Iraq, Secured Transactions, and the Promise of Islamic Law

When Iraq regains political stability, major reconstruction projects will have to be funded and local businesses will need financing in order to gain a foothold in the new economy. In order to attract the necessary capital, the Iraqi law of secured transactions must be reformed to allow for lenders to take security in the assets of their borrowers. However, the challenge of reforming Iraqi commercial law is complicated by the requirement under the new Iraqi Constitution that any new statutes enacted by the Iraqi legislature comply with the principles of Islamic law. This Article sets forth proposals for reform that comply with Islamic law and explains how Islamic law, far from being inimical to the needs of international financial institutions, actually allows for each of the essential elements of a progressive law of secured transactions. This amenability of Islamic law to the requirements of the modern international economy holds great promise, not only for Iraq, but for all Islamic states that are seeking to invigorate their economies with the aid of foreign investment

Returning to the Moon: Legal Challenges as Humanity Begins to Settle the Solar System – Full Transcript

On March 6, 2020, leading space lawyers gathered in the Moot Court Room of Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State University to discuss and debate the legal challenges and opportunities arising from the growing number of lunar missions in the planning stages in early 2020, in particular NASA’s Artemis Program which will for the first time establish a permanent human habitation on our moon through cooperation between NASA and its international partners (both public and private). The day-long symposium on Returning to the Moon: Legal Challenges as Humanity Begins to Settle the Solar System was organized by the Global Space Law Center (GSLC) together with the Global Business Law Review (GBLR). SpaceX and the Open Lunar Foundation sponsored the event (along with an auditorium full of local attorneys seeking Continuing Legal Education credits in Space Law!). What follows is a transcript of the symposium. This is a break from the traditional format of the American law journal, but the entire purpose of the symposium was to break free from canned presentations and see what comes of dynamic debate. The only way to preserve the special character of the fruit of this debate is to capture the actual conversation in a transcript

NASA\u27s Commercial Crew Transportation System Requirements and the FAA Human Spaceflight Regulations: A Study in Contrasts?

On December 10, 2010, NASA issued the second version of the technical requirements that will be imposed on private companies that provide orbital crew transportation services to NASA. These Commercial Crew Transportation System Requirements for NASA Low Earth Orbit Missions impose a multitude of operational and design requirements that, among other things, extend many existing NASA technical requirements to private service providers. The sheer volume of these requirements is daunting – being composed of a collection of approximately 80 existing NASA guidelines on various areas from crew health and safety to power systems, wiring, and orbital debris mitigation. This approach to regulating private spaceflight companies stands in stark contrast to the Federal Aviation Administration’s Human Space Flight Requirements which take a “hands off” approach to regulating private suborbital human spaceflight by imposing few technical requirements – opting instead to protect private passengers by requiring companies to fully disclose the risks of spaceflight. This approach has the result of both promoting innovation as well as protecting the consumer since spaceflight companies are free to innovate without having to comply with complex design and operational requirements, while private passengers are able to make a fully informed decision when taking on the risk of suborbital flight. After first comparing the different approaches taken in these two sets of regulations, this paper will consider (1) whether the more onerous NASA requirements are necessitated by the different nature of orbital spaceflight related to a government program (in contrast to private suborbital spaceflight), (2) the likely effects of the NASA requirements on commercial innovation, and (3) whether NASA (and other space agencies) should adopt another model of regulation governing the engagement of private orbital service providers

Business, Legal, and Policy Issues in Relation to Increased Private Space Activity

Throughout the history of human activity in outer space, the role of private companies has steadily grown, and, in some cases, companies have even replaced government agencies as the primary actors in space. As private space activity has grown and diversified, the laws and regulations that govern private actors have been forced to evolve in reaction to the new realities of the industry. On the international level, the treaties concluded in the 1960s and 1970s continue to be in force today. However, these treaties only govern state activity in space. The rules regulating private industry are necessarily domestic in nature, and it is in these domestic laws that the evolution of space law can be most clearly seen. That said, new industries, such as asteroid mining, are testing the limits of international law and have forced the international community to examine whether changes to long-standing laws are needed

