First Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space: The Hague 1958 Proceedings [1st ed.] 978-3-211-80509-1;978-3-7091-4414-5

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages I-V
Introduction A Light from the Past to Show Up the Legal Problems of Our Age of Space (W. von Rauchhaupt)....Pages 1-4
Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems (Andrew G. Haley)....Pages 5-27
Problems in Establishing a Legal Boundary between Air Space and Space (Welf Heinrich)....Pages 28-30
Contribution (V. Alessandrone-Gambardella)....Pages 31-32
A Contribution to the Problem of Space Law Establishing a Technical and Practical Limit to Political Sovereignty in Space (Luiz de Gonzaga Bevilacqua)....Pages 33-33
Principles for a Declaration with Reference to the Legal Nature of the Moon (Aldo Armando Cocca)....Pages 34-37
The Problem of a Definition of “Air Space” (John Cobb Cooper)....Pages 38-44
An American View of Jurisdiction in Outer Space (George J. Feldman)....Pages 45-50
A Definitive Study of the Concept and Scientific Strategy of Outer Space. The Challenge to all Nations to Support a Just System of Space Law (James G. Fulton)....Pages 51-58
The Community of Law and Science (Eilene Galloway)....Pages 59-62
Contribution (Kenneth W. Gatland)....Pages 63-65
Contribution (F. Gerlach)....Pages 66-68
On the Threshold of Space: Toward a Cosmic Law Problems of the Upward Extent of Sovereignty (Stephen Gorove)....Pages 69-76
Technical Proposals (Donald L. Herr)....Pages 77-78
Comments (Robert Homburg)....Pages 79-81
Definition of Air Space (Robert Jastrow)....Pages 82-82
Space Law and the Fourth Dimension of Our Age (Kenneth B. Keating)....Pages 83-90
Observations (Eugène Pépin)....Pages 91-92
The Internationalization of Outer Space and the Unification of World Astronautical Strategy; the Ecumenical Nature of Astronautics (Flavio A. Pereira)....Pages 93-95
The Hellenic Contribution in Astronautics (S. Plakidis)....Pages 96-96
Design for a Law of Space (Jean Rivoire)....Pages 97-102
The Responsibility of States for the Damage Caused by Launched Space-Bodies (I. H. Ph. de Rode-Verschoor)....Pages 103-104
The Need for a New System of Norms for Space Law and the Danger of Conflict with the Terms of the Chicago Convention (M. Smirnoff)....Pages 105-109
Definitions and Subdivisions of Space Bioastronautical Aspect (Hubertus Strughold)....Pages 110-113
Remarks (Björn Tuneld)....Pages 114-114
Remarks (Olgierd Wołczek)....Pages 115-115
A Code for a New Frontier (Philip B. Yeager)....Pages 116-121
Back Matter ....Pages 122-127

Citation preview

FIRST COLLOQUIUM ON

THE LAW OF OUTER SPACE THE HAGUE 1958 PROCEEDINGS EDITED BY

ANDREW G. HALEY

PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASTRONAUTICAL FEDERATION WASHINGTON D.C .• U. S.A.

AND

DR. WELF HEINRICH PRINCE OF HANOVER FRANKF URf A.M., G ERMANY

SPRINGER-VERLAG WIEN GMBH

.

1959

FIRST COLLOQUIUM ON

THE LAW OF OUTER SPACE THE HAGUE 1958 PROCEEDINGS EDITED BY

ANDREW G. HALEY PRESIDENT, INTBRNATIONAL ASTRONAUTICAL FEDERATION WASHINGTON D. C., U. S. A.

AND

DR. WELF HEINRICH PRINCE OF HANOVER FRANKFURT A.M., GERMANY

Springer-Verlag Wien GmbH 1959

ISBN 978-3-211-80509-1 ISBN 978-3-7091-4414-5 (eBook) DOl 10.1007/978-3-7091-4414-5

All rights reserved This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form (including photostatic or microfilm form) without permission of the publishers

Foreword The concept of the International Astronautical Federation Colloquium on Space Law evolved from conversations between the undersigned during the course of a lecture tour of American Universities which we undertook in the Fall of 1957, and at subsequent meetings in Europe. Lectures on "The Law of Outer Space" were given at the Universities of Princeton, Detroit, Chicago, Michigan, North. western, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Montana, Montana State, Gonzaga, Washington, California (Berkeley), California (UCLA), Utah, Colorado, St. Louis, Washington (St. Louis), Harvard, Georgetown, American, Maryland, and so on; and in Europe by one or the other of your editors at the Universities of Paris, Stockholm, Copen. hagen, Berlin, Munich, Stuttgart, Madrid, Lisbon, Belgrade, Prague, Warsaw, Moscow, Leningrad, The Evangelical Academy at Loccum, and so on; and before numerous learned societies and many technical institutes and groups. The attendance at these lectures pointed up the profound interest of world· renowned teachers and practicing jurists, on the one hand; and thousands of students and members of the public, on the other hand, in the subject of the law of outer space. The intimate importance of space jurisprudence to thinking men, and especially experts in the social sciences, was demonstrated beyond question. Throughout the world there are many local committees and local centers of learning supporting space law studies and investigations-but there was no concerted international effort devoted to this subject as a special effort of mankind. We decided to call the First Colloquium on Space Law and it was obvious that one of the most appropriate centers in the world would be the Rolzaal, in The Hague, a birthplace of human rights and a city rich in the tradition of international arbitration and adjudication-and indeed the world center of such activities. As will be seen from this volume of Proceedings, the First Colloquium was well attended and many excellent papers were presented. During the course of the Colloquium the participants voted to establish a Permanent Legal Committee of the International Astronautical Federation-an action which was later ratified by the Council of the Federation. In cooperation with the Member Societies of the International Astronautical Federation there has been assembled the Perma· nent Legal Committee, which comprises many leading jurists and social scientists from all parts of the world. The current membership of this Committee appears as an appendix to these Proceedings.

IV

Foreword

It is expected that the Second Colloquium, which will be held in London at Lincoln's Inn (of hallowed fame) on September 4, 1959, will develop ideas and legal formulations also of outstanding merit and interest. We take this opportunity to express our appreciation and thanks to Mrs. BEN SANDERS for having made local arrangements in The Hague; to Dr. and Mrs. J. M. J. Kooy and Mrs. A. F. P. VOLTEN for their great and continuing efforts on behalf of the Colloquium; to Springer-Verlag for its efforts in arranging for the publication of these Proceedings; and to all those good and serious participants who actually were the "substance" of the Colloquium. April 1959

Andrew G. Haley

Dr. Well Heinrich Prince of Hanover

Contents Rauchhaupt, Fr. W. von: Introduction. A Light from the Past to Show Up the Legal Problems of Our Age of Space .................................... Haley, A. G.: Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems ................ Hanover, WeIf Heinrich Prince of: Problems in Establishing a Legal Boundary between Air Space and Space .......................................... Alessandrone-Gambardella, V.: Contribution ............................... Bevilacqua, L. de Gonzaga: A Contribution to the Problem of Space Law Estab. lishing a Technical and Practical Limit to Political Sovereignty in Space .... Cocca, A. A.: Principles for a Declaration with Reference to the Legal Nature of the Moon ......................................................... Cooper, J. C.: The Problem of a Definition of "Air Space" ................... Feldman, G. J.: An American View of Jurisdiction in Outer Space ............ Fulton, J. G.: A Definitive Study of the Concept and Scientific Strategy of Outer Space. The Challenge to all Nations to Support a Just System of Space Law. Galloway, E.: The Community of Law and Science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gatland, K. W.: Contribution ............................................ Gerlach, F.: Contribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Gorove, S.: On the Threshold of Space: Toward a Cosmic Law. Problems of the Upward Extent of Sovereignty .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Herr, D. L.: Technical Proposals ......................................... Homburg, R.: Comments ................................................ Jastrow, R.: Definition of Air Space ...................................... Keating, K. B.: Space Law and the Fourth Dimension of Our Age ............ Pepin, E.: Observations ................................................. Pereira, F. A.: The Internationalization of Outer Space and the Unification of World Astronautical Strategy; the Ecumenical Nature of Astronautics ...... Plakidis, S.: The Hellenic Contribution in Astronautics ...................... Rivoire, J.: Design for a Law of Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bode-Verschoor, I. H. Ph. de: The Responsibility of States for the Damage Caused by Launched Space-Bodies ..................................... Smirnoff, M.: The Need for a New System ofNorms for Space Law and the Danger of Conflict with the Terms of the Chicago Convention ..................... Strughold, H.: Definitions and Subdivisions of Space. Bioastronautical Aspect. Tuneld, B.: Remarks .................................................... Wolczek, 0.: Remarks .................................................. Yeager, Ph. B.: A Code for a New Frontier ................................

1 5 28 31 33 34 38 45 51 59 63 66 69 77 79 82 83 91 93 96 97 103 105 110 114 115 116

Members of The Permanent Legal Committee of the International Astronautical Federation .......................................................... 122

Introduction

A Light from the Past to Show Up the Legal Problems of Our Age of Space By

Fr. W. von Rauchhauptl In our present situation we are reminded to some extent of the situation created by the successful adventures of CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS in the year 1492. Then, new continents which had hitherto only been dimly imagined were discovered and became realities; and today we too have found new worlds and are groping eagerly towards them. What were the consequences of the adventures of COLUMBUS for international law in the 15th century 1 There were no precedents to go by, and it was therefore necessary to invent and formulate new law to meet the special situation which had arisen, to discuss it-and either to accept or reject it. I In 15th century Spain the task of finding the best solutions in this new field fell to the professors of theology and canon law. One of their problems was to decide whether a war was just or unjust. A war of defence, for example, or in reaction to a violation of the law by another State was a just war, a war of aggression, on the other hand, was an unjust war. To which group, then, should belong the warlike actions which were being undertaken in order to win over the native heathens to the true religion of Christianity 1 There were two schools of thought on this problem in Spain. The first, that of the Dominicans, began with FRANCISCO DE VITORIA (1492/93-1546). His main work, De Indis recenter inventis et de jure belli hisparwrum in barbaros relectiones (1539), as well as many others on the subject which were written later, answered this question by starting with the assumption that hostilities were already going on, and that a continuation of the war was justified in order to win a final state of peace. The law to be applied here was that of jus gentium, a law of nature which already existed in the ordinary regulated life of human society. The Dominicans were succeeded by the Jesuits, an order founded in 1534 to oppose the Protestant reformation of LUTHER since 1517. Their most famous jurist was FRANCISCO SUAREZ (1548-1617), and his principle work, De legibus ac Deo legislatore (1613), is a testimony to his deeply rooted religious and philosophic thinking and methods. He and his followers found that there was already a great deal of useful legal material available, and they had the task of interpreting it from a critical standpoint and to try to give it a broader application and a more subtle aim. 1

University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

1 st Space-Law Colloquium

2

FR. VV.VON RAUCHHAUPT:

It was a tragic fate that these so excellently qualified scientific schools fell into oblivion so remarkably quickly. The main reasons for this were the devastations of the 30 years religious war, and the birth and growth of Rationalism with its antagonism to the church. But a recent re-evaluation of their merits was begun in the USA with the pioneer and research work of Professor JAMES BROWN SCOTT (1866-1943) in his edition ofthe Classics ofInternational Law (17 volumes, 1911-1954); in Germany with a celebrated article by Professor JOSEI!' KOHLER in Berlin on the Spanish masters of the law of nature during the 16th and 17th centuries, which included many quotations from their works (in "Archiv fUr Rechtsund Wirtschaftsphilosophie", 1916-1917); and finally in Spain with the foundation of the "Asociaci6n Francisco de Vitoria" at Salamanca and their excellent Yearbooks ("Anuarios") published since 1926, as well as the numerous publications since 1948 of the "Revista Espanola de Derecho Internacional" , an association of professors in this branch of science. Similar researches have also been carried out in Latin America.

Towards the end of the Catholic Spanish law schools previously mentioned, the Dutchman HUGO GROTIUS (1583-1645), a reformed protestant, appeared on the scene. But he was principally a practical jurist, and only in later life did he become an able writer of theological essays and a religious poet. He is accepted to be the direct successor of the Spanish internationalists and frequently quotes them in his works. His most important works are: De jure praedae commentarius written in 1604-1605 (but only published in 1869); De mare libero in 1608-1609 (re-discovered in 1864), which is attacked in the Englishman JOHN SELDEN'S Mare clausum (1635). His principle book is entitled De jure belli ac pacis, which was first published in Paris in 1624-1625 (while in exile). It is still regarded as the basic source of European and American Public International Law, and has grown to become a kind of "legal bible" in all questions of international law. With GROTIUS, too, the emphasis remains on the law of war, but serving solely as a means of obtaining the more pleasant condition of a final peace, which in turn would provide conditions under which an international and lawful community could be developed without hindrance. Since the signing of the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919-1920, there has been a change in the relative importance of peace and war. From then onwards, the cause of peace is to be served, and war, with only a few clearly defined exceptions, is to be outlawed and abolished. This conception seemed to meet the loftiest ideal of Public International Law. A further development could only be envisaged in a broader application of case law.

II Contrary to these expectations, the Second World War, with its unlimited use of initiative, power and wealth, created two new and extremely powerful weapons, the atomic bomb and the terrifically powerful missiles beginning with the German V2, culminating in the satellites which rotate around the earth today, may soon be able to reach the Moon, and even further into space. The United States professor of Public International Law, GORDON DEAN, President of the Atomic Energy Commission, published his very considerable knowledge as a jurist and as an expert on the manufacture of atomic energy in an excellent book which was also published in Germany in 1955 under the title: Atom- WaUen oder Isotope? He advocated the abolition of atomic war and urged the wide-

A Light from the Past

3

spread use of the Isotope and its powerful rays in the fight against cancer. The world suffered a great loss when he met such an untimely death in an aeroplane accident (1958). As yet, we have no general law regarding these new lethal weapons or the other discoveries of atomic physics which are potential promoters of commerce and welfare. The jurists of today are facing a situation similar to that which confronted the Spanish theologians of old after the discovery of America and the redemption of many heathen souls. In those days they had to create new Jaw arbitrarily on the basis of the principles of ethics, practical reasoning and legal common sense, and in the hope of God's blessing. The jurists of today will have to do likewise, and indeed they are already doing this in the light of their own nationallaw. There is still a considerable difference in opinion, owing largely to the many startling developments in science, and there has been little progress in agreeing on any legal conclusions. This is readily understandable with regard to some of the basic problems; for example: Should the sovereignty of a State extend above its territories, and if so, how far should it extend 1 Satellites and rockets, with their infinitely greater range, should they be considered to be national property, and if so, is this right limited to a certain height 1 Are they to be classed as "colonies" or independent objects 1 Or as primitive States on their own, perhaps masterless and without any purpose or aim 1 There are so many questions which remain to be answered. For example: Who is the owner of a bullet fired across a frontier or several frontiers from a distance, or for how long 1 Or who is the owner of a satellite, especially when it cannot be recalled 1 Who is liable for damage caused or potential 1 Is anyone entitled to destroy it, or even obliged to render a satellite harmless if it is out of control and is a potential threat to the world as a whole 1 We sincerely hope that such academical and practical problems will be correctly solved in time. The final solutions will probably be based on the law of nature or even on divine law, and will inevitably be guided by legal logic. They will form an extension of Public International Law in the highest moral sense, the highest ethics of justice, and in the hope that they will find favour with God. The term "Infinite" may have to be introduced into our earth-bound law. In company with so many others, the International Astronautical Federation at their recent congress at Amsterdam, and the Grotius-Stiftung in Munich, Germany, with branches in 20 countries, are all moving in parallel directions for the same purpose of furthering mankind and to give us the new International Law we now need. At the lOth Anniversary Festival Session of the GrotiusStiftung, President ANDREW G. H.ALEY and WELF HEINRICH PRINCE OF HANOVER gave lectures on air space and space law, and Professor E. A. KOROVIN (Moscow) sent a paper on the conquest of the stratosphere and Public International Law. The most important factors are the moral values which are reliable milestones towards World Peace and Order. Professor FRIEDRICH WILHELM VON RAUCHHAUPT, LL.D., Ph.D., born 1881, h88 been teaching international law in Heidelberg University since 1922. Besides a comprehensive system of international law and investigations into the Christian origins of modern international law, Professor VON RAUCHHAUPT h88 mainly contributed to the history of international law in the Spanish speaking World. Consequently, Professor VON RAUCHHAUPT W88 elected honorary member of the Law Faculties in Santiago de Chile and San Jose de Costa Rica, of the Real Academia 1*

4

FR. W. VON RAUCHHAUPT: A Light from the Past

de Jurisprudencia y Legislaci6n, and corresponding member of the Real Academia de Ciencias Morales y Politicas in Madrid. Being convinced that international law, in order to be generally complied with, must be democratized, Professor VON RAUCHHAUPT joined the International Grotius Foundation for the Popularization of International Law and became a member of its German Committee. On the Grotius Foundation's tenth anniversary, celebrated in Munich on August 28, 1958, Professor VON RAUCHHAUPT met President ANDREW G. HALEY, who, on that occasion, spoke on "The Law of Outer Space."

Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems By

Andrew G. Haleyl I speak before this distinguished assembly, the First Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space of the International Astronautical Federation, as a lawyer-a social scientist, specializing in jurisprudence. I do not speak as a politician and I intend carefully to avoid the ratiocination of the politicians-and I especially intend to avoid suggesting political solutions, the final one of which, of course, is the ultima ratio of war itself. We will leave problems of international distrust, threats, maneuvers and so on for discussion by the politicians. I anticipate that even during our own sessions today purely political suggestions will be made by other speakers, as the urge so to do seems so inviting. I will not attempt to answer such suggestions or engage in political debate. I will, however, take issue immediately with those who maintain that legal problems are not now presented to the world community, and therefore urge that national and international action and cooperation are at this time premature. I think this viewpoint is untenable-yes, and even dangerous. I earnestly believe that law must precede man into space. At the outset I would like to suggest the keynote "first things first". Since entering the rocket manufacturing activity at Pasadena in 1941, I have been deeply impressed with the positive necessity of producing efficient and adequate rocket power plants-propulsion systems and propellants capable of producing millions of pounds of thrust at velocities in the order of one third the speed of light-which actually are practical objectives. At this IXth Congress of the IAF I was able, as President, to provide as the "main theme" of the technical lecture program, more than thirty papers dealing with propulsion systems and propellants. This is the first time a "main theme" has been undertaken at an IAF Congress, and I am morally certain the Proceedings of this Congress will be considered most valuable in years to come. In the field of the social sciences I hope that our legal discussions held here today are distinguished by timeliness. What are some of the immediate legal problems? 1. Within the framework of the pertinent international treaties, lawful use must be made of radio frequencies for all forms of astronautical communications. This requirement 'of international law has been observed only once by any nation since the launching of Sputnik I. I venture to say that as time goes on the international obligations of the nations of the world will be more and more ignored-if the lawyer does not intervene and make himself heard in the United Nations and in the International Telecommunication Union. Many radio frequencies are needed for communication between earth and vehicles in space, and between vehicles in space and earth; between earth and positions in space, and positions 1 Chairman, First Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space; President, International Astronautical Federation; General Counsel, American Rocket Society; Haley, Wollenberg & Kenehan, 1735 De Sales Street, N.W., Washington 6, D.C., U.S.A.

6

A. G. HALEy:

in space and earth; between two or more positions in space; between two or more space vehicles. Radio frequencies are essential, not only for all forms of communication between the fixed and mobile points I have thus indicated, but also for numerous other purposes such as for telemetering, tracking, guidance, radiopositioning (radar), and so on. 2. Any nation sending radio equipment into space (except equipment destined for probes beyond Mars and Venus) must be required to be able to command such radio equipment to stop transmitting-or the equipment may be the source of interfering signals for decades to come. With the improvements in solar batteries and the use of outer orbits where sunlight is constantly available as the power source, radio equipment in satellites may well, in a very short time, be capable of indefinite life, and therefore of indefinite interference, unless controllable. 3. No object should be placed in any orbit in outer space which cannot be guided back to earth or destroyed by some other means, such as being guided into the surface of the SUll. The nations of the world-including the USSR, USA, United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, and so on, contemplate sending scores of "Sputniks" into space. Many of these undoubtedly will attain permanent orbits. Remember, it takes about as much energy to get one of these objects back to earth as it does to place it into orbit initially. As a practical matter, it would be almost impossible to divert an earth-orbiting object while outside the earth's atmosphere, without having placed on the object initially a mechanism with which to divert the object. One cannot destroy the object by ordnance, as even if blasted the fragments would continue on orbiting and probably become even a greater menace to navigation and safety in space. Therefore, we must now enact international regulations requiring that before any object is sent into space it must be equipped with apparatus whereby it may be commanded back to earth at a safe location on earth. 4. By the same token, any object sent into space must be under the control of the sender so that on completing its orbital life the responsible party may guide the object back to an area safe for mankind. In other words, as "Sputniks" become larger there is no assurance whatsoever that they will atomize on their return to earth. The fact is that many of these objects will come back in large and lethal metallic chunks and there is always the possibility that these metallic monsters will hit congested population areas. Assumptions of adverse odds really afford no criteria of safety. Only a few months ago, in America, and specifically at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, it was customary for jet planes to describe a run over a certain radio path, ascend high into the sky, and then perform the penetration dive. It was believed that this maneuver was entirely safe, that the odds that any injury would occur to commercial aviation were so remote that notice should not be taken thereof. However, a United Airlines DC-7 in full and cloudless daylight, engaged in a routine scheduled flight, with more than 40 passengers aboard, was crashed into by one of these jets during the course of the penetration dive, and all aboard each craft were killed. We cannot assume that the returning debris of numerous "Sputniks" will not cause damage on earth. It is fundamental that safety precautions be enacted and enforced. Of great importance to future manned space navigation is keeping the "space ways" clear for safety of life and property in space. This means we must provide now against all forms of space derelicts. 5. At the present time intercontinental ballistic missiles and missiles of lesser range are being tested over wide areas of the earth's surface, and by several nations. With respect to all such firings it should be required that flight plans be filed with an appropriate agency such as ICAO, or a new office in the United Nations,

Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems

7

for the advance knowledge and guidance of surface craft and installations and for the general "peace of mind" of humanity. 6. All long-range missiles and all "Sputniks" should be required to carry apparatus which will render them readily identifiable. 7. Agreement among nations with respect to the use of television, photography, and any observational equipment whatsoever, should be immediately undertaken. 8. There should be organized within the United Nations or by universal agreement as a result of special treaty making, a Oommission to define the limitations of sovereignty of the nations of the earth. Two problems are involved: a) stating the present international law with respect to limitations on jurisdiction, and b) reconciling final determinations with the statutes of the individual nations of the earth. (This means that the individual statutes of each of the nations of the world relating to jurisdiction and national sovereignty may have to be changed.) I have pointed out in numerous lectures and articles that all existing treaty law and all existing national statutes define the limit of national jurisdiction to be within "air space". There simply is no law for the area beyond "air space", which we now call "outer space". There seems to be, on the part of the Foreign Ministries of many nations, a strange indifference to this question of defining jurisdiction. But there is no way to escape the problem. I will not labor the point on this occasion, but I would like to leave with you the thought that this is one of the most urgent and important of all problems. We are occasionally faced with strange and tormented arguments such as those concerned with the nature of the X-I5. Some persons claim that because it is airborne for a portion of its flight, such fact has some sort of continuing jurisdictional implication. This is not the case. As long as it is airborne it is subject to the jurisdiction of the nation in the air space over which it travels. When it is no longer airborne-and is beyond air spaceand is traveling by centrifugal force, the object is in outer space and no present law appertains to its movement. The same precepts are true with respect to any objects (such as Sputniks) which are hurtled into outer space. This is a situation which must be handled legally in the near future. 9. My colleague, Dr. WELF HEINRICH PRINCE OF HANOVER, who is with us here today, and I, talked to the students and faculties of 26 great American Universities concerning the problems of jurisdiction and sovereignty in positions in outer space such as the moon, Venus, Mars, and so on; and also with respect to mobile vehicles and orbiting objects in outer space. We pointed out that through the medium of the United Nations or by universal treaty making, at this time the moon and other natural objects should be placed beyond the jurisdictional or sovereignty claims of any nation on earth. The moon may be alighted upon by human beings within the next five or ten years, and if in the meantime we do not reach an understanding concerning the moon the nation achieving this great scientific acquisition may well, under classical principles of terrestrial international law, claim sovereignty over the moon. Great military leaders have said that the nation which controls the moon will also control the earth. The policy of inaction and inattention to this problem may well haunt those who are responsible for such inaction. If Nation X establishes a base on the moon, to the dismay of Nation Y, it will be found that the numerous small nations of the earth will really sympathize with Nation X because of its great achievement and on the grounds offair playand will afford little sympathy to Nation Y, which has lagged behind, which has not taken the initiative in guarding against the very problems which would arise, and which now cries "mother". 10. In the background of all the foregoing, as I have pointed out since my American Rocket Society talk in 1954, we must face the space law problems of

8

A. G.

HALEY:

drafting, administering and enforcing regulations relating to safety, sanitation, health, asylum, equipment, navigation, emigration and immigration, all of which regulations would conform to the most universal and enlightened principles of freedom and the use of property, and promulgate a code defining public and private liability for damage. I revert now to my prepared statement, which is the privilege of all participants at this and future Colloquia:

Sovereignty and Jurisdiction As I have pointed out in earlier papers, Dr. VON KARMAN has suggested methods of formulating the jurisdiction of space law. Last spring he told me that he had delivered a paper at a luncheon at the University of California, Berkeley, entitled l?egillle of IJ(;IJ allilutle

sounding rocKets andnot orOllal

Fig. 1. Diagram showing regimes of atmospheric and extra-atmospheric flight and depicting the jurisdictional boundary lines

"Aerodynamic Heating-the Temperature Barrier in Aeronautics," and in that paper he had occasion to use a diagram made by MASSON and GAZLEY of the Rand Corporation showing the possible ranges for continuous flight in the velocityaltitude coordinate system. Later on, he sent me a copy of his paper which contains the MASSON and GAZLEY diagram. He said that this diagram, although designed to show the variation of velocity versus altitude for various values of dynamic pressure and equilibrium pressure, in the hands of a skilled person could readily be used to show the regimes of atmospheric and extra-atmospheric flight and to depict the jurisdictional boundary lines thereof. I have unskilfully redone the MASSON and GAZLEY diagram (see Fig. 1) to indicate curves showing the high altitude sounding rocket regime, the earth orbital satellite regime and the KEPLER regime (earth escape velocity), and some supernumerary information, but most importantly, I have shown what I now call the KARMAN primary jurisdiction line. To establish sound bases for demarcation of air and space jurisdiction it is necessary to consider that the conditions for accomplishing aerial flight, that is to circle at constant altitude, are weight equals aerodynamic lift plus centrifugal force. The aerodynamic lift decreases with altitude because of the decreasing density of the air and in order to maintain continued flight beyond zero air lift, centrifugal force must take over. Consider the flight of Captain IVAN C. KINCHELOE, in which he took the X-2 rocket plane to 126,000 feet altitude. His flight

Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems

9

was strictly an aeronautical adventure and did not partake of space flight. At the altitude indicated aerodynamic lift carries 98 % of the weight and only 2 % is centrifugal force, or "KEPLER force." It will be noted that in the corridor of continuous flight when an object reaches approximately 275,000 feet and is traveling at 25,000 feet per second, the KEPLER force takes over and aerodynamic lift is gone. This is a critical jurisdictional boundary. I have reproduced the MASSON and GAZLEY right side curve-the so-called temperature barrier, or heat barrier-simply to show the present state of the art, and thus arbitrarily to delimit the corridor of continuous flight. This line has nothing to do with the jurisdictional question as improved techniques in cooling and discovery of heat resisting materials will undoubtedly change this curve. Fig. 1 is intended to be illustrative, and it is not presented as an apodictic solution of jurisdictional boundary lines. The KARMAN primary jurisdictional line may eventually actually remain as shown on Fig. lor, after due consideration, the line may be significantly changed. In any event, this is the line at which "air space" terminates. It would be senseless to build a surface trans-atlantic steamship to perform the undersea functions of a submarine. The functions of the aircraft and the rocket ship are essentially even more disparate. In arriving at a reasonable KARMAN line, physicists and lawyers inevitably will reach agreement as to the point where the aeronautical vehicle no longer may perform efficiently and within reasonable physical and engineering parameters. It may be useful to examine, momentarily, some of these parameters: A. M. MAYO has pointed out that control of the pilot's immediate environment from the standpoint of pressure and composition would become increasingly difficult as a function both of the length of time of flight and of the pressure reduction and change of atmospheric compositionl. He goes on to state that at altitudes below approximately 70,000 feet the problem of pressurization and composition is and can be taken care of relatively easily by pressurizing outside air. At higher altitudes, pressurization of outside air becomes increasingly difficult both from the standpoint of the power required and from that of handling the very high temperatures resulting from extreme ratios. He also states that as outside pressures become negligible with respect to cockpit pressure, the problem of explosive decompression or even gradual loss of pressure becomes so acute that until pressurized cockpits are as highly reliable as the wings and basic structure of present aircraft, we will need to provide some sort of pressurization safety equipment. MA YO states that information as to the intensity and scope of cosmic radiation, together with data on their effect on human beings, is needed by the engineer. Questions as to the possible existence of dangerous levels of radiation, such as X-rays from the sun, should also be surveyed. No completely practical approach to methods of protecting occupants of aircraft against high-energy radiations has yet been outlined. The problem might be reasonably simple were weight not such a primary consideration in all aircraft design problems. Many other considerations will enter into the final determination of the KARMAN line, such as the danger of material collisions with the airframe, escape 1 The statements from MAYO, STRUGHOLD, HULBURT, BUETTNER and SALTER are taken from "Physics and Medicine of the Upper Atmosphere. A Study of the Aeropause", Report of a symposium sponsored by the USAF School of Aviation Medicine and the Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, composed and printed at the University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1952.

10

A. G. RALEy:

problems, the problems posed by combined stresses and, indeed, multifold fundamental questions of the construction of aircraft, as such, will all enter into the final decision. H. STRUGHOLD points out that with increasing altitudes, some of the biological effects creep in gradually, while others rise at sharply defined levels. On the whole, the road from the surface of the earth to free space displays characteristic ecological stages. These stages are determined by the functions which the atmosphere has for man and craft. Going more into detail, he points out that we must first consider the atmosphere as milieu for respiration, or, in other words, the oxygen component in the chemical constitution of the air. In this respect, only the lower half of the troposphere can be designated as the physiological atmosphere or the ecosphere of the air. It is in this narrow zone that the stage for the drama of life on our planet is normally set. Only this layer deserves the name "atmosphere" which, from the Greek word "atmos", means "breath." STRUGHOLD summarizes the biological jurisdictional line by pointing out that we face complete biological anoxia at about 16 km (52,000 feet), despite the occurrence of free molecular oxygen in the atmosphere up to 90 km (295,000 feet). It is only above this level that molecular oxygen vanishes completely from the atmosphere and dissociates into atomic oxygen by radiation. The alveolar air in the lungs, however, and not the ambient air, is decisive from the biological point of view. The first determines the physiological oxygen dividing line between atmosphere and space. STRUGHOLD'S conclusions agree generally with the KARMAN line on Fig. 1. He also states that on the basis of the explosive decompression experiments, performed in the altitude range between 8 and 17 km (26,000 and 56,000 feet), we can predict the course of events for the upper atmosphere. If a meteorite hits a rocket ship cruising in these altitudes, and the crew members are suddenly exposed to the ambient air, they have only 15 seconds at their disposal for action, from the standpoint of oxygen. Aeroembolism, body fluid boiling effects, and expansion of gas-filled cavities within the body, will come into play at the same time in a most fulminating manner and aggravate the situation. This is a problem of mutual interest to the engineer and medical man and demands their common attention and cooperation. E. O. HULBURT points out that there is evidence that above 90 or 100 km (56 or 62.1 miles) a rapid transition from molecular to atomic oxygen occurs, such that at about 120 km (74.5 miles) all oxygen is dissociated to the atomic condition. The evidence was obtained from a rocket flight of September 29, 1949, by means of measurements of ultraviolet sunlight with photon counters. The intensity of solar light in a spectral band from about 1450 to 1530 A, which is near the center of the great absorption band of the oxygen molecule, was observed to increase very rapidly as the rocket rose from 90 to 120 km, indicating that in this region the rocket was passing entirely above molecular oxygen. He also states that the region of the atmosphere from to 10 km (6.2 miles), where the temperature falls rapidly with increase of altitude, has long been called the troposphere, and the region from about 10 to 20 km (33,000 to 66,000 feet), where the temperature is approximately constant, is called the stratosphere. The ionosphere has its own well-accepted nomenclature, the terms D, E, F 1 and F 2 designating the four ionized regions with maxima of ionization at about 70, 100, 200 and 300 km (43.5, 62.1, 124.3, 186.4 miles), respectively. Aside from these, there is no generally accepted terminology of upper atmospheric regions. HULBURT goes on to discuss definitions. The terms upper and outer atmosphere are used

°

Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems

11

with different meanings depending on the context, and it is best to keep their meanings fairly elastic. The region from about 20 to 35 km (12.4 to 21.7 miles) which embraces most of the ozone has been called the ozone layer or ozonosphere. It has been proposed that the region from the top of the stratosphere, at about 20 km (12.4 miles), to the minimum of temperature, at about 70 km (43.5 miles), be called the mesosphere and the region of increasing temperature, somewhere above 100 km (62.1 miles), the thermosphere. The exosphere has been used to refer to the outer fringe of the atmosphere, where the air particles execute long elliptical orbits bouncing outward from impacts with other particles and falling back under gravity. In general, HULBURT concludes, the physical properties of the various regions are not yet well enough known to permit their fixation by an accepted terminology. K. BUETTNER summarizes a few of the problems of an airframe in the aeropause. The necessity of repainting the Skyrocket after each flight merits attention in this connection and poses a challenge to the paint industry. For example, BUETTNER says, assuming the cabin wall to be part of the outer hull of a nonatomic rocket ship, the cabin-hull combination would have to withstand: high temperatures and strong draft during ascent; and during flight in the aeropause structures would have to stand nearly an absolute vacuum, weightlessness, meteoritic dust, an abundance of ionizing radiation such as cosmic ray primaries, solar X-rays, ultraviolet, and solar protons. Also, the absence of a force retaining surface particles which happen to be driven off by electro-static repulsion might be a factor of significance. On the element of reasonableness, R. M. SALTER points out that some of the first questions to be answered are, "how high," "how fast," and "how long" can flight be sustained in the atmosphere 1 Emphasis must be given the last item if a pilot is carried in the vehicle. Obviously, other than for the purposes of physiological experimentation or establishing a record, one would not conceive of a manned sounding rocket. Here, there is not time or need to supplant electronic equipment for making observations. However, in cases where flight duration is of sufficient length that electronic reliability is a problem, where computer operations (such as having adequate "memory" included) are too complex, and, in particular, where judgment in unforeseen circumstances is needed, then the participation of man will be required. It may be seen that the first two requisites are limited only by prevailing engineering development, while the last is clearly a basic constraint. SALTER continues to state that the employment of pilots in supersonic rocket planes and in balloons is an example of present approaches to the problem. In the case of air-borne vehicles (those using forward motion to derive lift from the atmosphere) we must consider duration of flight as well as altitude. It is convenient to subdivide this class of vehicles into those using rocket engines and those using air-breathing power plants. This latter type is represented by the various jet propelled aircraft and missiles. In order to fly at very high altitudes it is necessary for such a vehicle to operate at supersonic speeds, not only to provide sufficient lift but also for adequate thrust. At an altitude of 20 miles (32.2 km), for example, the required MACH number for a ramjet is over 5 and the resultant incoming air has a stagnation temperature of the order of 2000° F. Since energy must be imparted to this air at higher temperatures, it may be seen that a present engineering limitation on suitable fuels and materials is approached. This is particularly true with the use of nuclear heating. Thus the air-breathing vehicle is limited in altitude.

