Transfer of Ownership in Orbit: From Fiction to Problem

For many years, the concept of transfer of ownership of a satellite in orbit was not something on the radar screen of anyone seriously involved in space law, if indeed it was not considered a concept of an essentially fictional nature. Space law after all developed, as far as the key UN treaties were concerned, in a period when only States—and only very few States at that—were interested in and possessed the capability of conducting space activities, and they did so for largely military/strategic or scientific purposes. The idea of transferring ownership over satellites or other spacecraft involved in such endeavors simply did not make sense. Leapfrogging the years, however, such transfer of ownership is no longer fiction but rather an increasingly frequent fact of life on orbit. This in turn raises the question of what legal or other issues such events, not having been taken into consideration at all in the formative period of the major space treaties, would raise. This is essentially what the current contribution undertakes to investigate in a more or less comprehensive, albeit summary fashion

The Role of Law with Respect to Future Space Activities

With the enormous increase of space activities the question arises as to what extent law does or should play a role in preserving the interests of mankind at large in the use of outer space. Furthermore, it should be asked whether the present legal framework requires only slight modification, or a complete overhaul, in order to cope with these developments. It is concluded that the law as it stands today provides a largely satisfactory regime for the time being, whereas establishment of a new regime from stratch would create far more problems than it would solve

Law and Practice - European National Space Agencies under International Space Law

The legal place and role of national space agencies in general has not yet been the subject of much debate. This paper tries to argue however that this problem is of some relevance indeed. Concurrently with debating it namely, by concentrating on the case of some European agencies the problems of defining a national space agency and of the relevance of such definitions as to such a place and role will be answered to some extent. Thus, Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty is seen as providing for a subdivision of space agencies in \u27governmental agencies\u27 and \u27nongovernmental entities.\u27 The combination of legal and practical analysis, though undertaken only superficially in this paper, seems to put most agencies in the latter category, with due consequence in regard of international responsibility. Similar consequences also arise in regard of Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty, which is found to provide for another relevant borderline, this time between national space agencies and private enterprise. Again, legal and practical analysis provides for some clues as to its relevance, this time in the field of international liability for damage. Apart from the responsibility- and liability-problems thus dealt with in a space law-setting, both borderlines become relevant in regard of the general international legal doctrine of \u27state immunity.\u27 Of necessity, lack of law and practice in this regard make the conclusion a provisional and general one as to the problem of European national space agencies under international space law

Who owns the moon? A space lawyer answers

Most likely, this is the best-known picture of a flag ever taken: Buzz Aldrin standing next to the first U.S. flag planted on the Moon. For those who knew their world history, it also rang some alarm bells. Only less than a century ago, back on Earth, planting a national flag in another part of the world still amounted to claiming that territory for the fatherland. Did the Stars and Stripes on the moon signify the establishment of an American colony? When people hear for the first time that I am a lawyer practicing and teaching something called “space law,” the question they ask most frequently, often with a big smile or a twinkle in the eye, is: “So tell me, who owns the moon?” Of course, claiming new national territories had been very much a European habit, applied to non- European parts of the world. In particular the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Dutch, the French and the English created huge colonial empires. But while their attitude was very Europe-centric, the legal notion that planting a flag was an act of establishing sovereignty quickly stuck and became accepted worldwide as part and parcel of the law of nations

International Satellite Law

International satellite law can best be described as that subset of international space law that addresses the operations of satellites in orbit around the Earth. Excluding, therefore, topics such as manned space flight, suborbital space operations, and any activities beyond Earth orbits, this means addressing the use of satellites for telecommunications purposes, for Earth observation and remote sensing, and for positioning, timing, and navigation. These three major sectors of space activities are, in addition to jointly being subject to the body of international space law, each subject to their specific dedicated legal regime —international satellite communications law, international satellite remote sensing law, and international satellite navigation law

The US Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015

On November 25, 2015, President Obama signed into law the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (H.R. 2262). This Act encompasses four titles: I. Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship (acronym: SPACE), II. Commercial Remote Sensing, III. Office of Space Commerce, and IV. Space Resource Exploration and Utilization. Title I amends the Commercial Space Launch Act, which comprises the licensing regime for launches, reentries, and launch port activities, including those carrying spaceflight participants on board. Title II amends the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act, which allowed for the licensing of private commercial satellite remote-sensing operations, and essentially requires the Secretary of Commerce to provide an overview of licensing practices in this sector so far and any perceived need to update the statutory regime in this respect. Title III relabels the existing Office of Space Commercialization as Office of Space Commerce and rephrases its purposes. Title IV, the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act (Chapter 513 of 51 USC), addresses in a preliminary fashion space resource exploitation—the most innovative and disputed part of the Act, certainly in an international context

Liability for Damage Caused by Small Satellites—A Non-Issue?

Small satellites have become a welcome addition to the existing tools to benefit from space applications—they are relatively simple and cheap to construct, and being small, relatively cheap to launch as well, as secondary payloads on launch vehicles where the primary payload may not take up all of the (often standardized) payload bay capacity. As they, moreover, usually orbit for relatively short times in low trajectories before burning up in the atmosphere, they might not seem to pose major or even merely realistic liability risks. As a consequence, sometimes the issue of liability for damage caused by small satellites has been treated as a non-issue, or at least as an issue which in law does not present relevant novel aspects and in practice is by far not the most important issue in the area of liability (or vice versa in the area of small satellites). Since, however, the amount of small satellites in view of their attractiveness as indicated is rapidly growing, this quick assumption might warrant a closer look. Thus, the current chapter briefly analyzes the extent to which small satellites may or might give rise to specific legal issues in the context of liability for space activities, and whether it would indeed be a non-issue

Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty \u27in the European Context\u27

Concludes that a substantive and detailed European approach to dealing with Article VI\u27s obligations is yet forthcoming, and suggests that issues like liability, insurance, licensing procedures and registration requirements should be dealt with in a sensible fashion. The European context involves a haphazard, fractured process whereby many traditional sovereign forces are only sometimes in agreement. With respect to Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, there is a need for more European coherence

Big Brother or Eye in the Sky? Legal Aspects of Space-Based Geo-lnformation for Disaster Management

Amongst the methods of gathering geo-information inter alia for disaster management purposes, the use of satellites is a particularly interesting one in view of their global coverage. In this area a number of recent interesting developments have taken place, such as the establishment of a Charter on Space and Major Disasters, and the rapidly evolving plans for GMES and GEOSS. These developments raise a number of legal issues, related to state responsibility, state liability, and the respective roles of intergovernmental organizations and commercial and/or private entities in this regard. These issues cannot be easily solved, since the international legal environment for the use of space data for disaster management purposes from the other end offers a rather fragmented picture. Some rules and principles exist on the international level, often however not well-defined and leaving room for conflicting interpretations. Others are confined to certain national territories, certain types of activities or even certain types of natural or legal persons. In still other cases no specific rules or principles can be found to be applicable at all

Europe and Security Issues in Space: The Institutional Setting

In the current timeframe, the relevance of discussions on the existing use of space for national security purposes and the potential of it to be used for non-peaceful purposes are clearly increasing.1 As a consequence, it becomes more important to address the role of Europe as a geopolitical, albeit far from monolithic, entity in this context