manuscripts.

2.1. Language All contributions should be written in British English. British English spelling should consistently be used. The preferred dictionary reference is the Oxford Dictionary of English. The English form of abbreviations should be uniformly used in the text, footnotes and the select bibliography, e.g. International Court of Justice (ICJ). Authors are requested to insert the full name of a subject upon first use in a contribution before introducing the abbreviation in brackets. Thereafter the abbreviation may be used throughout the contribution. Italics should be used when full non-English words are used in the Commentary text. (e.g. inter alia should be italicised, whereas e.g. should not)

2.2. Style Authors are asked to write in a clear, concise style. Bearing the character of the Commentary in mind, authors are requested to avoid long sentences or a very abstract style. All contributions should present, where applicable, the

Historical evolution of the Article Legal interpretation of the provisions according to Articles 31 – 33 of the 1969 Vienna

Convention on the Law of Treaties, comprising

o Literal meaning o Circumstances of conclusion and travaux préparatoires

122

o Context o Telos o Subsequent State practice

Presentation of factual developments Critical analysis if the legal issues, considering the majority points of view found in academic

/ scholarly writing and jurisprudence Future perspectives and possible development.

Divergent points of view may be presented after adequate description of the principal majority position. Authors should, where possible, contextualise their contributions by providing practical examples from the field.

2.3. Overlaps with other Contributions

To prevent overlaps with other contributions, authors are requested to coordinate with the CoCoSL Project Office (see Contact below). Additionally, exchanges between authors and other interested colleagues in the field will be facilitated by the CoCoSL Forum, online at http://www.CoCoSL.com. Potential overlaps and methods with which to deal with them may be discussed under the relevant topic heading in the CoCoSL Forum. Further, a series of CoCoSL workshops (see Schedule and Delivery Date) will be organised to ensure authors the opportunity to raise and address these and other issues.

2.4. Length The length of each contribution is given below, and includes all footnotes, endnotes, and the relevant bibliography. The length of a contribution is given by pages with 2 cm-round margins, using the Arial font size 11, double-spaced between lines. Authors are requested not to exceed the recommended number of pages.

Volume II ARRA 50 pages LIAB 50 pages REG 50 pages MOON 50 pages Volume III DBS 50 pages RS 60 pages NPS 40 pages SBD 25 pages LSR 25 pages RR 30 pages

3. Structure Authors are requested to structure their contributions as follows: Working Title Name of Author(s) Provision Text Table of Contents: Please provide a manual table of contents, and do not insert an

automated table of contents into the text. Commentary Text Select Documents Select Bibliography

123

Authors are referred to CoCoSL Content Guidelines for recommendations as to the content and structure of their contributions. To ensure consistency in the Commentary, authors are requested to consider all level one headings compulsory. All other headings are purely recommendatory. Compulsory level one headings that should be used in every chapter are

1. Introduction 2. Negotiations and Drafting History 3. Interpretation of Provision 4. Future Perspectives

3.1. Text

3.1.1. Subheadings

Where necessary, contributions may be subdivided for clarity. Authors are requested not to use more than four subdivisions in their headings. Different or additional types of subheadings should also not be used.

3.1.2. References Where a specific opinion, theory, view or writing is explicitly referred to, the full source must be indicated in a complete manner. Authors are requested to insert footnotes comprising the entire source referred to. Footnotes should be numbered with Arabic numerals 1, 2, 3…., and footnote numbering should run throughout the contribution. Footnote text should be in Arial font size 10.

3.1.3. Cross-References to other Contributions The necessity to cross-reference other contributions may arise, in which case authors are requested to coordinate with the relevant corresponding author and with the CoCoSL Project Office. Where it is possible to cross-reference before the final submission of the manuscripts, authors are requested to do so and indicate any such cross-reference to the CoCoSL Project Office for proofing purposes. The editors may also choose to insert further cross-references where applicable.

3.1.4. Photograph, Table and Figure Formats Authors are requested to minimise the use of photographs, tables and figures in their manuscripts. Where the use of photographs, tables and figures is necessary, authors are requested to insert them as close to the reference as possible, and closer to the top of the page. Photographs used in contributions should be digital, in .jpeg or .gif formats. Authors are requested to abide by the following requirements when submitting photographs with their contributions. .jpeg format: medium to high quality compression, sRGB profile for colour or Gamma 2.2 for

greyscale, 800 – 3000 pixels across the longest length, bit depth of 24-bit for colour or 8-bit for greyscale, 72 – 200 PPI

.gif format: adaptive / perceptual palette, diffusion / noise dither, 200 pixels across the longest length, bit depth of 8-bit for colour or 4-bit for greyscale, 72 PPI

Tables should have only horizontal lines demarking the headings and contents. Tables should make use of Arial font size 10. Tables and figures within a contribution should be labelled and numbered “Table X.Y: Title”, where X is the Chapter number and Y is the number of the table within that contribution. The table label should be italicised and centred. All headings in the table should be in bold. Any colours used in tables or figures other than white, black and greyscale may not appear in full in the final publication. The following is an example of a table:

124

Entry Font Type and Size

Text Arial 11

Footnote Arial 10

Table Arial 10

Table 3.1: Contribution Font Type and Size

3.2. Select Documents and Select Bibliography The Select Documents should be a listing of all primary sources, including cases, provisions and articles in national and international legal instruments or other legislative material. The official title, primary source, beginning page and citations should be included. Authors are requested to cite in order: the League of Nations Treaty Series; the United Nations Treaty Series, other official collections and sources (e.g. International Legal Materials), and internationally known private collections and sources.