A. G. HALEy:

12

I had the privilege of presenting a paper before the Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Raketentechnik und Raumfahrt, at the Technical University of Stuttgart on April 13, 1957, and upon the conclusion of the program I discussed at length with Dr. EUGEN SANGER and Dr. IRENE SANGER-BREDT the possible types of flight regimes, including those regimes which might philosophically spell the

Fig. 2. The E.

SANGEB

schematic diagram illustrating all pOBBible types of flight regimes (altitude versus velocity)

elimination of a dimension. The most comfort I could obtain from Dr. SANGER was a hand-drawn diagram illustrating all possible types of flight regimes which he brought to Paris on April 15th. Later, Dr. SXNGER was kind enough to refine his diagram and I now present it as Fig. 2. Dr. S. F. SINGER of the University of Maryland has adapted the SXNGER schematic diagram for slide purposes. I present his adaptation as Fig. 3. I borrow the words of Dr. SANGER in describing Fig. 2: The abscissa plots are in logarithmic scale the flight velocities (in kilometers per hour) relative to the surface of the Earth, up to their largest possible value,

Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems

13

the velocity of light of 1.08 x 109 km/h. Shortly over 103 km/h, the altitude dependence of sonic velocity is indicated. The ordinate, also in logarithmic scale, shows the altitudes of flight (in km) from the surface of the Earth up to the nearest fixed stars. On the ordinate scale, particularly characteristic altitudes are specially marked, such as the technically dependent and argued limit of national sovereignty at an altitude of 80 km, the boundary of the technically sensible atmos-

Fig. 3. The

S.

F.

adaptation of the SXNGER schematic diagram illustrating all possible types of flight regimes (velocity versus altitude)

SINGER

phere at 200 km, the distance of the Moon over the surface of the Earth at 400,000 km, that of the Sun at 2 x lOs km, the limit of our planetary system at approximately 1010 km, etc. Within this coordinate system, the domains of aeronautics, the transition domain from aeronautics to astronautics and the domain of astronautics are plotted. Proper aeronautics, characterized by air-breathing propulsion systems, reaches up to about 60 km altitude. It lies between the two well-known limiting curves, namely the limit of aerodynamics lifting power and the heat barrier. This domain plot shows an onion-peel shape (attaching one onion peel to the next by increasing flight velocities and altitudes) when progressing for propeller reciprocating engines to turbojets and then to ramjets. Though aerodynamic lifting power is gradually replaced by the centrifugal force from the trajectory curvature beyond a velocity of lO' km/h, the intersection of the curves of limit of aerodynamic lifting power and heat barrier is nevertheless physically real and constitutes as the utmost limit of the ramjet also the definite limit of aeronautics. Contrary to this, ballistic rockets and rocket aircraft are not limited by the limit of aerodynamic lifting power due to their "non-air-breathing" propulsion systems and they can fully exploit the lifting support of the inertial forces due to the trajectory curvature from about 6,000 km/h on, so that their possible

A. G. HALEY:

14

altitudes of flight increase to several thousand kilometers and their flight velocities approach orbital velocity, whence the aerodynamic lifting power then is completely replaced by the inertial forces of the circular orbit about the earth. These ballistic missiles and rocket aircraft form the transition domain from aeronautics to astronautics which flows into the domain of pure astronautics with the reaching of the orbital velocity. Hence, only a very small corridor connects aeronautics with astronautics. Within the narrow band between orbital velocity and the constant v2=times larger escape velocity lie the artificial satellites of the Earth. This band curves to decreasing flight velocities with increasing altitude due to the decrease of the gravitational acceleration by the square of the altitude over the Earth. Beyond this band there open the immense vistas of interplanetary, interstellar and intergalactic space flight, in a structural shape surprisingly similar to that of aeronautics according to present concepts. This domain of pure astronautics is again bounded by two limiting curves, this time due to biological considerations. The lower "boundary of tolerable values of acceleration" results from the physiological possibly still tolerable uniform constant acceleration of b =20 m/sec2 , presented as the parabola h = v2/2 b (h = altitude, v = velocity, b = acceleration) which appears as a straight line on the logarithmic scales in the range of nonrelativistic mechanics. Certain velocities at low flight altitudes are not obtainable any more due to biologically too high accelerations (more than 20 m/sec 2 ). The upper "boundary of tolerable acceleration period (10 years)" results from the consideration that for low values of the uniform acceleration b the duration t of acceleration for achieving certain altitudes of flight h becomes too large with respect to the natural lifetime of human beings and thus cannot be considered longer than 10 years. Thus follows the relation h = vt/2 as a limiting curve in the (h, v)-diagram against the inadmissible range of too long acceleration periods, more than 10 years. Between these two biological boundary curves of maximum applicable constant acceleration and maximum possible duration of the acceleration periods, there are grouped the "onion peels" of the increasingly fast astronautical vehicles, chemical rockets (up to approximately 50,000 km/h) , thermodynamic nuclear rockets (up to approximately 100,000 km/h) and electrical ion rockets (up to approximately 500,000 km/h). The increasingly narrow corridor between the two boundary curves for still higher flight velocities is reigned by the photon rockets at the end of astronautics in analogy to the rocket aircraft a.t its beginning. The domain of the photon rockets on the one hand reaches up to the altitudes of fixed stars, on the other into the wonderland of relativistic mechanics.

Radio Communications The first departure from the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to international treaties, was occasioned by the USSR's use of the frequencies of 20.005 and 40.002 megacycles (mc)l. The frequency 20.005 megacycles is in the center of the frequency band 19.990-20.010 megacycles which the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 1

TASS dispatch, October 4, 1957.

Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems

15

has assigned as the Standard Frequency Servicel . Stations employing frequencies in this band conduct "a radio communication service for the transmission of standard and specified frequencies of known high accuracy, intended for general reception2." In fact, 20.005 megacycles is the exact frequency assigned to Station PEN at Kootwijk, The Netherlands3• The experimental station of the United States National Bureau of Standards, Station WWV in Lanham, Maryland, has the assigned frequency of 20.0 megacycles. The lTU has assigned a guard band of lO kilocycles on each side of this frequency to prevent interference with Station WWV's operations. The signals of the Soviet satellites at 20.005 megacycles were 5 kilocycles within this zone of interdiction. Furthermore, the signals on the frequency of 40.002 megacycles also were in an actively used frequency band. In Region 1 (Europe, Soviet Asia, and Africa), and Region 2 (the Western Hemisphere) the frequency 40.002 megacycles is allocated to fixed and mobile radio communication services. In Region 3 (Asia and Oceania) aeronautical radio navigation services are assigned this frequency. The frequency 40.0 megacycles, just 2 kilocycles away from the frequency used by the Soviet satellites, is the assigned frequency of radio stations on the Isle of Guernsey and in Guanabacoa, Cuba. Being in the upper range of the fixed and mobile services band, the signal at 40.002 megacycles is less than one megacycle below the frequency assigned for broadcasting purposes in Region 1. A broadcasting station in Brocken, Germany, operates on an assigned frequency of 41.0 megacycles. The International Telecommunication Convention and the Radio Regulations adopted pursuant thereto' clearly show that the use by the USSR of 20.005 and 40.002 megacycles per second (wave lengths of about 15 and 7.5 meters, respectively) is contrary to international law. There can be no doubt as to the use of these frequencies by the satellites 1957 Alpha, 1957 Beta and 1958 Delta, as the actual frequencies have been frankly designated in official publications of the USSR and literally thousands of readings on the frequencies have been made at points throughout the world6 • On no occasion did the USSR apply to the appropriate agencies of the International Telecommunication Union at Geneva for permission to use the frequencies 20.005 and 40.002 megacycles, and indeed the appropriate agencies of the International Telecommunication Union were not officially notified of the use of these frequencies by the Sputniks. In this connection it must be kept in mind that the USSR is a signatory member of the International Telecommunication Union and has been one of the most active and helpful nations participating in the work of the International Telecommunication Union. It must be kept in mind that technically the USSR may actually be violating no treaty or rille or regulation when the earth-circling vehicle is in outer space beyond the vertical area of "air space", as the nations of the world claim jurisdiction only through "air space", and not in outer space. As no international ITU Radio Regulations (1947), Chapter III, art. 5, p. 42-E. Ibid., Chapter I, art. 1, p. 4-E. 3 Liste des Frequences, Bureau of the International Telecommunication Union, Bern, 1947. 'International Telecommunication Convention-Final Protocol to the Convention; Additional Protocols to the Convention; Resolutions, Recommendations and Opinions, Geneva, Atlantic City, 1947. 5 Pravda, October 5, 1957; Pravda, October 9, 1957; Radio, No.7, July 1957, pp. 17-23 and No.8, August 1957, pp.17-20. 1 I

16

A. G. HALEY:

arrangement has been made with respect to outer space, it may very well be argued that existing treaties do not extend to outer space and that the dissemination of radio signals from vehicles in outer space has not been covered by any law, treaty or rule or regulationl . However, when the earth-circling vehicles are operating within "air space" and are using unauthorized frequencies, they are certainly violating laws, treaties and rules and regulations-common to all nations of the world. It is to this latter problem that this paper is addressed. As we are not specifically and exclusively discussing jurisdiction in outer space, or sovereignty, the intricate questions involved in those aspects of the problem will not be treated herein further and existing law will be considered arbitrarily without regard to outer space jurisdiction. Article 3 of the International Telecommunication Convention provides in Paragraph 2(a) that the purposes of the Union created by the Convention shall be in particular to "effect allocation of the radio frequency spectrum and registration of radio frequency assignments in order to avoid harmful interference between radio stations of different countries." Article 44 of the same Convention provides: "1. All stations, whatever their purpose, must be established and operated in such a manner as not to result in harmful interference to the radio services or communications of other Members or Associate Members or of recognized private operating agencies, or of other duly authorized operating agencies which carry on radio service, and which operate in accordance with the provisions of the Radio Regulations. "2. Each Member or Associate Member undertakes to require the private operating agencies which it recognizes and the other operating agencies duly authorized for this purpose, to observe the provisions of the preceding paragraph. "3. Further, the Members and Associate Members recognize the desirability of taking all practicable steps to prevent the operation of electrical apparatus and installations of all kinds from causing harmful interference to the radio services or communications mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article."

In Chapter III, Article 5, of the Radio Regulations annexed to the Convention, it is provided that the world-wide standard frequency shall be the channel 19.990-20.010 megacycles. The seriousness of this assignment may be understood from the fact that on this channel time signals are broadcast and the time signals are monitored throughout the world. For example, in the United States, Station WWV, Washington, D.C., transmits the official time signals and constant checks on these time signals are made at various points, such as the Bureau of Standards radio reception center in Boulder, Colorado. This reception has actually been interfered with by the Sputniks. Furthermore, the Bureau of Standards maintains chains of recording stations for radio noise measurement in areas throughout the world and these stations operate on the quiet part of the guard band of the standard channel of 20 megacycles. These stations also have been interfered with by the Sputniks. It is true that the period of interference has not been great, but if the United States follows the lead of the USSR in derogating the standard frequency, and if the combined number of earth-circling satellites should aggregate as many as 60-which the United States and the USSR have publicy projected-then interference would become serious indeed. It must be remembered that the standard frequency of 20 megacycles is 1 Supra, note 4, p. 15; see also WELF HEINRICH PRINCE OF HANOVER. Luftrecht und Weltraum (Air Law and Space). Gottingen 1953; A. MEYER, Comment in Proceedings of the American Society of International Law 1956.

Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems

17

allocated for world-wide use and the experience of the United States is being discussed on a merely illustrative basis-as every nation would be affected, but we do not have time or space to discuss the experience of every nation. Article 3 of Chapter III of the Radio Regulations aforesaid reads as follows: "1. The countries, members of the Union, adhering to these Regulations, agree that in assigning frequencies to stations which, by their very nature, are capable of causing harmful interference to the services rendered by the stations of another country, they will make such assignments in accordance with the table of frequency allocations and other provisions of this chapter. "2. The frequencies so assigned shall be selected in such a manner as to avoid causing harmful interference with services carried on by stations using frequencies assigned to them in conformity with the provisions of this chapter and which are entitled to international protection from harmful interference as provided in article 11."

The foregoing states the basic policy agreed to by all the nations-a policy which was not adhered to by the USSR. It must also be remembered that the USSR did not notify the International Frequency Registration Board at Geneva. Station WWV and the recording stations, as well as other stations throughout the world, on the other hand, have notified their operation on the standard frequency for many years. Article 2 of Chapter IV of the Radio Regulations aforesaid reads in part: "2. Any frequency assignment which is in full conformity with all provisions of the Radio Regulations shall be recorded in the Registration Oolumn. "Such a frequency assignment shall have the right to international protection from harmful interference. "3. Any frequency assignment which, in any measure, contravenes the provisions of the Radio Regulations, but on the use of which the notifying country insists, shall be recorded in the Notification Oolumn." This Article also provides: "§ 2. 1. In order to obtain international recognition of a frequency assignment, each country, upon the assignment by it of a frequency to a fixed, land, broadcasting, radionavigation land, or standard frequency sta.tion within its jurisdiction or control, or upon changing an existing frequency assignment or any of the particulars (specifically set forth in 318), shall notify the Board by any means of suitable record communication. " I believe that the illustration of the need for conformity to law, international treaty obligations and rules and regulations is sufficiently covered by the misuse of the standard frequency aforesaid, and that it will not be necessary to pursue the facts concerning the unlawful use of the frequency 40.002 megacycles. The point will not be labored further. The lawyers of the world have further demonstrated their lack of social consciousness and their lack of understanding of the meaning of the conquest of space-even in the limited form of the earth-circling vehicles-by their failure to even suggest the existence of other vital problems which are not covered by existing law, treaty or rule or regulation. No intelligent reader of the daily press can help but recognize that the projection into orbit of vehicles equipped with solar batteries, radio transmitting apparatus and an orbital life of from a few months to a few centuries will present problems of extreme concern to all the nations of the world. With respect to the three Sputniks, we witnessed the destruction of two and we know that the life period of the third will not be long. In the case of the 1957 Alpha, we know that with the final phase of the re-entry the rocket disintegrated into elements of different drag coefficients, whose impacts were strewn 1 st Space·Law Colloquium

2

18

A. G. HALEY:

over an arc the length of the satellite trajectory. It must be assumed that the final pass of any earth-circling vehicle will not result in a harmless vaporization of the metal components, but as the vehicles grow larger and larger the metal scattered in the death plunge will become more and more dangerous to human life and property. We must therefore provide, through the means of radio command, that the nation which projects a satellite will be able to guide that satellite to earth in an area free from threat to human life and property. I have seen no reference to this vital problem in any of the writings of the natural or social scientists. I have, however, seen many statements by politicians, scientists and even lawyers in which positive plans for manned space flight and space exploration are announced-and I refer to such important national leaders as President EISENHOWER and Prime Minister KHRUSHCHEV. Yet no one seems to realize the terrible implications of placing earth-circling vehicles in orbit without first providing means to control these vehicles. American officials have stated that at least 30 earth-circling vehicles are proposed, and the Russians have estimated at least that number. In the near future these Sputniks will achieve higher and more enduring orbits. They will be equipped with solar batteries and radio transmitters which will be activated and able to transmit probably for hundreds of years. But no one has even suggested the necessity for laws, treaties, rules and regulations to control these behemoths of spaceobjects which could well constitute peril to safety of life and property in space which could not be controlled. Even scientists seem to forget that it takes as much energy to divert a space vehicle from its orbit back to earth, as it does to project the vehicle into orbit. So we have the chaotic situation where lawyers may consider space law on some pink cloud in their imaginations, while completely forgetting the practicalities of vital problems which face civilization in the age of space. In this discussion the author has briefly touched upon two very apparent and essentially simple problems-namely, 1. the absolute necessity to control the placement of the re-entering space vehicle in order to protect human life and property, and 2. the necessity to be able to rid outer space of objects in order to provide for safety of life and property in future space navigation. A third and less important requirement is the control of the radio transmitter on the earth-circling vehicle. At the present time radio engineers throughout the world are possessed of the unpleasant knowledge that for indeterminate periods the frequencies of 20.005 and 40.002 and 108.00 megacycles are in a sense uncontrollably usurped for Sputnik operation to the possible' detriment of civilization. One must understand that the radio spectrum is very limited and that the frequencies involved are extremely valuable and they may be quite essential to some other services. To tie them up in this uncontrolled fashion is unconscionable. Accordingly, there must also exist a radio command which will silence these earth-circling vehicle radio transmitters. Years ago the author recognized these problems and since then has endeavored to alert the world to the need for constructive solutions. In particular the author has attempted to convince the International Telecommunication Union in Geneva of the necessity for special allocations of frequencies for space uses. Also, an effort has been made to provide the technical basis upon which any such allocation must be based. An agency of the ITU, the Consultative Committee on International Radio (CCIR), has the task of studying the scientific and technical problems connected with radio communications. The investigation of such phenomena as ionospheric and tropospheric effects on wave propagation

Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems

19

is the special province of the CCIR. This Committee does not allocate frequencies -it has the duty "to study technical radio questions and operating questions the solution of which depends principally on considerations of a technical radio character and to issue recommendation on them l ." The actual frequencies finally selected are notified to the International Frequency Registration Board, Geneva 2 • It is believed that the CCIR has a basic duty to civilization to study the problems and needs of extra-terrestrial communications. In view of the importance of the CCIR to the astronautics program, the author traveled to Warsaw to attend the CCIR conference in that city during August 1956, to present the views of the International Astronautical Federation, which were assembled from the scientists of several countries. He proposed that the CCIR undertake a review of the requirements of astronautical radio frequencies and promised the cooperation of the IAF in this endeavor. The minutes of the Thirteenth Plenary Meeting of the CCIR reveal that the petition of the IAF was considered by the Committee's Director, Professor VAN DER POL. The result was that the IAF was advised to seek consultative membership in the ITU, and the hope was expressed that "collaboration with (the IAF) would give excellent results 3 ." The CCIR did not agree to undertake studies at that time. Pursuant to the advice of Professor VAN DER POL, on May 10, 1957, the IAF made appropriate application to the then Secretary-General of the ITU, MARCO AURELIO ANDRADA. The ITU granted the IAF full nongovernmental consultative status. In all fairness it must be said that Secretary-General ANDRADA (since deceased); Acting Secretary-General GERALD C. CROSS; and Dr. E. METZLER, Director of the CCIR, have shown the IAF, and, in a broader sense, those who represent the cause of astronautics, every consideration. This cooperative approach resulted in the following progress in the efforts to bring order into astronautical radio: A meeting of Study Group XI of the CCIR was scheduled to be held in Moscow from May 28 to June 10, 1958. The author was advised of this meeting and he received a visa from the USSR to attend the meet.ing. Study Group XI is chiefly concerned with various aspects of television systems, television standards, and requirements for the transmission of television over long distances. The author had in mind the statements of President EISENHOWER4 , members of the USSR Academy of Sciences, such as that of V. PETROV5 , and the writings of numerous scientists throughout the world, such as the writings of JOHN R. PIERCE, Director of Research, Electrical Communications, Bell Telephone Laboratories 6 • These declarations and writings, in positive terms, propose the use of satellites as passive and active television relay stations, and as television originating bases for the dissemination to earth from outer space of scientific data. At the twelve-day meeting of the CCIR Study Group XI in Moscow it was decided that the questions, problems, and study proposals which were submitted by the author to the Plenary Session could better be acted upon 1 International Telecommunication Convention, Atlantic City, 1947, Article 8, p.9-E. 2 International Telecommunication Convention, Atlantic City, 1947, Article 6, p.7-E. 3 Minutes of the Thirteenth Plenary Meeting of the CCIR, Warsaw 1956, p. 10. 4 Press Release, White House, Washington, D.C., March 26, 1958. 6 Radio, No.4, June 1956, pp. 160-164. 6 See in particular, Orbital Radio Relays, in Proposal of the American Rocket Society to the National Science Foundation, November 1954.

2*

20

A. G.

HALEY:

by Study Groups V and VI, and the Director of the CCIR proposed the following program, which, of course, must be approved at the next meeting of the CCIR: "considering a) the rapid development of rockets in general and of artificial satellites in particular; b) that transmission of radio signals between the earth and extraterrestrial positions in space is now an established fact; c) the use of satellites as measuring and observation stations and possibly as relay stations; d) that extraterrestrial objects may well be consecutively above different countries of the world, thus necessitating international collaboration; e) that radio communication between extraterrestrial objects and the earth will be of utmost importance; "decides that the following question should be studied: 1. what frequencies are specially suitable for penetration of the layers of the earth's atmosphere; 2. what are the influence on these frequencies of the hour of the day, the season, the geographical location and solar activity; 3. what deviations in propagation direction can be expected by the penetration of the ionosphere; 4. what, if any, will be the differences in propagation between in-going and outgoing signals relative to the earth; 5. are special phenomena to be expected that do not occur in transmission between two points on earth; 6. what is the possible influence of the troposphere on wave propagation to and from extraterrestrial objects 1"

In addition to the foregoing, the United States Preparatory CommitteeInternational Radio Conference, which is considering the program of CCIR Study Group VI in anticipation of the Ninth Plenary Assembly of the CCIR to be held in Los Angeles in April 1959, has circulated a proposal based upon finding that "observation of radio emissions of the first earth satellite have already yielded valuable information about the ionosphere, as well as about problems of space travel," and the Committee recommends that "clear channels be set aside for the use of satellite and space ship emissions". These observations and recommendations were timely, as they were available for consideration by CCIR Study Group VI in its Geneva meeting during August 1958. The author attended, acting as Observer at that meeting, as President of the IAF. Final decisions will be reached at the Plenary Session in Los Angeles in 1959. There is certainly hope for comparatively expeditious action looking toward the allocation of spectrum space for astronautical radio, as a Plenary Convention will be held during July 1959 in Geneva. This Convention will have complete power to revise the Atlantic City Convention, 1947, and, indeed, if necessary, to enter into a completely new Convention. It is heartening to observe that most nations have recognized the basic necessity of providing spectrum space for astronautical radio. On many occasions and in many official ways the United States has recognized the necessity of providing spectrum space and of achieving international cooperation to utilize astronautical radio and to prevent interference. The author, as General Counsel of the American Rocket Society, has entered appearances, pleadings and scientific astronautical reports and comments in proceedings instituted by the Federal Communications Commission looking toward reallocations and new allocations of radio frequencies to the various services, including astronautical radio.

Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems

21

The author is also serving on Committees of the United States State Department Preparatory Committee-International Radio Conference. Similar preparatory groups and committees have been established in nations throughout the world. Final observations are most pertinent and necessary: 1. Most of the nations of the world must change their domestic laws and rules and regulations relating to radio, to accommodate the concepts, requirements and problems of astronautical radio. Certainly in the not distant future the United States must amend its Communications Act of 1934 to embody new provisions relating to astronautical radio. 2. Fortunately, the international problem may be handled through the very efficient agency, the International Telecommunication Union, which is composed of more adhering nations than practically any other international organization. The ITU has had an excellent record of achievement and has certainly taken more action in connection with astronautical problems than any other international body. The author again desires to emphasize that the views expressed herein are those of a lawyer-not a politician-and that he is critical of no nation, and this is not a propaganda document in favor of or in opposition to any nation. This paper simply embodies a plea for international cooperation in providing radio facilities for astronautical purposes-an objective which is essential to the orderly progress of civilization and peaceful interrelations among nations. The lawyer and the scientist may be interested in the program the author submitted to the United States Department of State, which is here quoted in its entirety: 1. Some Proposals for the Allocation of Frequencies for Astronautical Services In order to assemble as much data as are currently available on the frequency allocation needs of astronautical radio services, the Counsel for the American Rocket Society (ANDREW G. HALEY) has availed himself of the advice of an informal and entirely unofficial panel of scientists. The membership of the Panel is set forth in Exhibit 1. Counsel has conducted extensive correspondence, and has held several small and large meetings with the Panel over the last six months' period. The most recent meeting was held in Washington, D.C., on May 13, 1958. Tentative proposal for frequency allocations were accepted by Counsel on the basis of information finally sifted at the May 13, 1958 meeting. Those proposals are set out herein. Generally, the Panel has suggested that an immediate need exists for frequency allocations for the astronautical radio services in the areas of 20 mc, 40 mc, 100 mc, 150 mc, 300 mc, 450 mc, 1,000 mc, 4,500 mc, 10,000 mc, 20,000 mc, and 35,000 mc.

a) 20 me and 40 me areas With respect to the 20 mc and 40 mc areas of the spectrum, Dr. RICHARD W. PORTERl set forth the thinking of the Panel as follows: Experience gained from the observation of transmissions from the Russian Sputniks on the frequencies around 20 mc and 40 mc has shown a definite need for continuous recording in connection with ionospheric experiments. It is not necessary to set aside 1 Consultant to the General Electric Company and Chairman, Technical Panel on Earth Satellite Program of the U.S. Committee for the Geophysical Year.

22

A. G.HALEY:

large numbers of frequencies in these ranges, but a definite need exists for the use of one and maybe two frequencies in both the 20 and 40 mc areas of the spectrum for experimentation involving the effect of the ionosphere on radio propagation from satellites to earth. Counsel suggests the frequencies 20.01 mc and 37.00 mc. Regarding these two frequencies, Counsel agrees that any other specific frequencies in the same area would be equally satisfactory. Depending, therefore, on the needs of other users of the frequencies, a slight change could be made in this part of the proposal, if necessary. b) 100 me area Considerable experience has been obtained by the United States from transmissions in the 100 mc region. JOHN P. HAGEN1 , JOHNT. MENGEL2, and J. CARL SEDDON3 on behalf of the Panel have pointed out that the United States now utilizes the frequencies 108 mc and 108.03 mc on a temporary, non-interference basis. These frequencies are particularly suitable transmissions from the earth encircling satellites which have been placed in orbit and which will be projected into orbit in the future. Satisfactory hardware has been developed for utilization in these frequencies. HAGEN, MENGEL and SEDDON point out that at this time omnidirectional transmissions from earth encircling satellites are essential because such satellites cannot accommodate heavy equipment and power supply for directional or microwave transmissions in higher frequency ranges. HAGEN, MENGEL and SEDDON further point out that there will be a need for use of the 100 mc region for communications of the following varieties: Satellites to positions in space (the term "positions in space" means a natural position, such as the moon, or other than a man-made position). Space vehicle to position in space. Satellite to satellite. Satellite to space vehicle. Space vehicle to space vehicle. Tracking and guidance. The Panel suggests, therefore, the allocation of t.he frequency band 107-108 mc for the foregoing purposes. This allocation would cause slight loss of spectrum space to mobile and FM broadcasting services. However, we actually are suggesting a minimum use of speckum space. Studies of all the frequencies in this area of the spectrum show more extreme crowding conditions, and our judgment inevitable leads to suggesting the frequencies indicated, namely, between 107 mc and 108 mc, inclusive. The request for 1 mc of spectrum space in this region is not unreasonable when it is considered that within the next year radio transmitters in some 40 or 50 earth encircling satellites will be sending data to earth. MENGEL and SEDDON estimate that up to 50 satellites will be operating within one year. MENGEL reports that tracking that number of satellites becomes an impossible problem if additional spectrum space is not allocated immediately. MENGEL also observes that it would be unwise to allocate numerous single frequencies throughout the spectrum for transmissions of this character, and he urges that the various frequencies allocated for these purposes be concentrated in a single continuous band of the spectrum. 1 Superintendent, Atmosphere and Astrophysics Division, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. . 2 Chief, Tracking Branch, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. 8 Section Head, Ionosphere Research, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.

Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems

23

c) 150 me area

HAGEN, MENGEL and SEDDON also point out that so-called "command frequencies" are required for transmissions from earth to present satellites, and such frequencies will certainly be necessary for future operations. The Panel suggests that the frequency band 148.0-150.8 mc be allocated for command frequency usage in the astronautical radio services. Here again the Panel encounters a need to displace some present users. But the Panel believes that earth-to-satellite control or "command" is so vital as to merit such treatment. SEDDON points out that at present we have satellites in service whose transmissions may well go on for 200 years. A means of "commanding" these satellites must be on hand, and the Panel finds the 148-150.8 mc band best suited for this function.

d) 300 me and 450 me areas The Commander, Army Ballistic Missile Agency, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, has informally advised Counsel (on behalf of Panel members VON BRAUN and SAUNDERS) that that Agency agrees with the general proposals of the Panel. In addition, the Army Ballistic Missile Agency advises that "frequency bands in the following frequency ranges are considered essential: "B. 200-300 mc for MSL telemetry MSL and Satellite TV. "C. 450-500 mc for MSL tracking and space communications." Counsel adopts this proposal and urges the allocation of a band between 320 mc and 328.6 mc for the former purpose and a band between 450 mc and 455 mc for the latter purpose. These proposals require a certain amount of displacement of existing services, and the Panel emphasizes that experience may permit of reduction of the band-width now requested. For instance, a narrower band for television operation may be evolved from future work in the field. e) 1,000 me and 4,500 me areas

Frequencies in the order of 1,000 mc will be highly essential for space communications needs. Dr. JOHN R. PIERCE 1 reported to Counsel that his best estimate "for ground to satellite communications is somewhere between 1,000 mc and 6,000 mc." Furthermore, Dr. PIERCE states that "as many and as broad as possible channels (20 mc and more) should be acquired within these limits." The Panel has suggested that a need exists for frequencies in the 1,000 mc range for communications between earth and space vehicles and between earth and positions in space. Considering the present congestion in the 1,000 mc range and the magnitude of the operations proposed to be conducted, Counsel takes the position that the frequency band 890-942 mc should be allocated for use by astronautical radio services. The astronautical radio services might well share a part of this frequency band with industrial, scientific, and medical radio services presently authorized. It is contemplated, however, that eventually the astronautical radio services would require exclusive use of all of this band. A band at least 20 mc wide in the 4,400-4,500 mc region will also be needed, according to PIERCE, HAGEN, MENGEL and SEDDON. Frequencies in this band would be used in conjunction with the operations in the 890-942 mc band. The 4,400-4,500 mc band is not as congested as lower bands, but some displacement may occur. The Panel believes that room for some of the displaced services might be found in higher parts of the spectrum, which are presently not utilized or allocated. 1 Director of Research, Electrical Communications, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated.

24

A. G. HALEY: f) 10,000 me area

Dr. PORTER reported to Counsel that there is a substantial need for accurate positioning measurements of space vehicles and positions in space. Dr. PORTER believes that frequencies in the order of 10,000 mc are well suited for precision tracking. Accordingly, the Panel suggests that frequencies in the approximate range of 10,00010,100 mc be allocated to the astronautical radio services. Displacement in this area should be a less critical problem than in lower parts of the spectrum. At present, a 500 mc band is set aside for amateurs. The Society's proposal is to reallocate only 20 % thereof to astronautical radio services. g) 15,000 to 40,000 me area

The members of the Panel agree that the use of frequencies in the 15,000-40,000 mc portion of the spectrum by astronautical radio services will become a reality at an early date. Dr. PIERCE stated to Counsel, for example, "for communications outside the earth atmosphere frequency bands beyond 20,000 mc and up to 100,000 mc will be most useful." Counsel agrees with this view and takes the position that the frequencies in this range will be required for astronautical radio services of the following types: Between earth and positions in space. Between space vehicles and positions in space. Between two or more positions in space. Between two or more space vehicles. Mter reviewing the present frequency allocations the Panel suggests the exclusive allocation of the frequency bands 17,500-20,000 mc and 36,000-38,000 mc to the astronautical radio services. No displacement would occur if this proposal were implemented. The areas specified are not now allocated for any service. II. Band Widths

As is indicated in the above discussion of various frequencies, in most instances the Panel has informally suggested a specific band width for each allocation. The Panel considered at length minimum band widths which could be temporarily utilized in the event that the allocation at this time of the entire band requested proved to be unfeasible. As a general proposition the Panel decided that with one or two exceptions the band widths should be at least 1 % of the frequency range, e.g., a band width of 1 mc at 100 mc, 10 mc at 1,000 mc, and so on. The computation of band width under this formula represents a minimum amount of spectrum space, and it should be emphasized that Counsel urges very strongly the allocation of greater amounts of spectrum space wherever possible. III. Summary and Conclusion The presently known frequency requirements of the astronautical radio services are tabulated below. These frequency requirements were carefully considered over the last six months, on the basis of theory, and experience in observing orbits of satellites, and the list was prepared on May 13, 1958. These proposals are by no means final, as developments in the astronautical sciences will require changes in the future as space flight develops. Likewise. the terminology used in the proposed allocations will change. Already, in the few months since the Society proposed new definitions for services, changes have taken place. Thus, new terms will be used herein for descriptive pur,poses. Those terms will be defined in future documents to be filed by the Society with the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of State on appropriate occasions.

Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems Frequency Band, kc

Allocation to Services World-Wide

20,010

Astronautical Mobile (Ionospheric Propagation)

Frequency Band, mc

Allocation to Services World-Wide

37.00

Astronautical Mobile (Ionospheric Propagation) Astronautical Mobile Astronautical Radiolocation (Tracking) Astronautical Radionavigation (Command) Astronautical Mobile (Telemetry and Television) Astronautical Mobile Astronautical Radiolocation (Tracking) Astronautical Mobile

107.01-108.0 148.0-150.8 320.0-328.6 450-455 890-942

4,380-4,400 Astronautical Mobile 10,000-10,100 Astronautical Mobile Astronautical Radiolocation 17,500-20,000 Astronautical Mobile Astronautical Radiolocation 36,000-38,000 Astronautical Mobile Astronautical Radiolocation

25

Footnotes

The frequency 915 mc is designated for industrial, scientific and medical purposes. Emissions must be confined within the limits of + 25 mc of that frequency. Radio communication services operating within those limits must accept any harmful interference that may be experienced from the operation of industrial, scientific and medical equipment.

Exhibit 1 American Rocket Society, Inc. Space Communications Panel GEORGE P. ADAIR, Consulting Radio Engineer, George P. Adair Associates. DANA K. BAILEY, Page Communications Engineers. WARREN W. BERNING, Ballistic Research Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground. JOHN P. HAGEN, Superintendent, Atmosphere and Astrophysics Division, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. JOHN T. MENGEL, Chief, Tracking Branch, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. KENNETH NORTON, Chief, Radio Propagation Engineering Division, National Bureau of Standards. E. C. PAGE, Page, Creutz, Garrison & Waldschmidt, Consulting Radio Engineers. W. H. PICKERING, Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. J. R. PIERCE, Director of Research, Electrical Communications, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated.

26

A. G. HALEY:

RICHARD W. PORTER, Consultant, General Electric Company. GRADY SAUNDERS, Assistant Chief of RF and Telemetering, Guidance and Control Laboratory, Army Ballistic Missile Agency. WILLIAM SHOCKLEY, Beckman Instruments, Inc. J. CARL SEDDON, Section Head, Ionosphere Research, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. ALLAN SHAPLEY, Chief, Sun-Earth Relationship Research Section, Vice Chairman, U.S. National Committee for IGY. RALPH SLUTZ, Chief of Radio Physics Division, National Bureau of Standards. J. A. V AN ALLEN, Professor of Physics, State University of Iowa. WERNHER VON BRAUN, Technical Director, Army Ballistic Missile Agency.

Appendix Writings 01 Andrew G. Haley International Cooperation in Rocketry and Astronautic8. Jet Propulsion 26, No. 11, 627-632 (1955). Space Law-Basic Concepts. Presented at the 75th Annual Convention of The Bar Association of Tennessee, Nashville, Tennessee, June 14-16,1956; Tennessee Law Rev. 24, No.4, 643-657 (1956). Space Law and Metalaw-A Synoptic View. Presented at the VIIth Annual Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, Rome, Italy, September 19, 1956; Proceedings of the VIIth International Astronautical Congress, Rome, Italy, September 17-22, 1956, p. 1-16. Roma: Associazione Italiana Razzi, 1956; Harvard Univ. Law Rec. 28, No.8 (1956). Basic Concepts of Space Law. Presented at the American Rocket Society 25th Anniversary Annual Meeting, Chicago, illinois, November 14-18, 1955; Jet Propulsion 26, No. 11, 951-968 (1956). Droit de l'Espace et "Metadroit" (Limites de Jurisdiction). Rev. Gen. Air 1-16 (1957). Seventh International Astronautical Federation Congress Stresses Cooperation. Jet Propulsion 27, No.1, 60--62 (1957). Loi de l' Espace et M etaloi. Le Courrier Interplanetaire, February 1, March 5, and April 10, 1957. Weltraumrecht und Recht aufJerhalb der Erde. Z. Luftrecht 6, No.2, 1-16 (1957). International Situation and Legal Involvements with Respect to Long-Range Missiles and Earth-Circling Objects. U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Washington, D.C., February 1957; London: Pergamon Press Ltd., 1958. The Present Day Developments in Space Law and the Beginnings of Metalaw. Presented at the American Rocket Society 11th Annual Meeting, New York, New York, November 26-29, 1956; Harvard Univ. Law Rec. 21, No.4 (1957). Space Law-Basic Concepts. Digest of article published in Tennessee Law Rev. 24, No.5, 643-657 (1956). Law Rev. Digest 7, No.3, 71-82 (1957). The Present Day Developments in Space Law. Canad. Oil J. 8, No.7, No.8, No.9 (1957). Weltraumrecht und Recht aufJerhalb der Erde. Weltraumfahrt 2-8, 2-12 (1957). Space Law and Metalaw-Jurisdiction Defined (Revised). Paper read before the Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Raketentechnik und Raumfahrt, at the Technical University of Stuttgart, Germany, April 13, 1957. Space Law and Metalaw - Jurisdiction Defined. Presented at the American Rocket Society Spring Meeting, Washington, D.C., April 3-6, 1957; J. Air Law and Comm. 24, No.3, 286-303 (1957); J. Brit. Interplan. Soc. 16, No.8, 472-482 (1958). The International Scene (Foreign Astronautical Publications). Astronautics 2, No.2, 74 (1957). The International Scene (German Activity in Rocketry). Astronautics 2, No.3, 72-73 (1957). Space Law-The Development of Jurisdictional Concepts. Presented at the VIIIth Annual Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, Barcelona, Spain, October 6-12, 1957; Proceedings of the VlIIth International Astronautical Congress, Barcelona 1957, pp. 170--185. Wien: Springer-Verlag, 1958.

Space Age Presents Immediate Legal Problems

27

The International Astronautical Federation. Federal Bar J. 17, No.5, 470-474 (1957); also published in Research and Development Procurement Law, Federal Bar J. 17, No.3 (1957). Law Must Precede Man Into Space. Missiles and Rockets S, No. 11, 67-70 (1957). Law and Economics of the Age of Space. Presented on lecture tour of the United States in November 1957, at Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey; Physicians Scientific Society, New York, New York; University of Detroit Law School, Detroit, Michigan; University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Michigan; University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, Illinois; Northwestern University Law School, Chicago, Illinois; University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison, Wisconsin; University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Civic Group, Butte, Montana; University of Montana, Missoula, Montana; Gonzaga University Law School, 'Spokane, Washington; Civic Group, Seattle, Washington; University of Washington Law School, Seattle, Washington; University of California, San Francisco, California; University of California Law School, Los Angeles, California; Chamber of Commerce, Salt Lake City, Utah; University of Utah College of Law, Salt Lake City, Utah; Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico; Chamber of Commerce, Denver, Colorado; University of Colorado Law School, Boulder, Colorado; St. Louis University and Washington University Law Schools, St. Louis, Missouri; Harvard University International Law Club, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Institute of Military Law, Washington, D.C.; Georgetown, American University, Catholic University and University of Maryland and Law Schools, Washington, D.C. The International Scene (Suite 304, The Ritz, Barcelona). Astronautics 2, No.5, 46-47, 70-71 (1957). The Russian Satellite-Legal and Economic Problems. Presented at the American Rocket Society 12th Annual Meeting, New York, New York, December 4, 1957. Can Russia Claim the Moon? Amer. Weekly, January 15, 1958. The Law of the Space Age-Spiritual, Economic and Scientific Foundations. Presented at the Evangelical Academy, Loccum, Germany, February 28, 1958. The International Scene (Preparation of Papers for the IXth Annual Congress of the International Astronautical Federation). Astronautics S, No.2, 70 (1958). The Commercial Implications of Missiles,Satellites,Space Age. Address before the American Management Association, New York, New York, February 21, 1958; Commercial and Financial Chronicle, March 13, 1958. International Cooperation in Astronautics. Foreign Service J. S5, No.4, 42-50 (1958). Law and the Age of Space. St. Louis Univ. Law J. 5, No.3, 1-10 (1958). Astronautics and Space Exploration. Testimony before the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, U.S. House of Representatives, May 8, 1958. Der Mensch stOPt in den Himmelsraum. New Yorker Staats-Zeitung und Herold, May 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1958 (Excerpt, in German, from paper presented at the Evangelical Academy, Loccum, Germany, February 28, 1958). The Law of Outer Space-Scientific and Anthropocentric Considerations. Presented at the Universities of Moscow and Leningrad, USSR; Stuttgart and Berlin, Germany; Belgrade, Yugoslavia; Prague, Czechoslovakia; and Warsaw, Poland; in the Spring of 1958. The International Scene (The Law of Outer Space, International Cooperation in Astronautics, Formation of New Astronautical Societies-in and out of Eastern Europe -Subjects of Long Journey-Part I). Astronautics S, No.5, 78 (1958). Derecho Interplanetario. Ingenieria Aeronautica 10, No. 41, 7-19 (1958). Law of Outer Space-Problem for International Agreement. Amer. Univ. Law Rec. 7, No.2, 70-77 (1958). The International Scene (Subjects of Long Journey-Part II). Astronautics S, No.6, 70 (1958). The Law of Space-Scientific and Technical Considerations. New York Law Forum 4, No.3, 262-305 (1958). The International Scene (Journey to the USSR). Astronautics 3, No.8, 64 (1958). Rocketry and Space Exploration. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc., 1958.

Problems in Establishing a Legal Boundary between Air Space and Space By

Welf Heinrich Prince of Hanover1 The problems with which we are faced today resemble in some respect those which arose at the turn of the century, when powered flight seemed to be a real possibility for the first time. At that time, man's practical experience of aviation was confined to balloon flights, and so the problem of the consequences resulting from the realization of such aeronautical ambitions was largely a theoretical one. Some experts, for example, argued that the air was everywhere just as free as the high seas, while others maintained that it was subject to the sovereignty of the states beneath it. In the meantime, technical progress had outstripped international law. The flight of aeroplanes had become a fact, and governments now had to face the practical consequences, even though they had not agreed upon any guiding principles as yet. Before World War I, Britain and Russia had already made it a condition that permission must be obtained for flights into the air space above their territories, and in the course of the war all states came to regard such incursions as breaches of sovereignty. It was not until 1919 that the mutual recognition of the absolute sovereignty of a state over the atmosphere above it was formally embodied in an international agreement. This agreement. signed in Paris, was later confirmed in the same terms under the Chicago Convention in 1944, which still regu1ates international aviation. Today we are again faced with a situation in which accepted international law seems likely to prove inadequate to cope with the circumstances. Space flight is now an accomplished fact, and the Chicago Convention was designed to cover only the atmosphere, and does not define how far this zone extends. The underlaying assumption, though not directly expressed, is that national sovereignty, as on the high seas, extends as far as a state can exercise effective control from its own territory, and, until recently, this in turn meant within the range of anti-aircraft artillery. With the advent of rockets capable of being fired to heights of several hundred miles, and the launching of earth-satellites, one can ask whether an attempt to apply this principle further would not lead to absurd consequences. I need only mention one of them: the fact that the earth, together with the rest of the universe, is in constant motion, and the boundaries of a country's territorial jurisdiction, if they were to be extended vertically to an indefinite height, would therefore be changing every moment. The untenability of such a proposition is at once clear, particularly if one envisages the possibility-which some think is not so remote--of firing rockets to the moon. Various theories have been put forward to solve this problem. The most simple would be to fix the limits of the earth's atmosphere as those of territorial 1

Blittersdorffplatz 29, Frankfurt a. M., Germany.

WELF HEINRICH PRINCE OF HANOVER:

Air Space and Space

29

jurisdiction, but in practice it is impossible to define the atmosphere in terms equally satisfactory to the physicist, the medical scientist, the aeronautical technician, and all the many other specialists concerned with these problems. Other solutions are therefore being sought, but all of them are arbitrary and leave out of consideration the conditions which have hitherto been universally accepted as essential for the recognition of national sovereignty. It seems to me that the only correct approach is the practical. The two practical requirements for the recognition of territorial sovereignty have always been the possibility of exercising effective control, and the existence of definable boundaries. It is inconceivable at the present time that any state could exercise effective control over areas in outer space and, projected to such vast distances from the earth, the horizontal frontiers of the states on its surface would necessarily lose all meaning. For it would be impossible to ascertain in practice over which state any incident which arises had actually taken place. These factors, I think, rule out at once any proposals which advocate the extension of territorial sovereignty beyond the limits of the earth's atmosphere. These, as I have mentioned, !night seem to constitute a natural boundary, and the conventions to which I have referred speak of the "espace atmospherique". But I have sought to show that this is a relative conception, and ever since I concluded my thesis on the subject five years ago [1], scientific discoveries have altered our views regarding its extent. For this reason, I am now inclined to the more practical suggestion of Mr. TH. VON KARMAN and Mr. A. G. HALEY, who point out that it is possible to measure scientifically the altitude at which aerial devices are no longer able to support themselves by their own lifting power but by the centrifugal force of the earth-as in the case of the satellites. This seems to be a reasonable height at which to fix the boundary of sovereignty from earth. You will see what a complex problem this is. Though it has been impossible to treat these theories adequately in the course of this short review, I hope that I have been able to give some idea of the kind of discussions which are going on. In the meantime-as in the early days of aviation-governments have not waited for formal definitions, and rockets are being fired and satellites launched without regard to the problems of international law which they raise. Though the mere fact that satellites have been launched into orbits encircling the whole ofthe earth's surface implies a recognition on the part of governments that there is a limit to the "ceiling" of national sovereignty beyond which, so to speak, no-man's-land begins. Some time ago Mr. MALIK, the Soviet Ambassador in London, is said to have stated that his government would not recognise Swedish neutrality if high-altitude rockets fired from bases in the West were to pass over that country, regardless of whether Sweden itself were in a position to prevent their passage or not. Such dangerous confusion shows that this is no mere academic questit>n, and gives an idea of the sort of situation which may arise if governments are to continue to take the law into their own hands at each fresh set of circumstances. I think, therefore, that the time has come when the powers of the world should exa!nine the suggestion of our President, Mr. HALEY, who has studied these problems more systematically, perhaps, than any other expert, and appoint a committee of lawyers and scientists uuder the auspices of the United Nations and the International Civil Aviation Organisation to adjust international law to meet the latest technical advances-as was done in Paris in 1919. I know that Mr. HALEY also had this idea in his mind during the past two years when he travelled to New Delhi, India, and on several occasions throughout Eastern and Western Europe as well as other parts of the world on behalf of

30

WELF HEINRICH PRINCE OF HANOVER: Air Space and Space

astronautical co-operation-all at his own expense. He has obtained a great deal of information which should be utilized. In view of the importance of the problems and all the surrounding circumstances, I strongly recommend that he be re-elected as President of the International Astronautical Federation for one more year. The fact that limits would be set to the vertical extent of national jurisdiction would not mean that there would be no laws to be observed beyond it, any more than on the high seas. International legislation on such matters as piracy, the slave trade and sea-rescue could serve as models for the laws which would operate should mankind ever be successful in conquering outer space. In any case, if man is a moral being-which we like to think he is-then his moral obligations will follow him and his conduct will remain unchanged no matter how far he may go beyond the reach of terrestrial jurisdiction. I would like to emphasise this, because, with all his striking technical achievements and triumphs there is a real danger of man becoming arrogant about his place in creation. Reference 1. WELF HEINRICH PRINCE OF HANOVER, Luftrecht und Weltraum (Air Law and

Space). Doctor Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law and Political Science at the George August University of Gottingen, 1953.

Contribution By

V. Alessandrone-Gambardella1 I have followed with attention and interest the speeches of the eminent jurists who have spoken before me. Although I share to a great extent the opinion of Mr. SMIRNOFF, who is one of the official speakers of the Colloquium, I should like to add a few remarks concerning those points in his so very lucidly expounded conception with which I disagree, if only to a very modest extent. My point of disagreement in no way concerns an eventual criticism of the theory by which sovereignty over territorial air space can be defined by dividing it into an "atmospheric" and an "extra-atmospheric" space, and into a number of layers graded according to their height, as though space was a material and readily grasped object, like a piece of fruit or a loaf of bread which can be carved up into slices: slices which would multiply in number, at any rate with regard to their descriptions, as time goes on-a kind of repetition of the miracle of Canaan. .. It is generally known that such a conception, from the theoretical and even more so from the practical point of view, has been proved to be almost impossible to substantiate, either because the ceiling of sovereignty would be far too high, or simply because such a demarcation line doesn't exist at all. The other theory does not deserve any consideration either. This theory maintains that it is sufficient in order to solve the "vexata quaestio" of sovereignty to rely on the sanctified principles of the law of the High Seas and to apply by analogy the terms which differentiate between "territorial waters" and "extraterritorial waters". The mistake behind such an application to air law can be easily found in the Italian Navigation Codex [1] which, way back in 1942, extended the principles of the maritime law to air law. Even worse, in our opinion, would be such an application to the sphere of space law which we are in the process of formulating. Of great interest, on the other hand, are in our opinion the conclusions which have been expounded by my colleague and friend A. G. HALEY, President of the IAF, who is less inspired by theory as by practice and modern technique. If I have properly understood his able eXP08e, he came to the conclusion that we should, instead of speaking about sovereignty in the theoretical sense of the word, rather talk about the "effective" control of extra-atmospheric space, which, by no means, excludes sovereignty. Such control is made up of two cardinal elements: 1. The technically po88ible control, which allows us at the present stage of our knowledge to determine the launching point of an artificial satellite, just as we can also determine the place of explosion of an atomic or hydrogen bomb. 2. The legal control, exercised by a permanent organization made up of jurists and technicians from all interested nations. The organization should not be set up by the ICAO, for the duties of this permanent commission would not be con1

Via Val Cristallina, 2, Rome, Italy.

