United Nations COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688

Committee on the Peaceful Unedited transcriptUses of Outer SpaceLegal Subcommittee

688th MeetingWednesday, 2 April 2003, 10 a.m.Vienna

Chairman: Mr. Kopal (Czech Republic)

The meeting was called to order at 10.34 a.m.

The CHAIRMAN: Good morning distinguished delegates, I now declare open the 688 th

meeting of the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. But before doing it, I would like to apologize for my coming so late. There were some disturbances on the metro line. I hope that the small negotiating or consultative group used this time properly for trying to reach consensus on the issue that is before us.

This morning, therefore, we will continue our consideration of item 4, Status and Application of the Five United Nations Treaties on Outer Space, and agenda item 8, Examination of the Preliminary Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment.

Following the Subcommittee plenary, the Working Group on Agenda Item 8 will hold its fourth meeting, under the chairmanship of Professor Marchisio of Italy. This will be followed by the second round of informal consultations on the Legal Subcommittee’s agenda for its forty-third session next year, under the guidance of our colleague from Sweden, Dr. Hedman.

Status and application of the five United Nations treaties on outer space (agenda item 4)

Distinguished delegates, I would now like to continue consideration of item 4 of our agenda, Status

and Application of the Five United Nations Treaties on Outer Space.

I do not have any speaker on my list for this particular item, but is there any delegation wishing to speak? I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany.

Ms. M. BENKOE (Germany): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Our delegation has concluded informal consultations and we are close to reaching an agreement in this matter. Therefore, we feel that it would be useful if delegations would be given the opportunity to discuss the matter once more in the Subcommittee’s plenary. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Germany for your advice on the proceedings of the informal consultative group on this issue. And the floor is now open for any delegation wishing to take a position in this particular problem.

I recognize the distinguished representative of the United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my delegation has been part of certain of the informal consultations and we listened with great interest the other day in the Working Group where this proposal is discussed and, Mr. Chairman, my delegation is not quite sure where the objections lie with this proposal and whether there is something very substantive that cannot be worked out at this session or whether it is just really a matter of delegations having some more

________________________________________________________________________________________________

In its resolution 50/27 of 6 December 1995, the General Assembly endorsed the recommendation of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space that, beginning with its thirty-ninth session, the Committee would be provided with unedited transcripts in lieu of verbatim records. This record contains the texts of speeches delivered in English and interpretations of speeches delivered in the other languages as transcribed from taped recordings. The transcripts have not been edited or revised.

Corrections should be submitted to original speeches only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and be sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned, within one week of the date of publication, to the Chief, Translation and Editorial Service, Room D0708, United Nations Office at Vienna, P.O. Box 500, A-1400, Vienna, Austria. Corrections will be issued in a consolidated corrigendum.

V.03-83836

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 2

time to think this through but feel it generally the substance is quite good and that it should not be any problem reaching a consensus here by the end of the Legal Subcommittee. I am reluctant, or I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that if we let this drift to the full Committee in June that we might lose the positive momentum that we seem to have regarding this proposed resolution or that we may in June end up starting from square one, if you will. And, as we all know, in June we are going to have a considerable amount of work to do on a number of other issues. So perhaps those delegations that seem to have a problem with this proposal in L.242 could illuminate a bit more on exactly what those problems might be and how we might solve them. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of the United States of America. Is any other delegation wishing to take a position? I recognize the distinguished representative of Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and good morning to one and all.

There are two things I would like to say. First of all, from discussions yesterday, from what I understood the only doubts expressed by any delegation were not actually on the content, as was just said by our distinguished colleague from the United States, it was rather on procedure. In other words, it is a question of having sufficient time to think it over. And I must say I share that concern felt by our colleague from the United States on time and time management regarding the discussion in plenary at the June Committee session. But I believe delegations who have already expressed doubts should have a chance to do so again and that so that the consensus can be clear without any room for doubt or reluctance. So I believe the discussion and the decision perhaps should be deferred until the afternoon so that we do not conclude immediately. That way, we will have a chance to look further into it and confirm our agreement. We have been working with Mrs. Benkoe since yesterday afternoon to arrive at that agreement. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): I thank the distinguished representative of Greece for that contribution.

(Continued in English) Ladies and gentlemen, if I understood correctly the brief report presented by the distinguished representative of Germany and also the contribution made by the distinguished representative of the United States of America and,

after all, also I understood it from the intervention of our colleague from Greece, there has not been any problem in substance. I think the term “content” of the problem was used and in this respect, there has not been any considerable discord in this respect. But there has been still some need for more time, perhaps to reconcile the position and to remove the last obstacles on the way to a consensus. I believe that it will be reasonable if we postpone indeed the decision on this matter, knowing that we approach to the consensus, that we are on the way to the consensus, but that there is still some time necessary to reconcile on all details or perhaps on doubts that have been still existing. So with your concurrence, I will postpone the discussion on item 4 on the decision on this issue for the afternoon, but before doing it, I have still the distinguished representative of Mexico on my list of speakers. You have the floor Madam.

Ms. M. T. ROSAS JASSO (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. My delegation would like to specify we do, indeed, need more time to examine the content of the draft resolution and I would also like to say that at this moment we are not prepared to say that we can agree with the substance. We just do not have enough elements at hand to give our position on the document in view of implications of the adoption of a General Assembly resolution on recommendations adopted by a working group. My delegation believes that this requires further examination and, thus, we would like to give our position at the Committee in June. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of Mexico. The next speaker on my list is now the distinguished representative of Belgium.

Mr. J.-F. MAYENCE (Belgium) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. My delegation would like to support the point made by the United States. I do not think time is on the side of a consensus at this stage. That delegation and other delegations most likely have trouble understanding questions put by some delegations on the substance of the matter. Several times it has been explained that the substance of the document is word for word from the report of the Working Group where there was a consensus in the Committee. Extra time, deal with it this afternoon, fine, but if there are problems with the substance, we have a problem because we would like to have delegations who have these problems identify them because we did have a consensus in the Committee. Thank you.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 3

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): I thank the distinguished representative of Belgium for that contribution to the discussion.

(Continued in English) Yes, I still recognize the distinguished representative of Argentina.