The English citation should be used when citing multilingual international sources. The Select Bibliography should include essays and articles in periodicals, journals and books which the author considers essential reading for further research on the subject in question. Authors are requested to select more recent material for their Select Bibliography. Material since 1985 should be included extensively. Material published between 1945 and 1985 should be included if they are considered leading texts on the subject. Material published before 1945 should be included only in the case where absolutely necessary. Authors are encouraged to cite or include non-English material, such as publications in French or German, in the select bibliography. Where reference is made to material written in a language other than those written in the Roman alphabet, the title should be given in English, followed by a reference to the original language in parentheses, e.g. (in Chinese). All material in the Select Documents and the Select Bibliography should be listed in alphabetical order by the lead author’s last name. Where there are several entries from the same author, entries should be listed in chronological order. The start and end pages of all articles should be cited, and the full names of books, journals, periodicals and reports should be cited.

4. Citation Format Authors are requested to observe the Oxford Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA). The full OSCOLA may be downloaded here: http://www.competition-law.ox.ac.uk/published/oscola_2006.pdf. An abbreviated version with the most common citation forms is attached to this Author Guidelines as Appendix A: CoCoSL Citation Format.

5. Schedule and Delivery Date Volumes II and III of CoCoSL are slated for a 2011 publication date. The following is the schedule and milestones for contributions to Volumes II and III of CoCoSL:

125

Date Event Tasks

18 – 20 June 2009 Second CoCoSL Author Workshop

The Second CoCoSL Authors’ Workshop took place at DLR, Bonn-Oberkassel, Germany

Authors are requested to have the outline and abstract of their contributions ready for presentation and discussion.

IAC Daejeon, October 2009

Launch of Volume I

30 June 2010 Submission of Manuscripts for Volumes II and III

Authors are requested to submit the camera-ready final manuscript of their contributions to the CoCoSL Project Office.

Winter 2011 Publication of Volumes II and III

-

The submission date for the delivery of the manuscript is final and cannot be extended, except by special agreement. Authors are requested to send in their final contributions as early as possible.

6. Delivery Media Authors are requested to send in their contributions in Microsoft Word format (.doc) as an email attachment to [email protected]. The CoCoSL Project Office will send an acknowledgement of receipt to all authors upon safe delivery of the final manuscript.

7. Contact In case of further questions, authors are requested to contact CoCoSL Project Office c/o Institute of Air and Space Law University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz D-50923 Cologne, Germany Telephone: +49 (0) 221 470 4017 Telefax: +49 (0) 221 470 4968 Email: [email protected] Or Peter Stubbe CoCoSL Project Coordinator German Aerospace Center (DLR) Legal and Business Support: Space Agency Königswinterer Str. 522 – 524 D-53227 Bonn, Germany

126

Appendix C: Volumes II and III Suggested Literature

General Literature S Hobe, ‘The Relevance of the Current International Space Treaties in the 21st Century’

(2002) XXVII Annals of Air and Space Law 335 T Barnet, ‘Legal Fictions in the Five United Nations Space Treaties Stifle Commerce and

Encourage a Dangerous and Chaotic Space Environment’ (2003) XXVIII Annals of Air and Space Law 257

E Fasan, ‘Review of the Status of the Outer Space Treaties’ (1998) 26 Journal of Space Law 57

E Galloway, ‘Guidelines for the Review and Formulation of Outer Space Treaties’ (1998) Proceedings of the 41st Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 245

R J Lee and S R Freeland, ‘The Crystallisation of General Assembly Space Declarations into Customary International Law’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 122

P M Sterns and L I Tennen, ‘Space Law in the 21st Century: The Outer Space Treaties Revisited’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 136

S Hobe, ‘International Space Law in Its First Half Century’ (2006) Proceedings of the 49th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 373

C Jayarai, ‘Is there a Need for a Comprehensive Convention on Outer Space Law’ (2007) Proceedings of the 50th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 477

N Jasentuliyana, ‘The Development of the Outer Space Treaties and Legal Principles from a Third World Perspective‘ (1997) Proceedings of the 40th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 57

A D Terekhov, ‘UN General Assembly Resolutions and Outer Space Law’ (1997) Proceedings of the 40th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 97

Y Kolosov, ‘Background and History of the Outer Space Treaties’ (1997) Proceedings of the 40th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 437

1968 Rescue Agreement M N Andem, ‘The 1968 Rescue Agreement and the Commercialisation of Outer Space

Activities During the 21st Century – Some Reflections’ (1998) Proceedings of the 41st Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 75

G Lafferanderie, ‘The European Space Agency and the Astronauts’ Policy’ (1998) Proceedings of the 41st Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 354

1972 Liability Convention M Gerhard, ‘Transfer of Operation and Control with Respect to Space Objects - Problems of

Responsibility and Liability of States’ (2002) 51 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 571 S Ospina, ‘International Responsibility and State Liability in an Age of Globalization and

Privatization’ (2002) XXVII Annals of Air and Space Law 479 R J Lee, ‘The Liability Convention and Private Space Launch Services – Domestic

Regulatory Responses’ (2006) XXXI Annals of Air and Space Law 351 Y Zhao, ‘The 1972 Liability Convention: time for revision?’ (2004) 20 Space Policy 117 S Trepczynski, ‘The Effect of the Liability Convention on National Space Legislation’ (2007)

33 Journal of Space Law 221

127

F von der Dunk, ‘1972 Liability Convention, Enhancing Adherence and Effective Application’ (1998) Proceedings of the 41st Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 366

M M Esquivel de Cocca, ‘International Liability for Damages caused by Persons or Space Objects in Outer Space or on Celestial Bodies to Persons, Properties or Environment in Outer Space or Celestial Bodies’ (1999) Proceedings of the 42nd Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 50

C H Walker, ‘State Liability for Private Satellites and Ways to Limit Exposure’ (2000) Proceedings of the 43rd Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 113

R Lee, ‘Effects of Satellite Ownership Transfers on the Liability of the Launching States’ (2000) Proceedings of the 43rd Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 148

G Gal, ‘Public International Law, Private Laws and Private International Law in the System of Space Liability’ (2000) Proceedings of the 43rd Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 157