Business, Legal, and Policy Issues in Relation to Increased Private Space Activity

Throughout the history of human activity in outer space, the role of private companies has steadily grown, and, in some cases, companies have even replaced government agencies as the primary actors in space. As private space activity has grown and diversified, the laws and regulations that govern private actors have been forced to evolve in reaction to the new realities of the industry. On the international level, the treaties concluded in the 1960s and 1970s continue to be in force today. However, these treaties only govern state activity in space. The rules regulating private industry are necessarily domestic in nature, and it is in these domestic laws that the evolution of space law can be most clearly seen. That said, new industries, such as asteroid mining, are testing the limits of international law and have forced the international community to examine whether changes to long-standing laws are needed

The Duty to Rescue Space Tourists and Return Private Spacecraft

International space law has long imposed a duty to rescue astronauts and return errant spacecraft to the launching state. However, the existing space law treaties contain a number of gaps and interpretational problems that, among other things, call into question whether the duty to rescue and return applies to space tourists and spacecraft owned by private companies. These issues are of critical importance to the survival of the new space tourism industry, which is made up of a growing number of companies - such as Virgin Galactic, Rocketplane, and Blue Origin - that intend to launch their maiden flights in 2010. The success of these companies will depend on the safety of their passengers and their ability to recover their spacecraft in the event of an accident or unintentional landing in unfriendly territory. This Article makes the case for an expansive interpretation of the treaties which would require states to rescue space tourists and return private spacecraft. In addition to arguing for a broad interpretation of the duty to rescue and return, this Article explores how the existing treaties should be amended to remedy the flaws, gaps, and ambiguities in the law and what the best procedure for amendment would be. Finally, the Article makes a series of recommendations to assist space tourism companies in formulating their rescue and recovery policies to ensure the safety of their customers and minimize potential liabilities in light of existing space law

Bigelow Aerospace\u27s Commodity Jurisdiction Request under ITAR and its Impact on the Future of Private Spaceflight

On April 22, 2009, Bigelow Aerospace announced that the United States Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) had responded favorably to Bigelow\u27s commodity jurisdiction request to ease its regulatory burden under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Prior to this decision by the DDTC, the presence of foreign nationals on a Bigelow space station would have been treated as an export of space technology under IT AR - thus requiring a license from the DDTC in addition to other burdens. Bigelow Aerospace\u27s successful commodity jurisdiction request has removed these obstacles and, as a result, has breathed new life into the private spaceflight industry. The DDTC\u27s ruling in this case may also signal a broader shift in the application of ITAR. At a minimum, the ruling is an encouraging indication of the DDTC\u27s sensitivity to the needs of the commercial spaceflight industry, which could result in the continued relaxation of export controls over commercial space technology

Information Warfare: The Legal Aspects of Using Satellites and Jamming Technologies in Propaganda Battles

This paper examines the right of states to broadcast propaganda by satellite in times of war. In exploring this issue, the author addresses the hypothetical question of whether a state may use DBS technology to broadcast a commercial news program, such as CNN, into an enemy state in wartime as part of a larger campaign to win the support of the civilian population. The author begins by establishing that that the consent of a receiving state is required prior to such broadcasts, whether in peacetime or in times of war. This requirement of prior consent is the only restriction of the broadcasting of such news programs since the programs do not rise to the level of illegal war propaganda nor would such broadcasts be prohibited by the international law demanding that outer space be used only for peaceful purposes. This analysis concludes with the warning that the inviolability of the prior consent doctrine may be threatened by the recent adoption by the United States of a more relaxed theory of what measures may be taken under the right of self-defense. Finally, the author takes up the related question regarding the right of states to use jamming technologies to block illegal satellite transmissions