Mr. S. SAYÚS (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. My delegation would like to say that we, too, need more time and that so that our authorities can examine the proposal before us. At this point, it is not a question of giving views on the substance, we just need more time to examine this and to be able to give a view on the substance at a later stage. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of Argentina. I recognize the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Mr. L. S. MKUMATELA (South Africa): Thank you Mr. Chairperson. Chairperson, while following the debate with interest, we are not commenting on the content of this document proposed, we have called to a particular interest in understanding the nature of the legal status of the resolution, if any, adopted by the General Assembly. And when you come back to the consensus document, we would like to submit that the legal nature of the General Assembly resolution may be a little bit different from any consensus reached in any other document. So that difference, in our opinion, merits consideration also of the content of the proposed document because it was a consensus in relation to a particular international relations document whether it is report, whether it is another document, that is different from a resolution, if we are concerning only the legal status of the resolution [inaudible] of any other nature or any other document unless we are making a mistake in that regard.

Therefore, Chairperson, we are, as well indicated, our interest is simply in understanding to what extent the resolution will have an impact to other Member States which are not necessarily parties to these conventions and documents. So, if any, we would like to time to get clarity from those delegates that are sponsoring this document. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of South Africa. I will return to your request a little bit later after exhaustion of all speakers. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany.

Ms. M. BENKOE (Germany): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would draw the attention of the distinguished delegate of South Africa that we have the Chairman of the Working Group on the legal concept of the launching State, Kai Uwe Schrogl, on our delegation and we would be very willing to help in explaining the contents of the resolution and maybe we could go ahead bilaterally. We could explain the contents of the resolution to the distinguished delegate of South Africa, if necessary. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: You do not wish to do it now here for the benefit of all delegations?

Ms. M. BENKOE (Germany): I think it would be, if the Committee wishes yes, but I think that takes too much time. We have been working on that particular issue for four years, so I think that many delegations are aware of the content of the work which has been done and I think it would be much more precise to come together among delegations and do it on a bilateral basis.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes. The distinguished representative of South Africa followed by the distinguished representative of Greece.

Mr. L. S. MKUMATELA (South Africa): Sorry, Chairperson, to take the floor for the second time. Chairperson, we thank for the offer by the distinguished delegate of Germany. We have been following the debate regarding the subject of the launching State, complex as it has been. We would like to submit to this house, Chairperson, that it is our submission that a resolution of the General Assembly occupies a particular position in the hierarchy of legal instruments. As such, it merits serious consideration. It is not necessarily about the content of any report that was tabled, it is simply the nature of the resolution at the General Assembly. We are submitting that it is different to any other document we have submitted as COPUOS documents to the General Assembly, either as reports or otherwise, but now we are submitting that a resolution is an important legal instrument. If any clarity, then it should be the clarity regarding the legal status or the impact of a resolution, not necessarily the content of the launching State, per se, the implication of that resolution.

Again, we thank the offer by the distinguished delegate of Germany. We are willing to follow the process and we simply would like to cooperate. Thank you.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 4

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of South Africa. The distinguished representative of Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): I would like to say before the explanation is given by our distinguished colleague from South Africa, exactly insist on his point, his question was which is the legal regime of that resolution, but after the clarification is given, I think, it is quite clear, what he wants to know. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Any other delegation wishing to speak on this issue?

Gentlemen, if I can reply to the question of our colleague from South Africa, I am doing it in my personal capacity, of course. I do not see any reason why we should discuss on the nature of the proposed resolution of the General Assembly. It will be a usual resolution of the General Assembly. It means it will have the recommendatory value, nothing more. It will be the same kind of resolution, as is the usual resolution on international cooperation in outer space, including a number of recommendations but it will not include any principles, as is usually done in declarations of the General Assembly. It will be a usual recommendatory General Assembly resolution. And if you read very carefully the text of this draft resolution, it was already said yesterday that there would be no interpretation of existing principles and norms of international law. It will be just a set of recommendations dealing with the application of the existing principles and norms of international law under the new conditions, under the new development of space activities at the present time and in the future.

So this is my opinion. You can, of course, have another opinion. I do not insist that my view should be decisive in this respect but I felt that it should be said in this way.

Any other delegation wishing to speak on this particular problem?

I have one more question here. What does it mean “we need more time”? How to explain it. How to understand it. More time, it means if we postpone further dealings with this issue for this afternoon, is it sufficient for some delegations or not? If we postpone it until tomorrow, and this would be probably the last opportunity to speak about it at this session of the Subcommittee. Is it enough for those delegations which requested some more time? I need your guidance in this respect.

You have the floor, distinguished representative of Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am afraid we only have two days, two working days, to finish everything for this year, for this session, that is. And I think it is going a little too far to continue until Friday afternoon with a discussion on this question. I think we have to finish this afternoon. And we have to finish with the examination of this specific question this afternoon. Friday, we need to be more productive. Colleagues, all colleagues, have to make an effort, do their best so that we can finish this afternoon, otherwise we are lost. It requires a great effort. Mrs. Benkoe and I are here at your disposal to give explanations to delegations so that we can get results. I would like to urge delegations, through you, Mr. Chairman, please to let us conclude.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): I thank the distinguished representative of Greece for that contribution.

(Continued in English) Sorry, I wanted to propose the final decision but it is still time for further discussion. I now recognize the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Mr. L. S. MKUMATELA (South Africa): Thank you Chairperson. We, at this stage, would take this opportunity to thank you for giving this house your understanding of this situation regarding the proposed General Assembly resolution on the concept of the launching State. We accept your explanation that it will be one of those resolutions which have got a character of recommendation rather than being mandatory. Indeed, we accept that, without any reservation, save to say that our delegation and our Government takes General Assembly resolutions very seriously, whether it is a recommendation, whether it is mandatory. We are of the view that these recommendations are known to lead to a constructive engagement by all nations. Therefore, whether this recommendation will have the character of being a recommendation, it means the resolution, if taken, we are of the view as such, Chairperson, that the General Assembly would expect nations to have a positive attitude towards that resolution.

That said then, Chairperson, our delegation would go with those that are hoping that the letter may be concluded as soon as today. We no longer have reservations. We accept that this will be one of those many resolutions of the General Assembly. Again, at this moment, we are simply saying that if the General

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 5

Assembly adopts this resolution, it will have an important impact to many nations, as we always found resolutions of general [inaudible]. We thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of South Africa and may I say that I appreciate very much your attitude, it means the attitude of your Government to the resolutions of the General Assembly, including this one, if it is adopted.

I think that there is now an agreement about further procedure and about a further time schedule for discussing this issue. I believe that indeed we should try or all the delegations involved should try to reach a conclusion this afternoon, for this afternoon’s session, either before the plenary or during the plenary of the Subcommittee this afternoon. And, therefore, I believe that it would be wise to include this item again on the agenda of the afternoon’s session.