C Videlier, ‘Legal Qualification of Signal in Space and Relevant Liability Regimes’ (2001) Proceedings of the 44th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 212

C Q Christol, ‘Limits to a State’s Liability for Extra-Territorial Activities’ (2001) Proceedings of the 44th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 319

S Bhat, ‘Sustainable Space Development – Need for a Change in the Liability Regime’ (2007) Proceedings of the 50th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 319

1975 Registration Convention L Perek, ‘The 1976 Registration Convention’ (1998) 47 Zeitschrift für Luft- und

Weltraumrecht 351 M Chatzipanagiotis, ‘Registration of Space Objects and Transfer of Ownership in Orbit’

(2007) 56 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 229 Y Lee, ‘Registration of space objects: ESA member states’ practice’ (2006) 22 Space Policy

42 M Benkö and K-U Schrogl, ‘The 1998 European Initiative in the UNCOPUOS Legal

Subcommittee to Improve the Registration Convention’ (1998) Proceedings of the 41st Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 58

L Perek, ‘The 1976 Registration Convention’ (1998) Proceedings of the 41st Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 374

G P Zhukov, ‘Registration and Jurisdiction Aspects of the International Space Station’ (1999) Proceedings of the 42nd Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 75

S Ospina, ‘Revisiting the Registration Convention: A Proposal to Meet the Need to Know “What is up there”’ (2000) Proceedings of the 43rd Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 199

F G von der Dunk, ‘The Registration Convention: Background and Historical Context’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 450

K U Horl and J Hermida, ‘Change of Ownership, Change of Registry? Which Objects to Register, What data to be Furnished, When, and Until When?’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 476

T Masson-Zwaan, ‘Report of the IISL/ECSL Space Law Symposium 2003: Reinforcing the Registration Convention’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 483

B Schmidt-Tedd and M Gerhard, ‘How to Adapt the Present Regime for Registration of Space Objects to New Developments in Space Applications?’ (2005) Proceedings of the 48th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 353

M Williams, ‘The Registration Convention Thirty years On’ (2006) Proceedings of the 49th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 264

128

1979 Moon Agreement R Jakhu, ‘Twenty Years of the Moon Agreement: Space Law Challenges for Returning to the

Moon’ (2005) 54 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 243 H Bashor, ‘Interpretation of the Moon Treaty: Recourse to Working Papers and Related

International Documents’ (2007) XXXII Annals of Air and Space Law 149 F G von der Dunk, ‘The Moon Agreement and the Prospect of Commercial Exploitation of

Lunar Resources’ (2007) XXXII Annals of Air and Space Law 91 C Tucker, ‘How Current International Law addresses Rights to Use and Exploit Lunar

Resources’ (2009) XXXIV Annals of Air and Space Law (forthcoming) E Sadeh, ‘Human Mission from Planet Earth: finding a rationale for exploration of the Moon

and Mars’ (2001) 17 Space Policy 205 I A Crawford, ‘The scientific case for renewed human activities on the Moon’ (2004) 20

Space Policy 91 F G von der Dunk, E Back-Impallomeni, S Hobe and R M Ramirez de Arellano, ‘Surreal

estate: addressing the issue of “Immovable Property Rights on the Moon”’ (2004) 20 Space Policy 149

E Sadeh, D Livingston, T Matula and H Benaroya, ‘Public–private models for lunar development and commerce’ (2005) 21 Space Policy 267

J M Sarkissian, ‘Return to the Moon: A sustainable strategy’ (2006) 22 Space Policy 118 T F Rogers, ‘Magnifying our world: Why we must extend civilization to the Moon’ (2006) 22

Space Policy 128 M H Ryan and I Kutschera, ‘Lunar-based enterprise infrastructure—hidden keys for long-

term business success’ (2007) 23 Space Policy 44 R Shapiro, A new rationale for returning to the Moon? Protecting civilization with a sanctuary

(2009) 25 Space Policy 1 S E Doyle, ‘Using Extraterrestrial Resources Under the Moon Agreement of 1979’ (1998) 26

Journal of Space Law 111 F Lyall, 'On the Moon’ (1998) 26 Journal of Space Law 129 C Q Christol, 'The 1979 Moon Agreement: Where is it Today?’ (1999) 27 Journal of Space

Law 1 C Q Christol, ‘The Natural Resources of the Moon: The Management Issue’ (1998)

Proceedings of the 41st Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 3 A Farand, ‘The Status of the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and

Other Celestial Bodies’ (1998) Proceedings of the 41st Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 385

M N Andem, ‘Twentieth Anniversary of the 1979 Moon Treaty: The Legal Status of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies Revisited in the Light of Commercialisation of Outer Space Activities’ (1999) Proceedings of the 42nd Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 383

R J Lee, ‘Creating an International Régime for Property Rights under the Moon Agreement’ (1999) Proceedings of the 42nd Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 409

P M Sterns and L I Tennen, ‘Privateering and Profiteering on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: Debunking the Myth of Property Rights in Space’ (2002) Proceedings of the 45th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 56

D Ni Chearbhaill, ‘A Place for the Moon Agreement in the General Convention on Space Law’ (2004) Proceedings of the 47th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 284

P B Larsen, ‘Moon and Mars Exploration and Use’ (2004) Proceedings of the 47th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 370

J Catena, ‘Legal Matters Relating to the “Settlement” of “Outposts” on the Moon’ (2004) Proceedings of the 47th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 414

M Hofmann, ‘Recent Plans to Exploit the Moon Resources Under International Law’ (2004) Proceedings of the 47th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 425

129

S Hobe, ‘ILA Resolution 1/2002 with Regard to the Common Heritage of Mankind Principle in the Moon Agreement’ (2004) Proceedings of the 47th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 536

M Pospisil, ‘Updating of Lunar Treaty’ (2006) Proceedings of the 49th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 97

C Jimenez Monroy, ‘Towards a Legal Framework for Sustainable Development on the Moon: The Case of In-Situ Resource Utilization’ (2006) Proceedings of the 49th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 105