32

V.

ALESSANDRONE-GAMBARDELLA:

Contribution

fined to giving advice and making recommendations, as in the case of the ICAO, but rather it should be set up within the framework of the United Nations Organization (UNO) with the special mandate to apply sanctions, should one of the nations represented in the above mentioned control commission violate the agreement. Here is the "punctum dolens" which is feared for the future, namely that satellites for purely military purposes can be launched and would present a grave danger to the life and safety of all peoples of the earth, and that such a case of an open breach of the rules for launching a satellite would force the permanent commission to apply sanctions following the principle of private law: "Nullum crimen sine poena". Here, however, arises another problem: the problem of the nature of such "sanctions". It is abundantly clear that in such a case we cannot speak of "vi cum vi repellere", as this would lead to a disastrous military intervention or to the use of weapons capable of annihilating the space ship launched by the law-breaking nation. Such a hypothesis, however, is branded by us jurists as "inadmissible". Up to now we have spoken of "sanctions", by which we mean "legal sanctions", which in the case under discussion originate in a breach of norms of public international law; we have, however, seen that such sanctions cannot be applied in practice for fear of even greater harm and also because of the lack of means to counter those employed by the law-breaking nation. What, then, would be the most appropriate method of forcing a law-breaker to give in, or at least to ensure that he cannot commit the same breach of the law again at some future time 1 We all know that in private law the dividing line between moral standards and legal standards is distinctive: the former accepts as a sanction the "severe reprimand", the expression of a vague feeling, I would not say contempt, but the moral condemnation of society of one who has been guilty of transgressing such a standard of behaviour; the latter envisages a material punishment. One can easily show how, particularly in our times and in the sphere of public international law, there is a marked tendency to drift from legal standards to moral standards and to apply the sanctions of the latter, since the application of sanctions of a legal nature appears to be impossible. On the other hand, one can argue: "How can such sanctions be put into force by a permanent commission for the control of extra-atmospheric space, always assuming that this function can be exercised by a commission of the UNO 1". Ladies and gentlemen. You are well aware of the power of public opinion today. But in order that this power, which can praise and condemn, could have an effect on an eventual offender against an international standard of behaviour, it is necessary that public opinion should be guided, encouraged and supported by an international organization, such as the above mentioned commission. This commission would be empowered, in the case of an infringement, to bring the offending nation before the United Nations and to charge this nation with having upset and threatened the peaceful co-existence of the peoples of the world. It is a moral problem, if you like, but nevertheless sanctions based on moral principles could have a deterrent effect. Reference 1. Italian Navigation Codex. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1949.

A Contribution to the Problem of Space Law Establishing a Technical and Practical Limit to Political Sovereignty in Space By

Luiz de Gonzaga Bevilacqual A considerable number of authorities are now concerned in preparing rules as a basis for limiting national sovereignty in space. The altitude limit, however, seems generally to be expressed in terms which are neither technical nor practical. Here is a tentative proposal for a precise, yet at the same time a naturallimitation of sovereignty regarding altitude: It is suggested that the criterion should be the nature of the craft involved, namely that the aUitude at which sovereignty pertains should be linked to the aUitude at which the craft remains dependent on the atmosphere. If this definition seems to be acceptable, then the ceiling of jet-propelled planes will mark the limit of national boundaries in space; rockets, therefore, will be free to operate above this ceiling in "free space". Means of propulsion of the future, by the above definition, will automatically fall into one category or the other, allowing, perhaps, for a slight modification of the present "ceiling"-deep space, however, will remain definitely free of any claims to national sovereignty.

1 Sociedade Interplanetaria Brasileira, Rue Saint Martin, 20-27, Bauru, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

1 st Space· Law Colloquium

3

Principles for a Declaration with Reference to the Legal Nature of the Moon By

Aldo Armando Coccal Introduction In contrast to past methods of procedure, law today must anticipate the technical progress, and foresee the legal implications. The consequences which follow from a fatt accompli cannot be permitted in the present stage of the development of civilization. The jurist is faced with this duty, as has been pointed out in the publications by CONSTANTIN A. STAVROPOULOS, head ofthe United Nations Legal Department, when he referred to the legal problems of space exploited by artificial satellites. The duty of the legal profession is to work out the general principles which may serve as a basis for the future regulation in the use of space and the planets. In view of the fact that the immediate objective of astronautics is to reach the Moon, we consider that it might be useful to anticipate a few concepts in order to draw up a final draft declaration regarding the legal nature of the earth's natural satellite. To this end, the proposal should be divided into three parts: 1. Prior considerations to be discarded from a legal point of view (Our intention is thus to facilitate the work of others who are either co· operating with us or who will follow in our footsteps); II. Legal possibilities and recommended principles (This section is intended to anticipate the results of our initial thoughts on this problem in seeking a workable solution); III. Draft Declaration (This will be a summary of previous work and a material contribution to the preparation of Interplanetary Law).

I. Prior Considerations to be Discarded from a Legal Point of View The eminent United States jurist ANDREW G. HALEy-the present IAF Chairman-proposed at the VlIIth International Astronautical Congress (Barcelona, 1957) that the Moon be declared a free territory or zone, independent and autonomous [1]. On the basis of this proposal we would like to offer the following observations for consideration:

1. The Moon Does Not Oonstitute either a Territory or a Zone in Space The word territory cannot justly be employed when referring to the Moon, for this term, stemming from the latin terra, has been created for application only to our own planet. By extension, this word is applied to the different surfaces 1 Lawyer, Juan Francisco Segui 4444, Buenos Aires, Argentina; Chairman of the Argentine InterpIa.netary Association, Delegate to the Legal Committee of the ICAO.

A. A. COCCA: The Legal Nature of the Moon

35

of our globe: land territory and sea territory. The expression "air territory" is used by SOllle authors, but always with reference to some part or zone of our planet, which constitute indispensable and inseparable elements in the life of mankind: earth, water, air. The Moon, on the other hand, is Earth's natural satellite. There is, therefore, a relationship of dependence or of physical subjection, but not of continuity or adjacency, responding to the laws of nature. This fact must be taken into account by jurists in order to study its legal position under the aspect of servitudes, and not under the aspect of annexation of territory in space. The expressions "lunar continent" or "lunar surface" might be employed, but not "lunar territory" or "lunar zone". These latter concepts are the result of a forced combination of words, and they are also grammatically and legally defective. The Moon does not constitute a "territory" or a "zone" in space, but a celestial body, a different world within the cosmos. 2. The Moon Oannot Be Declared Independent by the State8 of the Earth

The Moon presents a limited place which could be occupied and is a possible 8ite of State power of the Nations of the Earth-but never of the Moon itself as it has no population of its own. In the event of an effective occupation and supposed "colonization" of the Moon, the power to declare itself independent of the States of the Earth could only be derived from the "colonists" who could vote to sever all ties of political dependence from the States of the Earth. 3. The Moon Oannot Be Declared AutonomoUB

The term· autonomy has two interpretations in law: the etymological and the traditional meaning of a state governed by its own laws and not subject to any foreign power. In this conception, autonomy is the equivalent to independence, and can therefore only be applied to independent States. The other, more modern interpretation, represents the unified conception of government, with a legislation and internal organization of its own, and is applied to internal Provinces or States as related to a central State or Nation. The Moon has neither a "government", legislation nor an "internal organization" of its own. Any declaration of autonomy, as in the case of a declaration of independence, must come from the Moon's inhabitants. Or, as there are none, from inhabitants of the Earth who may later on be transported there and become permanent residents. 4. The Moon Oannot Be Declared a Sovereign State If we hold that the Moon cannot be declared independent or autonomous of the Earth, then it cannot be declared a sovereign State either. The legal definition of sovereignty (at present under discussion) has two aspects regarding its effectiveness: internal and external. However, it is generally interpreted to mean the quality of a State whose power admits no other superior to itself. The Moon has no organized power which can oppose Earth's superior strength through the sovereignty of its States. 3*

36

A. A.

COCCA:

Neither can any terrestrial nation which might be able to carry out the successful occupation of the Moon extend its own sovereignty to cover it. It will have temporary supremacy in the sense that it will reap the benefits derived from the occupation of the Moon, but will not have sovereignty in the strictest sense. 5. There Are No Rights of Ownership On or Over the Moon Ownership is an institution of Private Law which does not extend to the Moon. Eventual occupation of the Moon would by no means imply rights of ownership, but, at most, would entitle Earth-not a particular State-to preferential domination in the event of legal claims being put forward by political organizations from other planets.

II. Legal Possibilities and Recommended Principles 1. The Moon Must Be Declared Free for Utilization by the Different States of the Earth The term "free" is not used in the political sense-such as national freedom. It refers to the freedom to make use of a natural phenomenon within the universe. In this connection, we share the opinion of Professor AMBROSINI, President of the Legal Committee of the ICAO, on postulating a simple declaration on the freedom in the utilization of space and the recommendation to establish disciplinary regulations to enforce such a declaration. It is our belief that, as far as the Moon is concerned, it is necessary: 1. To declare the Moon open for utilization by the Member States of the Community of Nations of the Earth. 2. To draw up regulations for the utilization of the Moon for peaceful purposes. 2. Exploitation of the Moon's Resources The existence of natural resources on the Moon is an evident fact. It is therefore necessary to lay down regulations for their exploitation. In this connection, it would be advisable to refer to the principles governing the exploitations of those regions on Earth which are acknowledged to be free, such as the high seas, and to be guided by the established regulations for the utilization of the sea's resources. 3. Establishment of a Right of Way on the Moon for the States of the Earth Servitudes (servitutes) were already clearly defined under Roman Law. Relevant easements (rerum praediorum) were for passage, the use of roads and aqueducts. Road easement-right of way-included the right to enter, drive along and passing through (Via est ius eundi et agendi et ambulandi; nam et iter et actum in se continet via; Institutionum Justiniani, Tit. III, De servitutibus praediorum) . Applying this concept to the universe, and bearing in mind the fact that the Moon is a natural satellite of the Earth, the premise that a Right of Way on the Moon for States of the Earth in space travels should exist can be legally justified.

The Legal Nature of the Moon

37

ill. Draft Declaration

The States of the Earth... hereby agree and declare: Fir8tly: That the Moon is free for utilization by the States of the Earth, and adequate regulations for this purpose and for peaceful objectives are recommended. Secondly: That, regarding the exploitation of its natural resources, the procedure shall be the same as that governing the exploitation of the resources of the high seas. Thirdly: That, with regard to interplanetary travel, and in view of its position as a natural satellite, a Right of Way is to be established on the Moon for States of the Earth.

Reference 1. A. G. FlALEy, Space Law-The Development of Jurisdictional Concepts. Pro-

ceedings of the VIIIth International Astronautical Congress, Barcelona 1957, p. 170. Wien: Springer-Verlag, 1958.

The Problem of a Definition of "Air Space" By

John Cobb

Coope~

I. Background At the Barcelona Conference of the IAF in 1957, a proposal was made by the present distinguished President of the Conference, Mr. A. G. HALEY, that a committee be named to prepare a definition of what is meant by the term "air space", as used in connection with flight of aircraft and other instrumentalities. The conference honored me with appointment as Chairman of the proposed committee of scientists and jurists. Difficulties arose in connection with the completion of the membership as originally envisaged. This fact, as well as certain personal considerations, impelled me to submit my resignation. The problem however still exists. For that reason this memorandum has been prepared in the hope that it may be of some value in any future consideration of the basic problem.

n.

The Problem

International law, as evidenced by the Chicago Convention of 1944, many national statutes, and national practice, has long accepted the fact that each nation has complete and exclusive sovereignty in the air space above its lands and waters. Foreign aircraft are denied entry into national air space except when authorized by convention, regulation, or other permission. The subjacent State has unquestioned unilateral right to control all flight into or through its "air space". The question therefore is this: How far upward above the surface of the earth does this right extend 1 Until this question is settled, either directly by an agreed definition stating the upper boundary of national "air space", or indirectly by international agreement regulating flight of various types of instrumentalities, the full possibilities of astronautics may be politically and practically handicapped. Various solutions have been suggested and require consideration. Some are stated below.

m.

International Use of the Term "Air Space"

Article I of the Paris Convention of 1919 on the "Regulation of Aerial Navigation" stated: "The High Contracting Parties recognize that every power has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory." The background of this acceptance of a prior existing rule of international law was, briefly, as follows: 1

1 Armour Road, Princeton, New .Jersey, U.S.A.

J. C. COOPER: The Problem of a. Definition of "Air Space"

39

a) From 1911 various States asserted a unilateral right by statute, decree, and otherwise, to regulate flight and admit or deny aircraft entry above their surface territory. b) At the outbreak of World War I belligerent and neutral states closed their air boundaries. c) During the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, an Aeronautical Commission was organized for the purpose, among others, of drafting a convention on international air navigation in time of peace. d) A draft convention was submitted by Great Britain which opened with the statement that "The High Contracting Parties recognize the full and absolute sovereignty of every State over the air above its territories and territorial waters ... ". e) At an early session, the Commission, on the motion of an American delegate, Rear Admiral KN.A.l'P, adopted this principle: "Recognition: (1) of the principle of the full and absolute sovereignty of each State over the air above its territories and territorial waters carrying with, it tke right of excZusion of foreign aircraft; (2) of the right of each State to impose its jurisdiction over the air above its territory and territorial waters." f) The Legal Subcommittee, in its report to the Commission, submitting the text of the eventual Convention, referred to the accepted position of the "full and exclusive subjection of the air space to the sovereignty of the territory underlying it", adding that "it is only when the column of air rests upon a res nuUius or communis, the sea, that freedom becomes the rule of the air"; and, "It follows that in consequence of its sovereignty the underlying State within the limits of its frontiers may forbid flight over, and a fortiori, landing upon its territory." g) In the French and Italian official versions of this three language convention, the term "air space" is "espace atmosph6rique", and "spazio atmosferico", respectively. "Air", "air space", and "atmospheric space" were treated as synonymous terms. When this convention was adopted, all flight instrumentalities then used, designated "aircraft" in the text, required aerodynamic support. Article 10 of the Convention stated that "all airoraft engaged in international navigation shall bear their nationality and registration marks". The term aircraft, as used in the annex dealing with registration, and the other regulatory annexes, was defined as comprising "all machines whioh can derive support in the atmosphere from reactionS of the air". Later international oonventions, and many national statutes, inoorporated assertions of national air spaoe sovereignty, as in the Paris Convention. These Conventions have been replaoed by the present Chioago Convention of 1944. Artiole I reads as follows: "Sovereignty. The contracting States recognize that every State has oomplete and exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory." Article 17 required that "aircraft" have the nationality of the State in which they are registered, and Article 20 required every aircraft engaged in "international air navigation" to bear its appropriate nationality and registration marks. The annex dealing with registration was prepared by the International Civil Aviation Organization and accepted by the States which are parties to the Convention. This annex limits the term "aircraft" exactly as in the Paris Convention annex. When the Chicago Convention was signed on December 7, 1944, flight instrumentalities then used still required, as in 1919, aerodynamic lift, subject to

40

J. C. COOPER:

one exception. The V-2 rocket had been used for a few weeks. But this fact was not discussed at Chicago as evidence of a new use of space which might change existing customary international law exemplified in Article I of the Paris Convention and repeated in the Chicago Convention. With this background, various solutions have been suggested to reach an understanding of what is meant by "air space", and consequently, what is the upper limit of the unilateral right of a State to admit or refuse entry of foreign flight instrumentalities in peace above its lands and waters. These proposed solutions fall into two major categories: First, those which seek to define "air space" in the Chicago Convention and in national statutes asserting air space sovereignty without any formal amendment to the Convention: Second, those which propose a new international agreement, or agreements. IV. Upper Air Space Boundary in Certain Proposed Definitions A. Height up to which Aircraft (Instrumentalities Requiring Aerodynamic Lift) Oan A8cend

This definition is based on various considerations, including: (I) No international custom nor facts on which such custom could be based exist as evidence of a general practice accepted as law except the international custom under which States have long recognized the right of a subjacent State to control all flight up to such height above its lands and waters. (2) This right and no more was actually recognized in the term "complete and exclusive sovereignty" in Article I of the Paris and Chicago Conventions. (3) These Conventions dealt with no other type of aircraft (e.g., as to regulation, registration, and privileges of flight) because there were no others, and hence with no areas of space other then those parts of the atmosphere where gaseous air is sufficiently dense to support instrumentalities which can derive support "in the atmosphere from reactions of the air". This definition has, however, grave inadequacies. It is primarily subject to criticism in that it does not provide a reasonably fixed upper air space political and geographical boundary. The supposed location will vary from year to year with improvement in aircraft types. It may become completely impractical when considered in connection with aircraft of the "X-15" category which use aerodynamic lift at lower altitudes but which can be driven upward beyond the highest aerodynamic lift area. B. Height at which Aerodynamic Lift Oeases and Kepler Force Takes Over

This line has been designated by A. G. HALEY as the "lU.RMAN Primary Jurisdictional Line". Data indicates that for an object traveling at 25,000 feet per second the line is about 275,000 feet above the earth's surface. This proposal is a much improved derivative of A above. It provides a line that is capable of physical and mathematical demonstration at a reasonably stable height. It accepts the historical legal basis in the fact that States have committed themselves only as to areas in which gaseous air is sufficiently dense to provide aerodynamic lift, but challenges the contention that such lift must be the sole support available up to the line of demarcation between air space and outer space. However, this solution has been criticized on the assumption that the line will in fact vary with change in design and other factors of the particular flight instrumentality concerned.