But I now have still the application from the United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I had no objections to what you proposed but I think I would like to revert to my earlier observations about whether we are going to be able to reach a decision on the resolution at this meeting or whether we are going to reach a decision not to make a decision and wait until June. And I think if it is the latter case, then it would not be very useful for us to continue. In listening to the interventions, I think there are two delegations that said they had substantive problems with the resolution. Can we fix those today or should we just say we cannot fix those and we will have to wait until some other time to take this up? I think your question earlier was quite helpful which is how much more time are we talking about? I do not think it would be useful this afternoon to have the same kind of debate that we are now if this afternoon we reconvene and there is substantive proposals made or substantive reasons why this resolution, as proposed, is unacceptable, then that would be useful, but if we meet again to have the same kind of discussion that we are having right now on how much more time is needed. There are some problems but we are not quite sure what they are, then I would suggest that we not reconvene this afternoon. So perhaps other delegations who have an interest in this resolution could give us an indication as to whether another meeting this afternoon would be useful, if it was designed to make progress towards reaching conclusion at this session. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of the United States of America.

Distinguished delegates, I am in your hands. If you believe that this afternoon it would be only a repetition of what we are doing now during this discussion, then, of course, it would not be worthwhile to re-open this discussion this afternoon. But if there is still some hope that we might reach a consensus today, I think this last attempt should be still done because, as the distinguished representative of the United States had said, during the session of the main Committee in June, the legal issues are only one point of a big agenda of the Committee and it will be perhaps more difficult to reach a consensus at the session of the main Committee than now because we are now perhaps, I feel it, close to a consensus. And if we lose these opportunities, it means now, and then again at the main Committee session, so it would be another year ahead that would be necessary for re-opening it, for a repetition, perhaps of the same arguments, of the same positions and so on and, after all, the opportunity to show to the international community through adoption of a General Assembly resolution on this particular issue to show how our work is important for further development of space activities. This you have also to take into consideration because we have to be a productive body of the United Nations. We must produce something and we have worked on this issue for four years and it was a very serious work, in my assessment, and there was also a positive outcome of this work and we should not simply sell it out without any conclusion.

But I still see several delegations. First it was Germany.

Ms. M. BENKOE (Germany): Mr. Chairman, we have conducted informal discussions on this matter and we have experienced that sometimes in a couple of hours results can be reached. So we would very much support what you just said and we would very much like to have one more meeting this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Germany. The next speaker is the distinguished representative of Colombia.

Mr. C. RODRIGUEZ (Colombia) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my delegation largely shares the ideas expressed by yourself. Quite simply, yesterday my delegation put forward a few comments regarding this item of the agenda which was shared by

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 6

a number of other delegations and I would like to reaffirm those comments.

We have a draft resolution distributed recently. We did send it to our capital but it was not yet received there. There has not been enough time in terms of agreeing on a draft resolution. We, of course, want to be very serious in our approach. We want to make sure that this is a solid resolution and that there is a solid consensus in its regard within the Legal Subcommittee of COPUOS. We do not think that those matters that have been definitively studied and considered need to be re-opened, but on the other hand, this is a resolution, a draft resolution, we are talking about, to be submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, through the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. How is it going to be submitted exactly? Through the big Committee, the plenary Committee? If that is the case, then I think it will have to be on the agenda of the big Committee meeting. And, of course, we will then have to envisage some time to discuss it so that it can be approved by COPUOS, by the plenary session of COPUOS.

Within this Legal Subcommittee, however, my delegation is not in a position to join any consensus on this draft resolution at this point, for the reasons that I have explained. For our part, we would prefer to wait until the plenary meeting of the big Committee. I think that way of proceeding has a number of advantages frankly, Mr. Chairman. The delegations and their national authorities will have more time to study this document and this is a document that requires careful and profound study.

We hope that we will have concluded this work by the time the June meeting comes along and that would be an appropriate time to approve it. We do not want to delay this indefinitely or to overburden the agenda of the COPUOS meeting but, on the other hand, a careful study is required. There has not been much time. We have studied various other resolutions of this nature. This is an important international legal instrument, potentially it contains legally important language that will place an obligation of Member States to adopt certain national laws or adjust their national legislation to bring in line with this resolution of the General Assembly. We are talking about serious obligations here.

Having said that, once again, Mr. Chairman, we are not against, not at all, this draft resolution. We are just asking for more time and we think a plenary session of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space would be an appropriate forum to do that. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Colombia for your comments on this draft resolution at the session of the Subcommittee. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Chile.

Mr. L. PLAZA GENTINA (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I would like to second the suggestion made by Mexico, Colombia and Argentina. Indeed, we are not in a position to make a decision at this time on the substance of the draft resolution. We need official consultations and it is based on those consultations that the decision should be made. We have already consulted with our authorities and we have their agreement in that it would be a good thing to delay a definitive decision on this draft resolution and we think the big COPUOS meeting, the plenary meeting in June would be an appropriate time to make that decision. Re-opening the matter this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, in our opinion, does not make a lot of sense because we will not be in a position to add anything substantive at that time. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of Chile. Is there any other delegation wishing to take position on this. I recognize the distinguished representative of Canada.

Mr. B. LEGENDRE (Canada) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Since this is the first time that the Canadian delegation is taking the floor in a plenary meeting of this session, I would like to express the Canadian delegation’s satisfaction with the fact that we see you again at the helm of this Subcommittee. You have our support and we welcome your role as the leader of our work. We would also like to congratulate Dr. Camacho on his nomination as Director of the Office for Outer Space Affairs. We wish you every success, Dr. Camacho, in your new functions.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know if this is a question that I should put to you or to the Secretariat, but the Canadian delegation would like to note the following.

If, in the course of the present session of the Subcommittee, we do not make a decision and if we put it until the June meeting of COPUOS, will it be in a position to make a decision at that time? Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you distinguished representative of Canada. I thank you also for your very kind words

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 7

addressed to the Chairman and to the Director of the Office. Maybe our Director or the Secretary would like to respond to Canada’s question?

(Continued in English) I will try to answer your question. I think we have already used in the past this such a procedure. It means that during the session of the main Committee, there is usually a special item called Report of the Legal Subcommittee. This state of affairs should be duly reflected in the report of the Subcommittee to the General Assembly. I believe that there should be also spelt out in firm terms that there have not been any substantive question raised during the discussion when the Subcommittee was deciding whether to adopt the draft resolution or to postpone the adoption for a later stage because of lack of time. This should be spelt out clearly, in my opinion, in the report.