L Martinez and U Bohlmann, ‘Fly me to the Moon: Legal and Political Considerations of Space Exploration Initiatives’ (2006) Proceedings of the 49th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 117

R Lochan and V Gopala Krishnan, ‘Lunar Exploration – The Road Ahead’ (2007) Proceedings of the 50th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 56

C Q Christol, ‘The Moon Treaty and the Allocation of Ressources’ (1997) XXII (II) Annals of Air and Space Law 31

1982 UNGAR Direct Broadcasting Principles P Achilleas, ‘Globalization and commercialization of satellite broadcasting: current issues’

(2002) 18 Space Policy 37 R Jakhu, ‘Emerging Legal Issues of Satellite Telecommunications and Broadcasting’ (2000)

Proceedings of the 43rd Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 428 T Brisibe, ‘Broadcasting – Satellite Services in Airspace of the High Seas: Some Legal and

Regulatory Considerations’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 113

1986 UNGAR Remote Sensing Principles S-M Williams, ‘Reflections and Suggestions on Remote Sensing and International Law’

(2001) 50 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 409 W von Kries, ‘The U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Policy of April 28, 2003: Some

Comments’ (2003) 52 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 554 H George, ‘Remote sensing of Earth resources: emerging opportunities for developing

countries’ (1998) 14 Space Policy 27 G J Tahu, J C Baker and K M O'Connell, ‘Expanding global access to civilian and

commercial remote sensing data: implications and policy issues’ (1998) 14 Space Policy 179 A A Abiodun, ‘Remote sensing in the information age’ (1998) 14 Space Policy 229 W von Kries, ‘Towards a new remote sensing order?’ (2000) 16 Space Policy 163 H George, ‘Developing countries and remote sensing: how intergovernmental factors impede

progress’ (2000) 16 Space Policy 267 G B Bailey, D T Lauer and D M Carneggie, ‘International collaboration: the cornerstone of

satellite land remote sensing in the 21st century’ (2001) 17 Space Policy 161 J K Hettling, ‘The use of remote sensing satellites for verification in international law’ (2003)

19 Space Policy 33 S Hitchings, ‘Policy assessment of the impacts of remote-sensing technology’ (2003) 19

Space Policy 119 R Harris, ‘Current policy issues in remote sensing: report by the International Policy Advisory

Committee of ISPRS’ (2003) 19 Space Policy 293 N Peter, ‘The use of remote sensing to support the application of multilateral environmental

agreements’ (2004) 20 Space Policy 189

130

M Rao and K R S Murthi, ‘Keeping up with remote sensing and GI advances—Policy and legal perspectives’ (2006) 22 Space Policy 262

L J Smith and C Doldirina, ‘Remote sensing: A case for moving space data towards the public good’ (2008) 24 Space Policy 22

G Catalano Sgrosso, ‘Remote Sensing’ (2000) Proceedings of the 43rd Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 440

P Achilleas, ‘High-Resolution Remote Sensing Imagery and Human Rights’ (2001) Proceedings of the 44th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 234

M L Stojak, ‘Security Implications of High Quality Remote Sensing Imagery’ (2001) Proceedings of the 44th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 242

R J Lee, ‘Military Use of Commercial Remote Sensing Data’ (2001) Proceedings of the 44th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 246

M N Andem, ‘Protection of the Sovereign Rights of the Sensed States in the Commercialisation and Privatisation of Remote Sensing Activities’ (2001) Proceedings of the 44th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 278

J Monserrat Filho, ‘A Remote Sensing Convention for the Advancement of Space Law’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 63

M H Fonseca de Souza Rolim and F Fernandez Jankov, ‘The Impact of the Declaration of Legal Principles on the Development of Remote Sensing’s International Legal System: Revisiting the Concept of State International Responsibility’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 83

C Q Christol, ‘Remote Sensing and National Security’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 224

Y Hashimoto, ‘Remote Sensing Satellite and Promotion of Regional Security’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 234

M Williams, ‘The UN Principles on Remote Sensing Today’ (2005) Proceedings of the 48th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 2

M Hofmann and C Feinäugle, ‘The Search for New Institutional Models of International Remote Sensing Activities’ (2005) Proceedings of the 48th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 62

T Masson-Zwaan, ‘Report of the IISL/ECSL Space Law Symposium 2005: “Recent Developments in Remote Sensing and the Desirability of Reviewing the 1986 United Nations Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space”’ (2005) Proceedings of the 48th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 494

M Hofmann, ‘The International Legal Framework of Remote Sensing in the Year 2005: Changed Conditions and Changed Needs?’ (2005) Proceedings of the 48th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 498

K Mukhija and Y Goyal, ‘An Analysis of Issues Arising from the Commerzialisation of Remote Sensing Activities’ (2006) Proceedings of the 49th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 237

L J Smith and C Doldirina, ‘Remote Sensing Data: Some Critical Comments on the Current State of Regulation and Reflections on Reform’ (2006) Proceedings of the 49th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 253

M Morelli, ‘Public and Private Interest in Remote Sensing Activities: The Need for an Effective Legal Environment’ (2006) Proceedings of the 49th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 270

C Feinaeugle, ‘The UN Principles on Remote Sensing and the GATS: Conflicts or Peaceful Co-Existence’ (2007) Proceedings of the 50th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 369

M Rao and K R Sridhara Murthi, ‘Keeping Up with Remote Sensing and GI Advances – Policy and Legal Perspectives’ (2007) Proceedings of the 50th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 390

C Q Christol, ‘Remote Sensing in an Era of Global Warming’ (2007) Proceedings of the 50th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 405

W von Kries, ‘The UN Remote Sensing Principles of 1986 in Light of Subsequent Developments’ (1996) 45 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 166