The Problem of a. Definition of "Air Space"

41

O. Heighi at which a Satellite May Be Put in Orbit-that i8, Unpowerea Flighi at least Once Around, the Earth This solution is based on a factual hypothesis-namely that astronomical observations demonstrate that the atmosphere below 70 miles (approximately) above the earth's surface is sufficiently dense to prevent the entry of most meteors. Anywhere above that line it is argued that a satellite may therefore be put in orbit. If subsequent calculations based on the observations made during the International Geophysical Year demonstrate that the minimum height of possible satellite orbital flight is in fact at a reasonably exact distance from the earth's surface, an excellent basis for an upper air space boundary will be available. Physically it will be quite constant. Legally it will be subject to support on the basis that the "column of air" appreciably affecting flight ends there, leaving the legal status of true "outer space" for future international understanding. D. Heighi at which no Atmosphere i8 Present This solution emphasizes the historically synonymous character of the terms "atmospheric space" and "air space". Its proponents argue that international law has accepted sovereignty in the "atmosphere" above any State without reference to the type of flight instrumentalities in use when such customary law came into existence. A recent "Glossary of Aero-Space Terms" made available in the United States thus describes "atmosphere": "The body of air which surrounds the earth, defined at its outer limits by the actual presence of air particles but in such few numbers that collisions between them are so rare as to make the force of gravity the only means of keeping them associated with air particles at lower altitude." The same glossary states that the atmosphere, as thus defined "is usually considered to consist of different stratums or spheres, the last extending to 1000 miles or more above the earth". If this solution is accepted, the upper "air space" boundary will be above much satellite and most guided missile flight, and will be a most uncertain line. E. Heighi without Limit This solution is based on the assumption that international law accepted the contention that the safety of any State required it to have the right to control all flight above it-that the term "air space" in the Paris and Chicago Conventions should be construed to mean "usable space". This theory of sovereignty is of long standing. It was ably argued in 1910 by LYOKLAMA A NIJEHOLT, who said [1], "We therefore conclude that State sovereignty reaches quite as high as the State's interest can reach, the possibility of which but ends at the uttermost limit of the atmosphere. ... In principle the air space belongs to the sovereign State territory, so the State has full sovereignty to an unlimited height, which sovereignty can only be abolished or restricted by treaty." It is difficult to see how this solution could be applied. The rotation of the earth and other astronomical factors cannot be overlooked. For example, about six hours will elapse before a rocket can reach the outer limit of the earth's gravitational force. By that time the point of launching will have rotated onequarter of the earth's circumference and the rocket will probably be above some other State or the high seas.

42

J.

C. COOPER:

This solution and solution D would be equally difficult to implement politically as a practical criterion for high altitude flight control.

F. Height to which a State May Exercise Effective Oontrol This solution would not provide a fixed boundary between "air space" and "outer space". It would limit the territorial "air space" of each State to the area which that State could control at any given time. It was proposed (perhaps for the first time with any formality) by KELSEN in 1944, discussing Article I of the Paris Convention. He said [2]: "The Territory of the State a Space of Three Dimensions. The territory of a State is usually considered as a definite portion of the earth's surface. This idea is incorrect. The territory of the State, as the territorial sphere of validity of the national legal order, is not a plane, but a space of three dimensions. The validity as well as the efficacy of the national legal order extends not only in width and length but also in depth and height ... Many writers assume that the entire space above and below the State territory (as part of the surface of the earth) belongs to the territorial State without regard to the extent of its effective control. This view, however, is not compatible with the general principle of effectiveness. As far as the air space is concerned, Article I of the International Air Convention concluded in 1919 declares that every State has "complete and exclusive sovereignty" in the air space above its territory and territorial waters ... It stands to reason that a State can enforce the provisions of this convention or of its own national legal order against the aircraft of another State only within that part of the air space over which it has effective control. The validity of any legal order cannot extend beyond this sphere. On the other hand, there is no rule of general international law constituting a free air space or a free subsoil analogous to the principle of "freedom of the open sea". From the lack of such a norm does not necessarily follow the consequence that the entire space above and below the surface belongs to the territory of the State concerned. It is quite possible that the air space as well as the subsoil which is beyond the effective control of the territorial State has the character of no State's land. It seems, however, that, according to general international law, the other States have no right to occupy this space even if they have the technical ability to do so. The only way to characterize these parts of the space in conformity with the principle of effectiveness is to assume an exclusive right of the territorial State to occupy, that is to say, to extend according to the progress of its technical means, the efficacy of its legal order to those parts of the air space and subsoil which before were beyond its effective controL" The legal doctrine of effectiveness is an important one, but it is certainly not universally accepted as a basic territorial concept. The sovereign State of Nepal, for example, includes within its internationally admitted boundaries many of the highest peaks of the Himalayas. In little of these areas could Nepal exercise "effective control". But the territorial rights of Nepal are not thereby challenged. Certainly the proposal to use the doctrine of effectiveness in fixing air space boundaries separately over each State must be carefully analyzed. It would be difficult, if not impossible, in the future control of international flight to know the effective control area of every State. It may be impractical if not impossible factually to fix such areas. The proposal would create rights in space which would extend far upward for the strong State, but would be almost non-existent for the weak. It would probably be in violation of the basic principle of "equality of opportunity" between States which is implicit in the preamble to the Chicago Convention.

The Problem of a Definition of "Air Space"

43

It would not provide the desired practical single boundary between "air space" and "outer space".

v.

Proposals for New International Agreements A. Agreements Fixing Upper Air Space Boundary Jurists are not in entire accord as to whether it is possible legally, or practical politically, to enter into new agreements to fix the upper air space boundary. Some believe that a solution such as IV A, B, or C above should be reached as to the present extent upward of territorial air space, and that when this is done, astronomical and other factors prevent any agreement extending sovereignty further upward into space. Others feel that nothing in the Chicago Convention nor in general customary international law, or in the physical status of space, prevents an agreement fixing an upper limit of sovereignty for the protection of the State below at heights above those suggested in IV A, B, or C. Proposals have been made for possible agreement to include in the air space of each State areas up to a limit which would include all flight except completely free satellite flight where drag is practically non-existent, or even higher so as to include areas of guided missile flight, thus preventing belligerent guided missile flight over neutral States without violating the neutrality of the latter. If any such new agreement is to be made, all possible physical data must be considered dealing with flight problems in areas both within and beyond the atmosphere. No new agreement should be made until all needed data as to the areas concerned is available. B. Agreements lor Control 01 High Altitude Flight without Fixing Boundary between Air Space and Outer Space Many jurists are convinced that it is impossible, or at least impractical to agree on any definition of air space, or to fix an outer boundary by new international agreement. They feel that it is much more practical to leave the legal situation as it stands in so far as the technical legal status of different areas of space is concerned, and to direct efforts toward international understanding as to the conduct of high altitude flight generally, or as to particular flight or categories of flight instrumentalities. For example, it has been suggested that as an early step, each State about to launch a satellite could register its intent to do so with an international agency and furnish technical data. Agreement might be reached to refrain from using certain instrumentalities, or use them only under international inspection. If a gradual approach toward international control is thus developed, it is argued that no need exists to fix a definite upper boundary of State sovereignty. These views have been ably argued. They impel the jurist as well as the statesman to proceed with caution. A mistake made now in fixing an upper air space boundary might lead to grave future difficulties.

VI. Conclusion It is my view that it would be well for the International Astronautical Federation to approach slowly the problems here presented. Any recommendations now made might be premature. First it must be decided whether to pursue the objective of an air space upper boundary, or whether to consider the proposals for new international agreements dealing with flight control irrespective of the sovereign status of different space areas. When this decision is made, details

44

J. C. COOPER: The Problem of a Definition of "Air Space"

must be examined. Obviously all the data as to the atmosphere and high altitude flight now being collected must be studied. A legal decision without the best scientific background might be worse than useless. References

A NIJEHOLT, Air Sovereignty, p. 46. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1910. 2. H. KELSEN, General Theory of Law and State. Translated by A. WEDBERG. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949. 1. J. F. LYCKLAMA

An American View of Jurisdiction in Outer Space By

George J. Feldmanl In addressing an international audience such as this, it is probably best to begin with the situation in my own country, including proposals and prospects for change. The United States has recently enacted what I believe to be the world's first statute dealing with astronautics. The National Aeronautics and Space Act [1], signed by President EISENHOWER on July 29,1958, creates a new agency of government to be known as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In addition to planning and conducting both aeronautical and space activities, the new agency is directed to arrange for scientific observations and measurements, like those of the International Geophysical Year, and to promote the spread of scientific knowledge relating to outer space. Top policy and overall coordination will be provided by the President himself, with the advice of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, over which he will preside, and which will consist of high-level government officials and distinguished private citizens. The new agency is authorized to engage in a program of international cooperation, in the interest of scientific progress and world peace. The Act declares it to be the policy of the United States that activities in outer space shall be devoted to "peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind". Although the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is not given regulatory powers, the appropriate committees of Congress contemplated that it would conduct legal and related research with a view to domestic legislation and regulation as well as international agreements governing the use of outer space. Witnesses before the House Committee agreed that the legal regime of outer space would be the "primary" problem confronting the new space agency [2]. At any rate, it seems clear that space law must be developed in order to prevent anarchy in the use of outer space. The problem is grave and urgent because of the military potentialities of missiles, satellites, and space vehicles. Even outside the Government, space law is being widely discussed in the United States. For example, the American Bar Association has established a special committee on the subject, and has devoted to it a considerable part of the program at the annual Association meeting at Los Angeles. What is the nature of the legal problem which the new space agency will meet in considering the international control of outer space 1 Flight through outer space is not expressly governed by international law. The only generally accepted international flight agreement is the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944), to which the United States, though not the Soviet Union, is a party. The Chicago Convention provides that "the territory of a state shall be deemed to be the land areas and territorial 1 Director and Chief Counsel, Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Explora.tion, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

46

G.J.FELDM.AN:

waters adjacent thereto" and that "every state has complete and exclusive jurisdiction over the air space above its territory". Similar language is used in the domestic legislation of many countries, including the United States and the Soviet Union [3]. But the term "air space" is not defined in the Chicago Convention, nor is any equivalent term such as "air" or "atmosphere". Although not defined in the Convention itself, the related term "aircraft" is defined in later annexes in language adopted from the Paris Convention of 1919 as "any machine which can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air". Most writers on the law of outer space have taken the position that the definition of "aircraft" contained in the Chicago Convention does not apply to satellites or other space vehicles [4]. This view is usually based either on a literal interpretation or on the argument that the Chicago Convention was not intended to regulate anything but conventional aviation. Whatever the intention of the draftsmen or signers of the Chicago Convention may have been, it seems unwise to fit its definition of "aircraft" mechanically (even if literally applicable) to new and then unforeseen devices and situations. There are two reasonable analogies for space law: air law and the law of the sea. It will be worth-while to examine these parallels a little more closely. Furthermore, the discrepancies between rights of passage at sea and in the air suggest conclusions for the law of outer space. In the Fifteenth Century, when international law was taking shape, freedom of the seas was by no means an universally accepted principle. Many claims of sovereignty were made to regions of the sea as well as to the newly discovered lands. Gradually, the principal maritime nations accepted the view that some exercise of dominion was necessary to sovereignty over "terra nullius". In Mare liberum, GROTIUS made the converse argument that the seas must be free because they are not susceptible of dominion. In the early TweL tieth Century, opponents of absolute air sovereignty borrowed this Mare liberum argument. Their position has been questioned [5] on several grounds. 1. GROTIUS himself later, in Jure belli ac paci8, abandoned this argument on the ground that dominion can in fact be obtained over regions of the seae.g., by fleets or coastal guns. 2. Certainly dominion can be exercised over portions of air space, even though the air cannot be "occupied". 3. If sovereignty is nothing more than power, then might makes right and international law is a mere delusion. 4. The decisive consideration should be the common social and commercial interests of the international community. Though some may call this view "utopian", it commends itself to common sense and is confirmed by the historical development of maritime law. In the end, the high-seas analogy was not applied to air space. Article 1 of the Paris Convention of 1919 recognized the "complete and exclusive sovereignty" of every state in the air space above its territory. The chief reason for applying different rules of passage to ships and aircraft appears to be the factor of national security and defense. Because of their greater speed and mobility, aircraft present a greater military threat to national territory. This consideration applies to space vehicles a fortiori. A secondary reason historically may have been economic protection-a policy of excluding the competition of foreign airlines. In the near future, at

An American View of Jurisdiction in Outer Space

47

any rate, this consideration is not likely to apply with much force to space vehicles. No doubt these reasons for not applying the law of the sea to aircraft were sufficient. Even in their absence, however, certain difficulties would remain. The law of the sea is not a simple matter of freedom of the high seas together with a right of innocent passage through territorial waters. It recognizes a diversity of zones and regions for different conditions and purposes. Freedom of the seas is a qualified freedom. The right of innocent passage does not, for example, include freedom from reasonable rules of navigation. Furthermore, although the United States is committed to a three-mile limit for its territorial seas, it has long claimed jurisdiction for customs purposes in a contiguous zone extending up to twelve miles from the coast [6]. The basis of jurisdiction in the contiguous zone is the right of a state to regulate and control conduct occurring entirely outside its territory which may have direct effects within its territory [7]. Such jurisdiction is not territorial or spatial but cau8al. On similar reasoning, defense identification zones in contiguous air space or waters beyond the limits of the territorial sea are justified by the right of self-defense. The principle involved in customs zones and defense identification zones could well be invoked to support a claim of jurisdiction in contiguous outer space. In this connection, it should be said that none of the various proposals for purely 8patial solutions to the problem of jurisdiction and sovereignty in outer space seems to be appropriate. For example, some writers have postulated a cone of sovereignty extending into outer space from the center of the earth through the land boundaries of each state and the limits of its territorial sea [8]. It is evident, however, that with the movement of the earth and other astronomical bodies such cones of sovereignty would overlap and their content in outer space would constantly change. Other writers have proposed to divide air space and outer space into static zones based on physical properties such as aerodynamic lift or drag [9]. Although such static divisions would at least be logical, they do not appear to be pertinent to the problem. Another difficulty in extending the law of the sea to air space and outer space is that the terms of the analogy are not always specified. If the air space is regarded as the counterpart of territorial waters, standing in the same relation to outer space as territorial waters do to the high seas, the legal implication is that the sovereignty of a state would not be violated even by the passage through outer space above its territory of a strictly military satellite or space vehicle. A Soviet writer has in fact likened the legal status of a satellite in outer space to a vessel on the high seas [10]. In general, however, the analogy is probably intended to be more modest, implying that outer space, while not free like the high seas, is subject to a right of innocent passage. Like for the proposals for the division of outer space and air space into static zones with different legal regimes, the crude spatial analogy with the high seas and territorial waters seems inappropriate and largely irrelevant to the problem. It is reasonable to conclude that security considerations alone are likely to preserve the principle of national sovereignty in air space, and to prevent the use of outer space above national lands and waters by foreign vehicles except for peaceful purposes. The acquiescence of nations to the passage of scientific satellites through outer space above their territories implies that consent to such Bights is either unnecessary or has been given. It is true that other interpretations are possible. At least one deserves to be mentioned as a matter of interest. A Soviet writer has explained that the passage of satellites above national territory is not caused

48

G.J.FELDMA.N:

by the movement of the satellites but is due to the rotation of the earth [10]. It seems fair to compare this statement with the defense of a hunter, arrested for shooting ducks out of season, that he had not shot at the ducks at all, but the ducks had flown into his bullets. To repeat, therefore, there are only two likely explanations for the failure of nations to object to the passage of satel1ites through outer space above their territory: consent to such flights is either unnecessary or has been given. It is tempting to accept the first explanation [Il]-which would appear to mean, for example, that President EISENHOWER'S open-skies proposal is an accomplished fact. However, any such assumption would be premature and unjustified. Probably no nation would agree that it has waived its right to object to the passage of every kind of satellite above its national territory at any future time. Even though the law of outer space has not yet taken definite shape, there is wide agreement that freedom of space flight is subject to some restrictions in favor of the states below. The present satellite flights appear to be sanctioned by an implied international agreement based on the acquiescence of other governments in the announcements by the USA and the USSR that satellites would be launched in connection with the International Geophysical Year. This agreement is evidently limited to the types of satellites contemplated in those governmental announcements (i.e., scientific and peaceful satellites) and (as to launching) to the duration of the International Geophysical Year. Is it at present desirable, or for that matter possible, to broaden this temporary and limited agreement into a code of law for outer space 1 Such a development seems desirable, not only for reasons of national security but in order to establish reasonable uniformity of navigational aids, radio codes, routes, landing procedures and similar matters. On the other hand, it has been argued convincingly that not enough facts are yet known about outer space to justify the formulation of a body of governing law [12]. Even if we accept this argument as to comprehensive international agreements, however, it does not follow that limited agreements on the uses of outer space either cannot be reached or would not be observed. In fact it is likely, for reasons of urgency, that explicit agreements will playa larger part in the historical development of space law than they have played in that of maritime or air law. At the same time, care should be taken not to enter in to international agreements (a) without adequate preparation or (b) which are more comprehensive or explicit than our present knowledge warrants. What kinds of limited agreement might be reached in the near future is a matter for astronauts and diplomats as well as lawyers. Certainly I cannot speak for my Government, and my views on this subject are purely personal. Certain possibilities are nevertheless obvious on even brief reflection [13]. The most promising possibility is simply to continue the International Geophysical Year. Newspaper accounts indicate that this has been formally proposed and will probably be done. Next, it should be possible, to a greater extent than in the past, to exchange tracking data and navigation and signal codes. Agreements could be made on the use of radio frequencies. Some international projects, such as relay or postal satellites or missiles, could be undertaken bilaterally or multilaterally or by an existing or newly created international organization. The next step might be an agreement for advance notice and coordination of launching schedules. Such notice might include information on flight plans,