And then, of course, during the discussions at the main Committee, there would be consultations between the delegations on the draft resolution and this draft resolution, if there is indeed a consensus, reached during the session of the Committee would then be presented to the main Committee for its endorsement and the decision will then remain up to the General Assembly. This is the usual procedure. I think in this way we have proceeded also with some sets of principles. I remember that the distinguished representative of Germany, which is now the speaker of the German delegation, worked very hard during the adoption of the set of principles on nuclear power sources, I think. This procedure may be repeated during the session of the Committee. But this is just a provisional answer. We still continue our consideration.

The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform our Canadian colleague of the procedure that we should follow. You have largely responded for me already, the practice usually followed by the Committee with regard to resolutions of this nature. This is something I am also familiar with and I am entirely in a position to respond to Canada’s question and also the question put by our colleague from South Africa. The Legal Subcommittee prepares the substantive part of a resolution and then it is, of course, the General Assembly that makes a decision. It passes a resolution to which the substantive text is attached. It works for treaties and principles and declarations. This is the normal procedure as regards a resolution that is perceived to be a major political, legal or moral

instrument, or all three, at that level of such major documents. It is the Fourth Committee that meets each October to consider initiatives of Member States of the United Nations General Assembly, in a manner of speaking, on behalf of all Member States of the United Nations, 200 at present, and not just the Member States of this Committee, of which there are 65. National delegations make initiatives and the Chairman of the Committee, last year it was Chile, and I recall it was the Chairman of the Fourth Committee that actually prepared the draft resolution and then asked other delegations to speak about it. It was submitted to a general meeting of the Fourth Committee and adopted by a plenary meeting. That is the way it works in New York and that is the procedure that we can follow here. The large amount of work that we have before us is not simply to agree on the German initiative regarding the way to go about adopting conclusions of the Working Group on the Launching State. The work that we have cut out for us is also to try and convince the other member States of the United Nations that are not members of this Committee to subscribe to that text to agree on the resolution and, thus, also in a way adopt or endorse the conclusions of the Working Group on the Concept of the Launching State.

That is the procedure we have followed every year, Mr. Chairman, and this is what we should do with regard to the so-called omnibus resolution on space activities also. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you distinguished representative of Greece for sharing your view.

(Continued in English) The next speaker is the distinguished representative of Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I would like to endorse your statement and the comments made by others here that this is something for the main Committee to consider. We have no objection to that. We just need to find the right language to put it in the right kind of words. It could be an additional paragraph but it should be well written to make sure that we avoid unnecessary and prolonged discussion later. This is an important document and it is something that, indeed, should be treated at the big Committee meeting. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of Chile for your contribution to the discussion.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 8

Ladies and gentlemen, I do not have any other speaker on my list of speakers and, therefore, due to the existing situation in which it was made clear by several delegations that they would like to have more time for discussing these problems, then perhaps one more day or so, and that this time should be found during the session of the main Committee in June, I would suggest that we take it that the discussion will continue during the session of the main Committee. And, of course, on the basis of the facts, it means that the substantive problems no longer exist, at least not in principle, but that the decision is made because of lack of time and in order to give to some delegations, the opportunity to consult with their governments, to think more about this draft resolution and then to decide on its adoption during the session of the main Committee in June.

I recognize once again the distinguished representative of Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. We are not entirely in agreement with this position. We know that you are acting entirely in good faith. We have worked together for a long time but it is a little delicate. We do not yet have a final position on the substance of this draft resolution. We have more time to discuss and agree on the substance of the text. That is the important point. And then it needs to be considered by the main Committee. But we should not say that we are all done here as regards the substance of the text. There are certain problems. We need to continue official consultations. We need to consult our authorities. We need to make a further effort to clarify the content of this text. We just cannot accept the kind of explanation that you have just proposed. This is not something that the bureaux should be deciding. We have reservations with regard to the substance, the content of the draft resolution and the kind of language that you have suggested that only refers to the lack of time and so forth this is not acceptable to us. It should be the main Committee that will consider the draft resolution based on the work we have done here. If there is no consensus, we could put in our report the following language saying that some delegations have expressed reservations with regard to the substance of the text. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Canada.

Mr. B. LEGENDRE (Canada) (interpretation from French): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. With a view to get more clarity here,

and especially having heard the statement of the distinguished Ambassador of Chile, Canada has the following question. If some delegations have problems with the substance, with the content of the document, should perhaps we have a purely legal discussion of the substance of the resolution within the main Committee?

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you distinguished representative of Canada for your contribution and also your question, a very specific question. I am going to try and respond after we have concluded this discussion.

The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Belgium.

Mr. J.-F. MAYENCE (Belgium) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. We have the exact same question as put by the Canadian delegation and we agree. If there is to be any discussion on the various substance of the text and recommendations, Belgium would have quite a few difficulties in becoming part of a consensus, should that discussion take place in the plenary.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): I thank the distinguished representative of Belgium. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I was not clear enough. At this level, we do not have any problem with the substance, our problem is that we just have not had enough time to examine the substance. The agenda, the format and the practice or custom governing this type of question in the Committee allows to examine the content and, thus, I think we have a broad opportunity with an examination of the Legal Subcommittee Report or in the context of other questions, we can deal with the content and discuss it.

With that, what I am trying to do is respond to the concern expressed by the distinguished representative of Canada who put the question. What was not clear to me, I do not if it was the interpretation, and I apologize for that, as to the question put by the distinguished representative of Belgium, he said that they cannot discuss this in the framework of the Subcommittee and the plenary, they are two different fora. Could he please explain?

In any case, the Committee has no legal impediment or problem with the regulation, any

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 9

problem, to deal with this. As you said, Chairman, there are precedents on this, remote sensing principles, the principles of nuclear power sources and space spin-off benefits. These have all been at the centre of a legal discussion in the Committee and, as the representative of Greece put it well, that is a legal discussion, including the entire international community in the Fourth Committee and plenary of the General Assembly.

For the regulation side, there is no problem. If a delegation wishes not to participate, it can exercise that sovereign right. However, from the strict point of view of regulation, there can be no impediment put for the discussion to take place. We are active in the discussion. We do not want to pre-empt on the content or substance of the proposal from Germany and, a point I would like to make clear, to that delegation, we attribute importance to the role there. They have been important in the legal side and we would like to say that we are interested in continuing this discussion in the framework of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished Ambassador for Chile. I now give the floor again to the distinguished representative of Belgium.

Mr. J.-F. MAYENCE (Belgium) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I would like to thank those delegations who helped with clarification on procedural matters.