131

1992 UNGAR Nuclear Power Sources Principles A Hansson, ‘Nuclear power and propulsion in space’ (2001) 17 Space Policy 241 R Hagen and J Scheffran, ‘Nuclear space—an indispensable option?’ (2001) 17 Space

Policy 261 R X Lenard, ‘Societal imperatives and the need for space nuclear power and propulsion

systems’ (2001) 17 Space Policy 285 S Gunn, ‘Nuclear propulsion - a historical perspective’ (2001) 17 Space Policy 291 I Bouvet, ‘Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space: Key Technology Legal Challenges’

(2004) 30 Journal of Space Law 203 R J Lee, ‘Nuclear and Radioisotopic Power in Space: The Cumulative Content and Effect of

the United Nations Space Treaties and Declarations’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 398

Y Zhao, ‘Discussion on Extending/Modifying the 1992 Nuclear Power Sources Principles to Broader Space Operations’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 408

V Iavicoli, ‘The Concept of Launching State in the NPS Principles’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 418

R M Stephens and S A Mirmina, ‘NASA’s Project Prometheus and Nuclear Propulsion Systems’ (2003) Proceedings of the 46th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 425

N R Malysheva and O B Chebotaryov, ‘International Law and Peaceful Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space’ (2004) Proceedings of the 47th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 481

S Mirmina, ‘Use of Nuclear Power Sources in the Exploration of Outer Space’ (2005) Proceedings of the 48th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 131

1996 UNGAR Benefits Declaration J S Thaker, ‘”Outer Space Benefits Resolution” Nearing Finalization: Report of Progress in

Copuos Legal Subcommittee’ (1996) 24 Journal of Space Law 126 M W Sanidas and J S Thaker, ‘COPUOS Session Agrees on UNISPACE III : Adopts

Declaration on “Outer Space Benefits”’ (1996) 24 Journal of Space Law 132 T Chiku, ‘U.N. General Assembly Agrees to Hold the UNISPACE III Conference and Adopts

Declaration on Outer Space Benefits’ (1997) 25 Journal of Space Law 38 M Benkö, ‘History and impact of the 1996 UN declaration on “space benefits”’ (1997) 13

Space Policy 139 J S Thaker, ‘The Development of the Outer Space Benefits Declaration’ (1997) XXII (I)

Annals of Air and Space Law 537 M Benkö and K-U Schrogl, ‘The UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space:

Adoption of a Declaration on “Space Benefits” and other Recent Developments’ (1997) 46 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 228

M Benkö and K-U Schrogl, ‘The 1996 UN Declaration on “Space Benefits” Ending the North South Debate on Space Cooperation’ (1996) Proceedings of the 39th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 183

2004 UNGAR Concept of the Launching State K-U Schrogl, ‘A New Look at the Concept of the „Launching State“ The Results of the

UNCOPUOS Legal Subcommittee Working Group 2000-2002’ (2002) 51 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 359

132

M Benkö and K-U Schrogl, ‘The UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space: Adoption of a Resolution on Application of the Concept of the “Launching State” and Other Recent Developments’ (2005) 54 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 57

E A Frankle, ‘Once A Launching State, Always The Launching State? A Needless Conflict of Treaty Regimes’ (2001) Proceedings of the 44th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 32

M Williams, ‘Perceptions on the Definition of a “Launching State” and Space Debris Risks’ (2002) Proceedings of the 45th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 280

K-U Schrogl and C Davis, ‘A New Look at the “Launching State” – The Results of the UNCOPUOS Legal Subcommittee Working Group 2000-2002’ (2002) Proceedings of the 45th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 286

K-U Schrogl, ‘The UN General Assembly Resolution “Application of the Concept of the ‘Launching State’”’ (2005) Proceedings of the 48th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 347

2007 UNGAR Practice of Registration Resolution M Benkö and K-U Schrogl, ‘The UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space:

Adoption of the Resolution on Enhancing Registration Practice and of the UNCOPUOS Space Debris Mitigation Guidlines’ (2008) 57 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 335

K-U Schrogl and N Hedman, ‘The U.N. General Assembly Resolution 62/101 of 17 December 2007 on “Recommendations on Enhancing the Practice of States and International Intergovernmental Organizations in Registering Space Objects”’ (2008) 34 Journal of Space Law

K-U Schrogl and N Hedman, ‘The Results of the UNCOPUOS Legal Subcommittee Working Group on “Practice of States and International Organizations in Registering Space Objects” 2005 – 2007’ (2007) Proceedings of the 50th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 514

133

Appendix D: Citation Guidelines

Abbreviated from the Oxford Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA) 2006 http://denning.law.ox.ac.uk/published/oscola.shtml Contents 1. General Notes on Citation

1.1. Footnotes 1.2. Quotations 1.3. Abbreviations

2. Citing Primary Legal Sources 2.1. Popular Case Names 2.2. Italics and Punctuation 2.3. European Court of Justice and Court of First

Instance 2.4. Cases from Various Jurisdictions

3. Citing International Law Sources 3.1. EC Legislation 3.2. International Treaties 3.3. Bilateral Treaties 3.4. Regional Treaties

3.5. International Cases and Decisions 3.6. Non-Governmental and Other International

Organisations 3.7. Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of

International Law 3.8. International Law Association

4. Citing Legal Commentary 4.1. Books 4.2. Articles 4.3. Theses 4.4. Conference and other papers 4.5. Websites 4.6. Newspaper articles 4.7. Personal Communications and Email

1. General Notes on Citation

1.1. Footnotes 1.1.1. Use footnotes, not endnotes. Footnotes should start with a capital letter and end with

a full stop (.), question mark (?) or exclamation mark (!). 1.1.2. Where more than one citation is given in a single footnote, separate them with semi-

colons (;). 1.1.3. The footnote marketer should appear after the relevant punctuation in the text and

normally at the end of a sentence. 1.1.4. Latin gadgets such as supra, infra, ante, id, op cit, loc cit, contra are not widely

understood and should be sparingly used. Ibid. may be used to repeat the immediately previous citation.