We have taken note carefully that a substantive discussion can take place at the plenary without a consensus being arrived here in the Subcommittee. I would like to comment as to possible changes in the text and the recommendation, should such a discussion take place in the Committee. And if we want to place our odds on the consensus, it would be difficult for me to guarantee that Belgium can take part in the consensus if the discussion on the substance of the recommendation takes place in the Committee. We believe that the Legal Subcommittee is the right forum to discuss the substance of recommendations. If it is a question of procedural matters only or the legal nature of the instrument, then we can accept it being in the Committee only. But if it is a question of changing the text that was the object of a consensus in the Working Group, then we could have a problem if it is shifted from the Subcommittee to the Committee. It is not a legal problem we have. It is a problem for the Belgian delegation and any consensus we might be party of.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): I thank the distinguished representative of

Belgium. I can understand that is the position of your country. In practice, however, we have examples, the principle of nuclear power sources and there were questions of substance that were discussed during the last phase of the discussions and that in the Committee, at least as my memory serves.

(Continued in English) Distinguished delegates, I am ready to give every delegation the possibility to speak on this issue but please take into account that time is running out. We have a certain programme for this morning’s session on important issues and if it should be only a discussion about further procedure. I doubt that we would be able to continue then the discussion on matters that may seem to be more important to me. So please I need your modesty in applying for again and again for the discussion and to help me a little bit in order to conclude this discussion on this particular point.

The next speaker on my list is the distinguished Ambassador of Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I would like to assure you that you have the full support of my delegation to continue with other subjects. But, here, we are pointing out a situation which implies, that involves mistakes. The Belgian delegation has referred to a proposal where there was a consensus. I would like to ask the other members of the group if there was a consensus on the German document. As far as I know, and I am thinking about the informal consultations, there was no consensus or there is no consensus, that it should be clear. Now, if his delegation says that already at this stage they are not willing to discuss any substantive change in the Committee, I believe there is a democratic right that is being exercised and we have full respect for that. There is just one small practical difficulty there and that is if we do not arrive at a consensus on this paper, then the question might have to be deferred for the 2004 Legal Subcommittee session. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished Ambassador of Chile. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of the United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will be brief and I do appreciate your admonition for the delegates to conclude this debate and move on to the substantive items. But I wanted to make one other point concerning the procedure. If we cannot reach

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 10

consensus on this paper at this session, then we will be in a position of waiting until June where some delegations or maybe no delegations will make substantive proposals to the paper which means that delegations who have not seen those proposals in advance will need more time to consider that and I can almost guarantee you that we will need more time in June. So I think we have to be realistic that unless we have substantive proposals this week or far enough in advance before our June meeting for all delegations to consider, it will be very difficult to reach a final decision in June and I think we should be realistic about this. I am not pre-judging whether we can or cannot but I think it is important that all delegations understand the process that we are now embarking on. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of the United States of America for your contribution. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Colombia.

Mr. C. RODRIGUEZ (Colombia) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. My delegation also feels that this debate is a very useful one and we do, of course, feel the need to continue with our programme. I would like to look back and put a question on procedure for the resolution and I would like to have an answer please.

It is my understanding that the Subcommittee is a subsidiary body of the Committee. If the Committee approves a draft resolution, then it would go directly to the General Assembly. Is that not so? Or would it be put to the Committee for consideration, as I believe it should be. The Committee is the one that should put for consideration at the General Assembly the draft resolution. In which case, Mr. Chairman, we cannot see the haste in considering this draft resolution, as the Ambassador of Chile said, it is not a text that enjoys a consensus, it is a text where many delegations have said that they do not have a problem but these delegations, including my own, are not ready to take a position at the Subcommittee.

So, awaiting the reply to my question, we believe it is the Committee that should deal with this matter, as the distinguished Ambassador of Chile already said, what the procedure could be and how the Committee could deal with. There are several options including the possibility of having delegations interested in this, submit a draft resolution for approval by the Committee. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of Colombia. The next

speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Canada.

Mr. B. LEGENDRE (Canada) (interpretation from French): Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, thank you. The Canadian delegation would like to subscribe to those concerns expressed by the representative of Belgium. For a small delegation, such as my own, there could be practical problems in discussing in the work in the Committee if substantive questions are raised on the draft resolution in June. That is one reason.

And a second point. Just like the delegation of the United States, we have a practical problem we see. If substantive questions are not dealt with here during the Subcommittee meeting or shortly, then it could be difficult to arrive at a consensus in June. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): I thank the distinguished representative of Canada. The next speaker is the distinguished representative of Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all, on the procedural point raised by the representatives from Canada and Belgium. The practice followed, at least since 1980, has been we can discuss in the Committee any questions already discussed or negotiated or otherwise dealt with at the Legal Subcommittee and the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee annual meetings with the procedure for adoption of the reports. Generally, if there is a consensus, then there is not a problem. The full Committee, however, does enjoy the right to deal with any question that was on its agenda or on the agenda of the Subcommittees. That is how we see this. So nobody could prevent us from coming back to this in June to re-examine the German document, which was co-sponsored by other delegations. My personal concern, or that of my delegation, is a practical one. In other words, in the summer, there just might not be enough time available to deal with questions of substance related to the document on the launching State.

I also have a point of clarification I would like to make. The conclusion in the Working Group report on the concept of the launching State, approved by consensus last year, does not presuppose that this text would be considered at the legal level, in other words, with an obligation there, to give satisfaction to delegations who have expressed some concern, especially regarding the nature or the substance of the

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 11

report, especially if it is a text setting an interpretation of the treaties, then there might be room for improvement of the text in June saying that the conclusion shall not prejudice or affect the general position whereby it is only States that can interpret the treaties.

That is the point of clarification that I thought was necessary to make further progress here but I think we really need to conclude the discussion on procedure as well. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): I thank the distinguished representative of Greece for that contribution.

(Continued in English) The next speaker on my list is the distinguished Ambassador of Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to be very clear in addressing the representative of the United States. He should not be that sceptical about possible work done by developing countries such as Latin American countries who raised objections to the text last time. We worked during intersessional periods with the United States delegation, very actively, between the Legal Subcommittee and the Committee meeting on principles that were ultimately adopted. So we cannot start off with the basis that we will not do work. But my delegation is not willing to, or cannot go along with a consensus, it is pointless to continue further on that. And we are looking at a procedural question where my delegation has serious doubts.

Item 4 was closed. I have a major question there. Why? There was a request from the United States that all delegations went along with, whereby as the questions were concluded, we would then subsequently take up other questions on the agenda. So I do not see why this question was re-opened. As far as we are concerned, it is an item that was closed. We do not have a consensus on this question and we would like to appeal to the United States for optimism and confidence in those countries that just need to have consultations.

And at the same time, I would like to say that this does not mean necessarily that the debate in the Committee will be convincing enough for my delegation to go along with the consensus. If delegations are not willing to debate this question at the Committee, we put that as an element that could act in favour of the German proposal where we are not opposing a deadline where we could skip the

Committee and end up discussing it at the next session of the Legal Subcommittee. And also this is not a minor issue. This is a draft resolution for the General Assembly of the United Nations. And, Mr. Chairman, actually while there is a lot of pressure upon us, I must say, regretfully, that this type of procedure cannot have any effect on our delegation. We know what our principles are and we will stand by them.

And finally, I would like to ask, through you, if the distinguished representative of Germany feels that there was a consensus in the informal negotiations we had with them yesterday, just to clarify that question. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of Chile. Does the distinguished delegation of Germany want to answer the question just raised by our distinguished colleague from Chile? Yes.

Ms. M. BENKOE (Germany): Mr. Chairman, we felt I spelt that out that we are close to reaching an agreement because yesterday we did not hear any substantial arguments against our paper and we feel if there are no substantial arguments, we might come together and that is why we asked for a discussion in this and the Subcommittee’s plenary. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of Germany for your replying to the question raised by the distinguished Ambassador of Chile. I now recognize he applies again for the discussion.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I regret that the German delegation does not recognize the efforts being made by my delegation. I still have a bit of memory that works and I would like to say that when we went into consultations requested by Germany, first of all, we said that we did not have space, we did not have room for this. Then, after a lengthy discussion, we agreed on that and we objected at least on two substantive points and this was done with the general exchange of views and during the debate and that in relation with this particular question. And we said that we would discuss it further so we have to be clear. We did express misgivings, substantive doubts and that within our normal prerogative as a member of the Committee to exchange views but, as she has led me into ground that I did not want to tread on, I do not think we can say that we are at a consensus because there were no substantive objections. Now if she is willing to initiate

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 12

a debate on this question, my delegation is also willing to recall the substantive objections that we have raised. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished Ambassador of Chile for your contribution. I recognize the distinguished representative of the United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I apologize for asking for the floor at this late time in our discussion but I think it is important for my delegation to make a few clarifications in regards to remarks made by our distinguished Ambassador from Chile and a dear friend of mine. I do not recall the United States asking for this item to remain open. That was a decision made by the Committee. I have no particular objection to having this item remain open. My only point in my earlier intervention was not to express any lack of confidence in the abilities of any delegations but merely to point out that the delegations that now need time this week to consider proposals have every right to do that and I only wanted to point out that other delegations will need similar time in June to consider substantive proposals, if there are any. And if there are to be substantive proposals, I would urge those delegations who might have them, to share them with other delegations or perhaps through the Secretariat, as soon as possible, before June in order to speed our work along so that we do not find ourselves in the position that is every delegation’s right which is to take the time to consider the work before and I am not objecting to the fact that delegations need more time at this session. I am merely pointing out that we should not expect that things will necessarily then be agreed immediately in June. It just depends on the work that is in front of us. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of the United States of America. Is there any other delegation wishing to speak?

I see none and, therefore, I believe that I may suggest for your consideration the following conclusion. I do not wish to formulate this conclusion in quite precise terms. I would rather spell out the elements of this conclusion.

First of all, the discussion should be duly reflected in the report of the Subcommittee and all the arguments that have been raised should be reflected there.

Second, it is evident that we have not reached any consensus now at this session and it seems to me

that it would be useless to repeat, to make another attempt at reaching this consensus later on during this session because, first of all, we are already approaching the end of this session and we have also other points to discuss and to conclude.

And third, and last but not least, some delegations indicated that they would need more time and that they would like to discuss all these questions, whether questions of procedure or perhaps some new arguments that would be substantive, during the session of the main Committee in June.

I would also like to make an appeal to all delegations that wish to consider still some new substantive aspects of these problems to share their views or suggestions with other members of the Committee, through the Secretariat, if possible, well before the session of the main Committee so that we would not be in front of misunderstanding and other requests for some additional time even at the session of the main Committee.

So these are elements that might create a basis for our decision now.

I recognize the distinguished representative of Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in order to assist you in reaching a common agreement on the content of the report of the Working Group 4, as well as the Legal Subcommittee, I would like to ask you to allow me to present just at the beginning of the afternoon session, a non-paper in which I think will be reflected all the views and also to introduce it in the report.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not have objections against your initiative, distinguished representative of Greece. Yes, I understand it. So I do not have objections. However, I would like to make a modest appeal addressed to you to act as fast as possible in this respect. It means not to re-open in this way a new discussion as has been developed during this morning’s session so that we could indeed conclude item 4 of our agenda as fast as possible.

I have the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation on the list of speakers.

Mr. Y. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. We would not be waiting for the intersessional period explaining our doubts on the substantial matters of this draft resolution. We believe that in paragraphs 1 and 2 in the first lines, the

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 13

word “should” should be changed and we would rather prefer, say, “might consider” rather than “should consider” or “may wish to consider”.

Still in paragraph 1, the third paragraph (c)(?), fast and effective compensation. There are no such words in the Liability Convention. We may accept this expression “fast and effective compensation” only if after those words, there will be an insertion of the following words “in accordance with the Convention on Liability”.

As for the third paragraph, we have doubts in relation to the last sentence where it reads that “voluntary harmonized practices could be considered on a global basis through the United Nations” which is distinctly an invitation to deliberate something through this Subcommittee and Committee and through the United Nations. We believe, and we have already made that statement and want to put it for the record that, in any case, in whatever form this resolution is ever adopted by the General Assembly, the Russian Federation will be guided strictly by the letter and spirit of the Outer Space Treaty, the Registration Convention and the Liability Convention. I thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: I thank distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for his comments and I can assure him that these comments would be recorded. However, I would like to make an appeal to the delegations not to re-open a substantive discussion at this stage because we have a lot of work still to be done during the session. And if, in fact, the further discussion is postponed until June and if it is clear that any delegation may wish to make some other even substantive comments to the draft resolution, it would not be wise now to open a new long discussion because, in that case, other delegations too would submit such substantive comments, such proposals and we would need another week for our session of this Subcommittee. So please gentlemen, this is a kind appeal to you not to proceed further in this way at this moment. But, on the other hand, I would kindly request the delegations if they really have such comments, if they know what they will present during the session of the main Committee when the report of the Legal Subcommittee will be discussed, they may do it, of course, and it is desirable that it be done to submit such comments in advance through the Secretariat so that when starting the discussion at the session of the main Committee, all delegations know about these positions and can proceed more effectively.