1.2. Quotations

1.2.1. Quotations from other works, judgments, statutes, etc must be faithful to the original, except where it is necessary to change quotation marks from single to double, or vice versa.

1.2.2. Do not change errors in the original or use [sic]. Any comments on the quotation should be in the text or in a footnote.

1.2.3. Incorporate quotations of three lines or less into the text, within single quotation marks (‘…’).

1.2.4. Quotations within short quotations take double quotation marks (“…”). 1.2.5. Present quotations longer than three lines in a double-indented single-spaced

paragraph, with no further indentation on the first line. There is no need to use quotation marks for such longer quotations.

1.2.6. Begin with an ellipsis (…) when a quotation starts in mid-sentence. Indicate omissions from a quotation with an ellipsis.

1.2.7. Indicate any change of emphasis in a parenthetical clause after the citation by use of ‘(emphasis added)’.

134

1.3. Abbreviations 1.3.1. The following words and phrases can be abbreviated:

affirmed aff’d appendix app chapter/chapters ch/chs chapter/chapters (of statutes) c/cc edition/editions edn/edns editor/editors ed/eds et cetera etc following ff footnote/footnotes (internal to the work) n/nn footnote /footnotes (external to the work) fn/fns for example eg that is ie manuscript/manuscripts MS/MSS number no number (of an Act, Report etc) No page/pages p/pp paragraph/paragraphs para/paras or [22] [22]–[32] part pt regulation/regulations reg/regs reversed rev’d Rex/Regina R rule/rules r/rr schedule sch section/sections s/ss subsection/subsections sub-s/sub-ss supplement/supplements supp/supps translated, translation/translator trans/tr volume/volumes vol/vols

2. Citing Primary Legal Sources

2.1. Popular Case Names 2.1.1. Popular names for cases may be used. Give the popular name in parenthesis after

the initial full citation, and then use the popular name in subsequent citations. 2.1.2. E.g. Case C-376/98 Germany v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR I-8419 (Tobacco

Advertising Case)

2.2. Italics and Punctuation 2.2.1. Names of parties in cases should be italicised. 2.2.2. No punctuation should be used between party names.

2.3. European Court of Justice and Court of First Instance 2.3.1. For cases of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), if possible cite the official reports,

the European Court Reports (ECR).

135

2.3.2. For an unreported case, cite the relevant notice in the Official Journal (OJ). If not yet reported in the OJ, then cite the case number, case name, court, and date of judgement.

2.3.3. Since 1989, cases have been numbered and prefixed according to whether they are registered at the ECJ or the Court of First Instance (CFI). ECJ cases are prefixed C- and CFI cases are prefixed T-. Do not add a C- to pre-1989 cases.

2.3.4. Cite the case number before the party names, with no punctuation between them. 2.3.5. ECJ cases are reported in ECR I- and CFI cases are reported in ECR II-.

Case 240/83 Procureur de la République v ADBHU [1985] ECR 531 Case T-344/99 Arne Mathisen AS v Council [2002] ECR II-2905 Case C-491/01 R v Secretary of State ex p BAT and Imperial Tobacco [2002]

ECR I-11453 Case C-444/02 Fixtures Marketing Ltd v OPAP (ECJ 8 November 2004)

2.4. Cases from Various Jurisdictions

2.4.1. Cite cases from other jurisdictions as they are cited in their own jurisdictions. 2.4.2. If the jurisdiction and court are not obvious from the context of the work, these should

be indicated in parenthesis at the end of the reference, e.g. Michael v Johnson 426 US 346, 23 S Ct 118 (1976) Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 (High Court of

Australia)

3. Citing International Law Sources

3.1. EC Legislation 3.1.1. Cite EC legislation (Regulations, Directives and Decisions) and other instruments

(Recommendations, Opinions etc) by providing the legislation type, number and title, then publication details from the Official Journal (OJ) of the European Communities: Council Regulation (EC) 1984/2003 of 8 April 2003 introducing a system for the

statistical monitoring of trade in bluefin tuna, swordfish and big eye tuna within the Community [2003] OJ L295/1

3.1.2. For the years 1952 – 72 when there was no English edition of the Journal Officiel, refer wherever possible to the Special Edition of the Official Journal: Council Regulation (EEC), 1017/68 applying rules of competition to transport by rail,

road and inland waterway [1968] OJ Spec Ed 302 3.2. International Treaties

3.2.1. If parties can accede to the treaty, cite the full date upon which the treaty was opened for signature. Otherwise, cite the date that it was signed or adopted. If available, then give the date it entered into force. If there is both a date of adoption and a date on which the treaty opened for signature, cite the dates in that order.

3.2.2. It is not necessary to list the parties to a multilateral treaty, but parties to a bilateral treaty should be included in parentheses immediately after the title, with the names of the parties separated by an en-dash.

3.2.3. Where applicable, cite the treaty series in the following order of preference: primary international treaty series, e.g. UNTS (United Nations Treaty Series), CTS

(Consolidated Treaty Series) or LNTS (League of Nations Treaty Series); official treaty series of one of the States parties, e.g. UKTS (UK Treaty Series),

(ATS) (Australian Treaty Series); and

136

other international treaty series (e.g. British and Foreign State Papers). 3.2.4. If appropriate, an informal/shortened title may be given in parentheses before the

pinpoint reference, and used in subsequent references. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966,

entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR)

3.3. Bilateral Treaties 3.3.1. Give the names of parties to a bilateral treaty in parentheses immediately after the

title, if required for clarity, e.g. Agreement Concerning the Sojourn of Refugees within the Meaning of the

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of 31 January 1967) (France–Austria) (adopted 21 October 1974, entered into force 24 July 1975) 985 UNTS 303

3.4. Regional Treaties

3.4.1. Include both the formal and informal/shortened names of the treaty (if the latter exist) in the first reference to a treaty. Give the informal/shortened title in parentheses before the pinpoint reference. The abbreviated titles given in the examples below are intended as a guide only.