Is there any other view? I see none. So we have agreed the kind offer of the distinguished

representative of Greece to draft the conclusion that should be then discussed and adopted by the Subcommittee during a short meeting on this issue this afternoon.

Thank you very much. The discussion on item 4 of our agenda is now suspended.

Examination of the preliminary draft protocol on matters specific to space assets to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (opened to signature in Cape Town on 16 November 2002) (agenda item 8)

And we will proceed further with the discussion on item 8, Examination of the Preliminary Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Opened to Signature in Cape Town on 16 November 2001).

The first speaker on my list of speakers is the distinguished representative of Australia.

Ms. S. PAYMAN (Australia): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Australia is appreciative of the efforts of UNIDROIT in seeking to develop a Protocol of this sort. This will undoubtedly serve to broaden access to the benefits of space technologies, in particular for developing countries and economies in transition, by facilitating private sector financing of space activities.

The Australian delegation has followed with interest the comments made to date by other delegations under this agenda item. These are obviously important and complex issues that merit further discussion in the Legal Subcommittee.

In relation to agenda item 8(a), Australia’s preliminary view is that the United Nations could, in principle, act as Supervisory Authority and would appear, in our opinion, to be the most appropriate body to do so. Based on the paper prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, as well as discussions to date in the Subcommittee, the Australian delegation would at this stage tend towards the view that there are no legal barriers to the United Nations acting as Supervisory Authority. We do recognize, however, that there are practical issues that need to be addressed.

In relation to agenda item 8(b), the Australian delegation is not convinced that there is any conflict between the five existing United Nations treaties on outer space and the current draft of the UNIDROIT Protocol. Any potential conflicts that may arise can be

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 14

overcome through the implementation of appropriate national legislation.

We look forward to continuing to discuss this matter in the Legal Subcommittee as well as participating in the forthcoming meeting of governmental experts in Rome in December. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Australia for your statement on item 8 of our agenda.

The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Ukraine, to whom I give the floor.

Ms. N. KRASILICH (Ukraine) (interpretation from Russian): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, distinguished colleagues, first of all, let me thank the Secretariat for having prepared an excellent and meaningful paper on agenda item 8(a). At present, the trend to commercialize outer space activities is becoming an objective reality. This is confirmed by the fact that in recent years we have seen an increased number of business deals involving space assets. This, of course, is evidence of considerable financial investment being made in outer space activities both by State and intergovernment structures and by private commercial entities. A new type of economic relations is emerging which requires endorsement and regulating in international and national law. In view of this emerging situation, preparing and approving a protocol on space assets is of the utmost importance.

The Convention on International Interests and the draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets envisage establishing a special international regime and creating a new type of property law with regard to such specific type of assets that is space objects which are beyond the normal jurisdiction of States. The registration of international interests is a key component in establishing a new international legal regime governing space assets. This would enable all third parties to have access to necessary information on the existence of international property rights and their legal force.

The reflections of the Ukrainian delegation with regard to the possibility of the United Nations performing the function of a Supervisory Authority are as follows.

Taking into account the public nature of space services and the public nature of the functioning of

space object operators, we have to note that even though this sphere is primarily regulated by international private law, it is actually carried out, for the most part, in public interest. Therefore, in our view, the functions of a Supervisory Authority must be performed by a public law international organization. To perform these functions, it seems that the United Nations has the most appropriate status.

First, this international Organization enjoys great authority. Secondly, the United Nations is precisely the Organization that works on legal issues governing humankind’s activities in outer space. Thirdly, this Organization is an entity under international law and has privileges and immunity from judicial or administrative action. Thus, conferring the functions of a Supervisory Authority on the United Nations is entirely consistent with its competency and the requirements and norms laid down in Article 27 of the Convention on International Interests.

The matter of which specific structural unit is going to perform these functions on behalf of the United Nations is a more complex matter. Will it be the General Assembly, the Secretary-General or the Secretariat? This issue, in the view of our delegation requires further study.

As to the question of the possible, even hypothetical, liability that the United Nations might have for damage caused by its action or inaction, we believe that the draft Protocol should contain a special provision to the effect that the Supervisory Authority is released from all liability for any actions of the Registrar. Furthermore, the mechanism for supervising the functioning of the Registrar should, in our view, be subject to more clear-cut regulation in the Protocol. The same applies to the financing of the Supervisory Authority.

On the matter of financing, here we fully share the point of view expressed by the delegation of Mexico and some other delegations who have pointed out that this financing should be carried out from extra-budgetary funds, not from the United Nations budget, but funds provided by the Registry users. In this context, it seems useful to study the existing experience accumulated in preparing the Protocol on Aviation Equipment.

I will now dwell on some of our ideas relating to item 8(b) of the agenda. Certainly, the norms of international public law in outer space must prevail and the Protocol must be consistent with these norms. Our delegation has already expressed the view that we see no conflict between the norms of the major

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 15

international treaties on outer space and the draft preliminary Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets. At the same time, the text of the Convention and the Protocol thereto leads one to assume that situations might emerge in the future that could give rise to ambiguity in applying the provisions of the Protocol in terms of its relationship with international outer space law. I could illustrate that by the following example.

If, as a result of the application of international interests in the right of ownership to a space object, this right of ownership is transferred to an entity falling under the jurisdiction of another State, the following problem will have to be addressed. Which State will, in that case, have the status of the launching State and whether or not that State will be liable in case the space object causes some damage? These issues need to be addressed and resolved in the Protocol.

Another question that needs to be further developed in legal terms is the following. It has to do with the participation of a State represented by its competent authorities in negotiations on the purchase or sale of space assets and related support treaties or contracts, subject to the Convention on International Interests and the Protocol on Space Assets.

In our opinion, further legal regulation under the Protocol should also apply to the matter of the relationship between absolute responsibility and liability of the launching State under the Liability Convention and the liability of the creditor existing under the jurisdiction of another State that has received the space object for ownership or possession. It is not always that in the case of a retroactive claim such a creditor can be made to come up with the entire amount of damages sustained by the launching States.

These and some other issues having to do with the preliminary draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets require further study, elaboration and further discussion. Therefore, the Ukrainian delegation believes it makes sense to retain this issue on the agenda for the next session of the Legal Subcommittee. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Russian): Thank you distinguished representative of Ukraine for your statement on item 8 of the agenda of the Subcommittee.

(Continued in English) The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Japan, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. D. HARAGUCHI (Japan): Thank you Mr. Chairman. First of all, the Japanese delegation would like to express our gratitude to the great efforts by the Secretariat for its preparation of the background paper on the prospective Space Assets Protocol. The gratitude is also extended to the distinguished observer of UNIDROIT on the statement to explain the current progress of the preliminary Protocol and the views and opinions held by UNIDROIT with respect to the appropriate organ as a Supervisory Authority to that Protocol.

Mr. Chairman, the Japanese delegation shares the opinion with the many other distinguished delegations that the Space Assets Protocol has significant potential to facilitate the development of commercial activities in outer space by enhancing the availability of commercial financing for both the developed and developing countries. However, it has to be also recognized that there remains several questions to be addressed with respect to the potential conflicts between the public space law and private UNIDROIT Protocol.

The central concern the Protocol causes appears that a State might be unwittingly under the international responsibility and liability while it cannot exercise national jurisdiction over a certain activity or a certain space object because a space asset is easily transferred to in the hands of a person who is outside its jurisdiction.

The careful analysis, however, seems to lead to the conclusion that appropriate safeguards to the States to control over space assets are also provided for in the Protocol. Just a few examples are the provisions that guarantee a licence and authorization could be transferred or assigned to the extent permissible under the national laws as well as the provision limiting the remedies by allowing national laws and regulations to restrict or attach conditions to the exercise of the remedies where the exercise of such remedies would involve or require the transfer of controlled good technology or data.

That being so, although some clarification might be required in the wording of the Protocol, the Protocol would not pose a threat to the current space law order on the condition that the appropriate measures are taken by national laws and regulations on matters including export control and frequencies management under the ITU framework. In other words, appropriate implementation of the authorization and continuing supervision by a State of its national space activities would be truly required in the age that

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 16

witnesses a tremendous rise in the use of outer space by the commercial sector.

Mr. Chairman, our delegation is also of the view that the United Nations seems to be a candidate for Supervisory Authority of the Protocol, noting the important role that the United Nations has been playing for decades in the formulation of space law and that international credibility is the key for the successful operation of the Supervisory Authority. While the Japanese delegation shares the view with other delegations that careful consideration is required on the technical, financial, organization and legal aspects of Supervisory Authority, our delegation also holds confidence such question would be solved through the discussion of the Working Group by the superb chairmanship of Professor Sergio Marchisio. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Japan for your statement on item 8 of our agenda. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Austria.

Ms. U. HIEBLER (Austria): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as many other delegations who spoke before on this item, Austria believes that the UNIDROIT Space Assets Protocol has a considerable potential to facilitate the financial of space activities which could be beneficial not only to private actors but also to States, particularly to developing countries. It is the visible expression of the continuing evolution of the economic and technical environment within which States and also private entities are operating. We very much welcome the fact that the United Nations, having the primary responsibility for outer space affairs, has been approached by UNIDROIT in order to participate in the considerations on the Protocol.

One of the important questions that was posed to the Legal Subcommittee is to give its opinion on the question of a future role of the United Nations as the Supervisory Authority within the institutional framework of the Convention and the Space Protocol. We would like to thank the Secretariat for the valuable report it has prepared on this question. It has pointed out and analyzed the principle issues that have to be taken into consideration, particularly the question of immunity as well as the financial implications that could be connected with assuming such a function.

We have studied the report with great interest and have been confirmed in our opinion that there is nothing in the Charter of the United Nations that impedes it in principle in assuming the role of the Supervisory Authority under the Protocol. To the

contrary, we would like to recall that it is one of the tasks of the United Nations to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character. We, therefore, regard UNIDROIT’s request to consider the possibility to act as a Supervisory Authority as an important occasion rather than a threat to the United Nations. Assuming the role of the Supervisory Authority could only enhance the United Nations possibility to ensure compliance with the principles of the outer space treaties, even in the operation of the Protocol, which clearly must be respected also in the course of further commercialization of outer space.

As to the procedure, we believe that it would be most suitable if the Supervisory Authority for the Space Protocol would be appointed by a resolution of the diplomatic conference that will adopt the Protocol in the future. In such a resolution, concrete provisions could be made for the establishment but also for the operation of the Supervisory Authority that meet the special demands of the United Nations. Before this, of course, the General Assembly would have to decide on the invitation and on the necessary side arrangements, particularly concerning the question of the budget. We would like to support the idea spelt out yesterday by our distinguished colleague from the Netherlands, that, as soon as it is agreed that the United Nations assumes the function of the Supervisory Authority, the Legal Subcommittee should start drafting a General Assembly resolution to accept the invitation and to arrange for the division of labour within the United Nations. In that respect, we also clearly favour the United Nations Secretary-General to be entrusted with this task on the condition of the recovery of all costs incurred in performing the functions of the Supervisory Authority.

Concerning the second question that is being discussed under this item, Austria would like to reiterate its position already spelt out last year. The draft Protocol, as it stands now, is, in our view, not in conflict with the basic principles of outer space law. However, since this is not the final version of the Protocol, we would plead for the continued consideration of the requirement to meet the principles set out in the international outer space treaties in the course of the governmental representatives meetings of UNIDROIT that will finalize the Protocol, starting in December of this year. Space law experts should be directly involved in the further elaboration of the Protocol, while we should avoid to discuss the question of the compatibility of the draft Protocol with international space law in two different international fora at the same time. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.688Page 17

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Austria for your statement on item 8 of our agenda.

Ladies and gentlemen, are there any other delegations wishing to speak on this agenda item at this morning’s meeting?

I see none.

We will, therefore, continue our consideration of agenda item 8, Examination of the Preliminary Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment, this afternoon.

Distinguished delegates, I will shortly adjourn this meeting of the Subcommittee for the fourth meeting of the Working Group on Agenda Item 8.

Before adjourning, I would like to inform delegates of our schedule of work for this afternoon. We will reconvene here this afternoon promptly at 3.00 p.m. We will then continue and hopefully conclude our consideration of agenda item 4, Status and Application of the Five United Nations Treaties on Outer Space, and we will continue on agenda item 8, Examination of the Preliminary Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment.

Following the Subcommittee plenary, the Working Group on Agenda Item 8 will hold its fifth meeting. This will be followed by informal consultations on the agenda for next year’s session of the Legal Subcommittee.

Are there any questions or comments on this proposed schedule?

I see none.

I would now like to give the floor to the Chairman of the Working Group on Agenda Item 8, Mr. Sergio Marchisio, for the Working Group’s fourth meeting.

This meeting is now adjourned until 3.00 p.m. this afternoon.

The meeting closed at 12.36 p.m.