3.4.2. Cite protocols to treaties by their names, preceded by the name of the treaties to which they are appended. Dates are generally not given when citing European treaties, as they may have been amended several times. Include the year if it appears in the standard title of the treaty or if it improves clarity. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

(European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (ECHR) art 3

3.5. International Cases and Decisions 3.5.1. ICJ Cases: Cite the ICJ Report if available; otherwise cite to the website. Give dates

of access for website reports. Cite case names as they appear in the ICJ Reports. In some instances, the word ‘case’ will appear in the title; in other instances it will not. E.g. Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Case (El Salvador/Honduras, Nicaragua

intervening) (Application for Intervention) [1990] ICJ Rep 92 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall (Advisory Opinion) 2004

<http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm> accessed 21 July 2005 [139]–[142]

Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Germany v Poland) (Merits) PCIJ Rep Series A No 17

3.5.2. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) Cases /M/V ‘Saiga’ (No 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Provisional

Measures, Order of 11 March 1998) ITLOS Reports 1998, 24 /M/V ‘Saiga’ (No. 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Provisional

Measures, Order of 11 March 1998, Sep. Op. Laing) ITLOS Reports 1998, 46

3.5.3. World Trade Organisation (WTO / GATT) Decisions 3.5.3.1. For WTO decisions, cite the WTO Online Database

(http://docsonline.wto.org). Cite the title, date of decision, and WTO catalogue number and pinpoint to paragraphs. Cite the website of the WTO Online Database in the first relevant footnote in each article/chapter.

137

3.5.3.2. For GATT decisions, cite the BISD (Basic Instruments and Selected Documents) where available. The BISD can be found in Butterworth’s Lexis and Westlaw.

Swedish Anti-Dumping Duties (1955) GATT BISD 3S/81, 82 WTO, India: Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector—Report of the Appellate

Body (19 March 2002) WT/DS146/AB/R and WT/DS175/AB/R [10]–[25]

3.5.4. Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA): The main awards and adjudications of the PCA are published in Scott (ed) Hague Court Reports (1916, 1932). Other awards are published in Moore History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party (1898) 6 vols. Each has its own method of citation. North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case (GB v USA) (1910) Scott Hague Court Rep

141 Alabama Claims Arbitration (1872) 1 Moore Intl Arbitrations 495

3.6. Non-Governmental and Other International Organisations

3.6.1. Generally speaking, cite UN documents in the following order: author, ‘title’ date document number. After the first mention, abbreviate ‘United Nations’ to ‘UN’; ‘UN Security Council’ to ‘UNSC’; ‘UN General Assembly’ to ‘UNGA’; and ‘Resolution’ to ‘Res’. Cite the full names of lesser known, or more specialized, UN organs or bodies, rather than their abbreviations.

3.6.2. Italicize the title of a UN document only if it has been published as a book (ie, it has an ISBN), in which case the UN Doc number is not necessary. Cite full titles in the first citation, and shortened titles thereafter. Examples follow:

UNGA Res 2621 (1970) GAOR 25th

Session Supp 16, 10 UNSC Res 1373 (28 September 2001) UN Doc S/RES/1373 UNGA Res 51/210 (17 December 1996) UN Doc A/RES/51/210 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,

UNGA Res 1514 (XV) (14 Dec 1960) (adopted by 89 votes to none; 9 abstentions) UNGA ‘Report of the Secretary-General 65/190’ (2001) UN Doc A/56/190 ‘Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International

Criminal Court’ UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (Rome 15 June–17 July 1998) (14 April 1998) UN Doc A/CONF.183/2/Add.1

UNGA ‘Questions Relating to International Terrorism’ (1972) UNYB 649 ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 42nd Session’ (1

May–20 July 1990) UN Doc A/45/10

3.7. Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law 3.7.1. Cite Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International in full on the first

occasion, and abbreviate subsequently to Recueil des Cours. Cite the volume year (which is not necessarily the same as the publication year). Up until 1995, volumes (tomes) were divided into parts, signified by roman numerals. Omit the roman numeral for the part, and cite the year and volume instead. The final reference is the page number where the article starts. E McWhinney, ‘Judicial Settlement of Disputes: Jurisdiction and Justiciability’ (1990)

221 Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International 9

3.8. International Law Association

138

3.8.1. Cite in a similar manner to an edited book, with the place and year of the conference in parentheses after the title. Committee on International Commercial Arbitration, ‘Interim Report on Public Policy

as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards’ in International Law Association Report of the Sixty-Ninth Conference (London 2000) (International Law Association, London 2000) 340 (Interim Report) 345

4. Citing Legal Commentary

4.1. Books 4.1.1. Use italics for the title, and put publication information within parentheses. Use

commas to separate multiple authors, tiles, publisher and place of publication. Where many places of publication are listed, give only the first. The page number follows after the brackets, e.g. XX Lastname, Title in Italics, (series title, edition publisher, place date) page

4.1.2. Where a book has a title and subtitle not separated with punctuation, insert a colon. 4.1.3. Where there are more than three authors, cite the first author, followed by ‘and

others’, e.g. R Goode and others, Transnational Commercial Law: International Instruments and

Commentary (OUP, Oxford 2004) 4.1.4. With edited and translated books, the rules are the same, except for the insertion of

‘(ed)’ or ‘(tr)’. Where there are two editors, insert ‘(eds)’ or ‘(trs)’, e.g. G Jones (ed), Goff and Jones: The Law of Restitution (6th rev edn Sweet and

Maxwell, London 2004) 4.1.5. For contributed essays and chapters in edited books, the citation is thus:

I Brownlie, ‘The Relation of Law and Power’ in B Cheng and ED Brown (eds), Contemporary Problems in International Law: Essays in Honour of Georg Schwarzenberger on his Eightieth Birthday (Stevens and Sons, London 1988)

Pinpoints follow the publication material outside the brackets. It is not necessary to give the pages of the contribution.

4.2. Articles

4.2.1. Give the title in roman, within inverted commas. The style for authors of articles is the same as for authors of books. The journal title is in roman.

4.2.2. Give the publication date in square brackets if it identifies the volume, and in round brackets where the journal volumes are numbered consecutively. Do not include issue numbers unless the page numbers begin again for each issue within a volume: in that case put the issue number in parentheses after the volume number. Use single inverted commas around the title and a comma between the number of the first page of the article and the pinpoint. When the pinpoint is to a paragraph number, put the number in square brackets and omit the comma. A Ashworth, ‘Social Control and “Anti-Social Behaviour”: the Subversion of Human

Rights’ (2004) 120 LQR 263, 276 4.2.3. For journals that are only published electronically, give publication details as for print

journals, but also provide the website address and most recent date of access within angled brackets:

139

C Penfold, 'Nazis, Porn and Politics: Asserting Control over Internet Content' [2001] 2 JILT <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2001_2/penfold> accessed 27 April 2005

4.3. Theses

4.3.1. Give the author, title, type of thesis, university and date of completion and pinpoint: H Toner, ‘Modernising Partnership Rights in EC Family Reunification Law’ (DPhil

thesis, University of Oxford 2003) 6 4.4. Conference and other Papers

4.4.1. Cite conference papers that were only available at a conference or directly from the author by author, title, conference title and date. Citations of conference papers that have been published should include publication details; those that are only available online should include a web address and date of access. This guideline also applies to other papers. Society of Legal Scholars, ‘A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom: Response to

DCA Constitutional Consultation Paper 11/03’ (2003) <http://www.legalscholars.ac.uk/documents/cp.11.03.pdf> accessed 29 April 2005 [4.1]–[4.2]

4.5. Websites

4.5.1. Cite information derived from an internet source, which is not covered elsewhere in OSCOLA, as follows: author (or use two joined em-dashes if author is not identified), title, type of document (if relevant), date of issue (if available), web address and date of access, if the document or the website may be subject to change. Shami Chakrabarti, ‘The End of Innocence’ (Lecture at the Centre for Public Law in

Cambridge 2004) <http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/articles> accessed 20 February 2005

4.6. Newspaper Articles

4.6.1. Cite newspaper articles in the order: author, ‘title’ newspaper (city of publication, country of publication (if not obvious) full date) page. If the reference is to an editorial, the author is cited as ‘Editorial’. If the author is not named, insert two joined em-dashes. If the article is sourced from the web and there is no page available, provide the website address and date of access. I Hawkey, ‘Italy takes a dive’ Sunday Times (London 14 May 2006) Sport 13 E Hobsbawm, ‘The Dangers of Exporting Democracy’ Guardian (London 22

January 2005) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1396157,00.html> accessed 10 May 2005

4.7. Personal Communications and Email

4.7.1. Cite emails and other personal communications as follows: Statement by Gareth Pierce (Personal email correspondence 2 January 2001) Statement by Piers Morgan (Personal communication 6 September 2003)

More details on the citation standard may be found in the OSCOLA, online at the address first given above. (Accessed 16 June 2009)

140

Appendix E: CoCoSL Project Participants

Scientific Advisory Board Prof. Dr. Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel Prof. Jonathan Galloway Judge Gilbert Guillaume Prof. Peter P.C. Haanappel Ambassador Dr. Peter Jankowitsch Dr. Nandasiri Jasentuliyana Prof. Dr. Vladimír Kopal Judge Abdul Koroma Dr. Gabriel Lafferranderie Prof. José Monserrat Filho Judge Vladlen Vereshchetin

Editors Prof. Dr. Stephan Hobe, LL.M. Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd Prof. Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl

Authors Volume I Background, Preamble Stephan Hobe Article I Stephan Hobe Niklas Hedman (Co-author, Article I) Article II Steven Freeland Dr. Ram Jakhu Article III Olivier Ribbelink Article IV Kai-Uwe Schrogl Julia Neumann (Co-author, Article IV) Article V Frans G. von der Dunk Gérardine Goh (Co-author, Article V) Article VI Michael Gerhard Article VII Armel Kerrest Lesley Jane Smith (Co-author, Article VII) Article VIII Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd Stephan Mick (Co-author, Article VIII) Article IX Sergio Marchisio Article X Anatoly Kapustin Article XI Jean-François Mayence Thomas Reuter (Co-author, Article XI) Article XII Lesley Jane Smith Article XIII Ulrike Bohlmann Gisela Süß (Co-author, Article XIII) Articles XIV – XVII Gérardine Goh

141

Volume II 1968 Rescue Agreement (ARRA) Lead: Kai-Uwe Schrogl Co-authors: André Farand, Irmgard Marboe, Julia Neumann 1972 Liabilty Convention (LIAB) Armel Kerrest, Sergio Marchisio, Lesley Jane Smith 1975 Registration Convention (REG) Lead: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd Co-authors: Nataliya Malysheva, Olga Stelmakh, Leslie I Tennen 1979 Moon Agreement (MOON) Lead: Stephan Hobe Co-authors: Steven Freeland, Ram Jakhu Volume III 1982 Direct Television Broadcasting Principles Lead: Marco Ferrazzani Co-author: Oliver Huth 1986 Remote Sensing Principles Lead: Joanne Gabrynowicz Co-authors: Ray Harris, Leopold Mantl, Balakista Reddy 1992 Nuclear Power Sources Principles Lead: Gérardine Goh Co-author: Tanja Masson-Zwaan 1996 Space Benefits Declaration Lead: Stephan Hobe Co-authors: VS Mani, Haifeng Zhao 2004 'Launching State' Resolution Lead: Kai-Uwe Schrogl Co-author: Frank Riemann 2007 Registration Resolution Lead: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd Co-author: Niklas Hedman