49

An American View of Jurisdiction in Outer Space

contents and proposed activities of the satellite or space vehicle and ultimately involve consent to international inspection prior to launching. In addition to making such operating agreements as have just been described the nations of the world could greatly contribute to the rule of law in outer space by announcing their adherence, as my Government has done [14], to the twin principles of freedom of outer space for non-exclusive peaceful purposes and the prohibition of military uses including particularly atomic and nuclear warheads. It is true that the rigid enforcement of such principles would be very difficult. However, reasonably effective control could be exercised by a system of international pre-launching inspection, together with world-wide surveillance by orbiting space stations and the willingness and ability of two or more nations to destroy on sight any satellite, missile or space vehicle that had not met the requirements of notice and inspection prior to launching. To say that such operating agreements and principles as have just been described would be both possible and desirable is not to imply that they would be sufficient. In time, however, they might develop into a code of international space law or perhaps an explicit comprehensive agreement by accretion from particular agreements and practices. Under present world conditions, furthermore, they would constitute at least a good beginning toward the rule of law in outer space. References 1. Public Law 568, 85th Congress (1958). 2. Hearings before the House Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, 85th Congress (1958), 2nd Session, p. 1286 (also pp. 1269, 1288). 3. Air Commerce Act of 1926, sec. 6 (44 Stat. 568, 572; 49 U.S. Code sec. 176). Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, sec. 1 (31) [52 Stat. 973, 980; 49 U.S. Code sec. 401 (33)]. Air Code of the U.S.S.R., Collection of Laws U.S.S.R. 1935, No. 43, p.359b. 4. E. g., J. C. COOPER, Legal Problems of Upper Space. J. Air Law and Comm. 23, 308 (1958); C. W. JENKS, International Law and Activities in Space. Internat. Compo Law Quart. 5, 99 (1956); E. PEPIN, The Legal Status of the Air Space in the Light of Progress in Aviation and Astronautics. McGill Law J. 3, 70 (1956); C. H. WARD, Projecting the Law of the Sea into the Law of Space. Judge Advocate General J. 1957, March, p. 3. 5. E. g., D. GOEDHIDS, Sovereignty and Freedom in the Air Space, in: Problems of Public and Private International Law. The Grotius Society, 1956. 6. 1 Stat. 700; Anti-Smuggling Act (49 Stat. 517; 19 U.S. Code sec. 1701). 7. Cf. Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496 (1906). 8. BALL, Shaping the Law of Weather Control. Yale Law J. 58, 213, 236 (1949); JENKS, loco cit. [4], p. 103. 9. E. g., J. C. COOPER, Missiles and Satellites: The Law and Our National Policy. A.B.A. J. 44, 317 (1958); MURPHY, Air Sovereignty Considerations in Terms of Outer Space. Ala. Lawyer 19, 11 (1958). 10. G. ZADOROZHNYI, The Artificial Satellite and International Law. Sovietskaya Rossiya, Oct. 17, 1957, p. 3. 11. E. g., M. DANIER and SAPORTA, Le droit aerien et les satellites artificiels. Rev. Gen. Air 3, 297 (1955); O. SCHACHTER, The Law of Outer Space. Address to the International Law Society, April 11, 1958. 12. Testimony of L. BECKER, Legal Adviser of the Department of State, Hearings before the House Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, 85th Congress (1958), 2nd Session, p. 1273. 13. E. g., M. McDOUGAL and L. LIPSON, Perspectives for a Law of Outer Space. Amer. J. Internat. Law 52, 407 (1958).

r st

Space-Law Colloquium

4

50

G. J.

FELDMAN:

An American View of Jurisdiction in Outer Space

14. House Concurrent Resolution 332, 85th Congress (1958), National Aeronautics and Space Act, sec. 102 (a). President EISENHOWER'S expression of willingness, in his 1957 State of the Union Message, to enter "any reliable agreement" for the international control and peaceful exploration of space. President EISENHOWER'S proposal to Chairman BULGANIN for a ban on the production of missiles with atomic or nuclear warheads (Jan. 12, 1958). Secretary DULLES' proposal for the use of outer space for peaceful purposes only (Jan. 16, 1958). Ambassador LODGE'S proposal in the United Nations for international inspection of "satellites, intercontinental missiles, long-range unmanned weapons and space platforms" (Aug. 29, 1957).

A Definitive Study of the Concept and Scientific Strategy of Outer Space. The Challenge to all Nations to Support a Just System of Space Law By

James G. Fulton1 The ocean of space has first opened in the year 1957, and the people of our generation in the whole world now look out from our safe harbours and the vast reaches of the earth, the sea and the atmosphere, to the tremendous challenge of the limitless ocean of outer space. Our preconditioned reflexes and our minds educated for earth problems are confronted with the necessity of developing a legal and scientific philosophy to approach and open up the fields of knowledge in this incredible ocean that engulfs all of us. SCHOPENHAUER has stated the historical philosopher's approach to the world as follows: "The world is my idea-this is a truth that holds good for everything that lives and knows, no man alone can bring it into consciousness, ... " As in SCHOPENHAUER'S days the science of the earth was unknown, in our days the law and science of outer space have not been born. SCHOPENHAUER pointed out thatKnowledge as a rule then remained always subordinate to the service of the human will, as he felt knowledge indeed originated for this service. Our world legal systems are based on control and sovereignty. We world people must face knowledge and space that can never be subordinate to the human will, and we can't foretell of what service, if any, the knowledge might turn out to be. There are no philosophical anchors, signboards for scientists, legal traffic signs, or sidewalks for amateurs in outer space. At present space is a lawless country. SCHOPENHAUER so clearly saw that"The transition ... from the common knowledge of particular things to the knowledge of the idea, takes place suddenly ... " This took place for "Space" with dramatic effect on October 4, 1957, when the first orbiting sputnik roused the entire world. Every person knew the idea of a successful orbit changed his world and scared him for the security of his future. Each person found he was suddenly part of space, as BYRON said"Are not the mountains, waves, and skies a part of me and of my soul, as I of them." Thus, BYRON like PLATO draws nature into himself so that he sees it as an accident of his own human being. But we now know space is more than any of our forebears thought, philosophers or not. Space and the heavenly bodies do 1 Member of Congress for Pennsylvania, Member House Foreign Affairs Committee, Member Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., U.S.A.

4*

52

J. G.

FULTON:

not "belong" to the human race, or any group of men or the nations, in the legal sense or any other sense. We must know we should not ignore or move slowly into the new ocean of space. The flat approach to the earth's surface contained in Euclidian geometry and the limits of air flight are forever gone. Consequently our concepts must expand to outer space. Our legal systems must expand to the same degree to include this tremendous new range. r propose the concept of research and development and exploration in real and vast depth, which makes the currently accepted strategy of nuclear and atomic weapons, and the ordinary hot or cold war in the usual sense, a diversion for stalemates in weapons and economic systems. The use of space outflanks these historic concepts. We must leave our ideas and legal concepts of earth with the eagerness of scientific research. The skies and even the outer atmosphere have largely, even during this generation, been matters of pure contemplation and study by astronomers and mathematicians. The mariners of the world have been the first group to put the skies and the celestial bodies to practical use for current practical world purposes, as distinguished from the religious or philosophical approaches. Of the heavenly bodies, particularly the moon has through all ages caused the seafarer to be aware of the deep movements of the oceans known as tides. When the heavenly bodies disappeared from the ancient mariners' view of the sky, there were winds and storms that challenged his frail crafts and threatened his very existence, and destroyed temporarily the markers for his course and distance. Thus the ships of the world have been more than conscious of the elements we call space, the planets and constellations, and have actually put the knowledge of space to practical use for centuries for navigation purposes. This navigation experience is the primer book for effective use of space. The legal usages of oceans and seas of the world are the primer books for the coming law of outer space. The United States has been first in putting the characteristics of the 'fTWon as an orbiting satellite to a program of practical use, for communications purposes from point to point on the earth's surface. This fact was brought to public attention by this speaker on April 18, 1958, in questioning Admiral HAYWARD. Before the House of Representatives Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, Admiral HAYWARD, Chief of United States Navy Research and Development, on April 18, 1958, testified in answer to questions of the writer as follows: Mr. FULTON: The questions are these: -On current research developments, do we in the United States have it within our power soon to monitor the whole world, through electronic processes of ion emission ? Admiral HAYWARD: The answer is "Yes." Mr. FULTON: The second question is this: -Don't we in the United States have the capability through electronic means soon to use the moon as a means of communication so that we don't have to wait for production of satellites in orbit or a moon shot or a landing on the moon? Admiral HAYWARD: The answer is "Yes."

The planets have thus become of practical use on a continuing basis and the law of space communications is now a practical necessity. This effectivity is a far cry and a far point away in time from the afternoon in 168 B.C., when Aemilius Paullus for Rome obtained a decisive strategic advantage from the eclipse of the moon. Perseus and his Macedonian armies lost the decisive battle of Pydna near Mt. Olympus because of the ignorance of the coming eclipse for

A Definitive Study of the Concept and Scientific Strategy of Outer Space

53

which the Romans were prepared, and because they had spent the night in trying to scare away the evil spirit that was destroying the moon, which they looked upon as a foreboding of the fall of the Macedonian Kingdom. This victory gave Rome supremacy in the Third Macedonian War. The Romans profited from their advantage in knowledge of the science of astronomy and the eclipse of the moon which threw the Macedonian armies into disorganization and superstitious terror. But should this strategic advantage in space be the limited purpose in the world today 1 Of course not! The law of space must advance equally with or prior to the strategy of space. Otherwise we world people face collision and fear. We are not finishing an era, we are just starting one in which there is no end point in time, or space, nor limitation of strategy to traditional and presently practical means and methods. COLUMBUS had the same problem and fears. In 1492, the world came face to face with the problem of developing a policy and method that the nations and the peoples of the world would follow in meeting the challenge of the outer reaches of the oceans and new continents of the world. Just so, our generation faces the same magnified challenge in the wider reaches of our solar system. Reaching beyond our solar system, our generation cannot imagine the magnified challenges that arise for future generations, beyond the points where our human minds can now explore with our present limited knowledge and experience, our limited methods of perception and travel, and false notions. These limitations combined with the false notions of outer space with which we humans are all presently endowed, raise the same problem of sea serpents and the frightening unknown that faced COLUMBUS and his adventurous crews. Yes, even flying saucers and space creatures of two or four or more dimensions. GROTIUS, the eminent Dutch writer on International Law, in his treatise "De mare libero" outlined the basic policy and concept of the freedom of the earthly seas for all nations and all people. At the present time the United States is dedicated to this basic policy, and we believe it is in our national interest. Our United States official policy now rests upon the right of self determination of people of the various nations, and their right of equal access and use of the oceans and the seas which constitute international waters. I recommend this concept and strategy for outer space. Should the world adopt the historic "Dominion of the Seas" policy of Great Britain in approaching the matter of commerce and exploration on the seas and oceans of space as a valid precedent 1 The policy was a costly one but successful for the British, but only in a limited sense for any other nations. The theory of this strategy was that Britain must obtain by military power and fast ship design the dominion of all the known seas. This meant either the actual control, or the power to control the oceans, the seas and sea lanes to serve her national interests, and the equivalent power of denying these rights to any other competing nation or people when necessary. This, of course, led to intense rivalry among the nations of Europe. The adoption of this strategic policy by many other nations in the 16th and 17th centuries led to a race of discovery and development which quickly turned into a power struggle that caused elimination over a period of years of many nations as first rate world or naval powers. The expanding power of Spain as a maritime nation with its navy and merchant fleets was for long the most powerful rival of Britain in the carrying out of this naval strategy. This rivalry and race between Britain and Spain came to a peak at the time of the Spanish Armada in 1588, when the power of Spain as a challenging naval power against the shores of Britain was decisively crushed. The same

54

J. G.

FULTON:

Dominion of the Seas strategy and the use of the British fleets were powerful factors in the struggles to control the peoples and wealth of the then outer reaches of the known world, the North American continent, India, China and Africa, in the 18th century. In view of the present conditions where the Free World and the Communist world are now in the race to prevent the domination of our world picture by the other philosophy, the question of policy and law in meeting the challenge of outer space must be met at once. Shall we peoples of the world declare outer space, the sky, and the planets, the common property of every citizen of this world or any other world ~ Shall our world policy be based upon free and full access to all nations and peoples to proceed with the development for peaceful use of outer space with the attendant burdens of protection and patrol that strategic policy necessarily implies ~ Or shall we adopt the theory of domination or the dominion of outer space which would require our using military forces and military instruments to obtain domination of the strategic part of outer space ~ If so, where is the strategic part of space ~ In the further reaches of outer space, we could only try for the power to control where there cannot at present be actual control. I oppose this "dominion" theory of strategy and expansion of world legal and trade systems with its fatal corollaries and tragic world history. This policy and strategy would necessarily involve the use of outer space as a military field of combat. It would require at once the use of means and methods best calculated to deny the use of outer space to anyone, whether nation, people or individual, that might effectively now or in the future challenge the power to control. This would place space under martial law with all its severity and harsh rules. The tragic part of the present status of world strategy is that the United States is now right at this point in the space race with the USSR, to be firstest, furtherest, with the mostest. Both countries want to keep ahead while the race is on. We must take prompt political action to solve this dilemma through the United Nations, or its member agencies. Will this action be deadlocked? Shall space be a legal battleground or a "no law" frontier ~ The United States could proceed to break any UN deadlock by asking direct action through an international conference, as was done at the first Hague Peace Conference in 1899. We should recall that the United States accepted the invitation of no other than Russia to the second Hague Peace Conference in 1907. Did 1914-1919 history prove this political strategy wrong ~ What is the Soviet position on the strategy and legal system of outer space ~ I hope it is not the dominion theory. But no one knows whether the Soviet people have the capability or the intention to attempt this broad extension of strategy. Unfortunately, it becomes strategically necessary for the United States to take a policy position as if this were the case until the Soviet strategic policy on space becomes clear by words and deeds. It can only be the hope of men of good will everywhere that an approach to the problems of use of outer space can be found which is fair to all people and removes military threats as the basis for advance. Can law advance into outer space by the use of reason rather than military power ~ In applying basic strategy to outer space, it means that the United States must primarily proceed on the broad basis of the development, not conquest, of outer space by peaceful means for peaceful purposes, that is research and development, as well as exploration. At the same time, the people of the United States should not forget that it is necessary for our national security that we meet the challenge of the present required military and scientific race into outer

A Definitive Study of the Concept and Scientific Strategy of Outer Space

55

space, of possible domination to the exclusion of all others who might challenge their absolute power and possession. Under the leadership of the President, Dr. KlLLIAN, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been appointed to serve as Special Scientific Advisor on these space problems. This research and development must be a broad based program on wide foundations, and should not be limited as in the past, so closely to projects that have a direct military use or potential as a weapon system. This U.S. budgetary justification and severe limitation must be removed to insure progress on a broad front. Many of the scientific discoveries that have been made by the scientific and development teams of the United States Navy and the other United States Armed Services have become a power in practical civilian terms within a surprisingly short time of their discovery as pure scientific truths. The example of the proposed use of the scatter principle based upon the Navy developed theory of the use of electronic process emission for communications purposes, is certainly a constructive case in point to the credit of the United States Navy, and our scientific breakthroughs on our current United States programs. I believe that the United States Congress is correct in setting up a civilian National Space Agency which will have primary jurisdiction of the problems of aeronautics, astronautics, and outer space, and research and development, as well as exploration in that fruitful field, to implement the programs and developments in the fields not primarily military. With proper coordination, and liaison with all countries, and peoples, this policy will strongly advance U.S. civilian programs. I believe likewise, that the U.S. Congress is proceeding upon the correct course in setting up permanent non-military legislative Committees of the House and the Senate, composed of members with scientific, engineering and legal backgrounds, with long legislative experience, to take primary responsibility for these developments in the legislative field. These Committees must insure continuous and long range planning and effective programs, and must especially insure the research and development teams of scientific personnel are not broken up or disbanded so that this priceless asset of our world scientific community is not lost. I disagree thoroughly with those people in our Country who recommend that all competition be terminated between branches of the United States Science upon space, aeronautics, and missile research and development, as well as exploration. I believe that a healthy competition and rivalry among the various programs of the United States agencies is an excellent spur to achievement. I do believe that it is the duty of the United States policy planners, as well as the Branches of the United States Government, to keep this competition within healthy and reasonable bounds so that it does not become fragmented and destructive or too secretive. This policy can be obtained by cooperation and constructive liaison work, with the countries of the world as well as the establishment of a workable system of exchange of plans, programs, projects for research, development and exploration in both the military and civilian fields, and should not be too difficult to achieve. We in the world should immediately embark upon international steps to inaugurate the law of space. The United States is already operating in outer space within the so-called atmosphere, so there is no problem of entry. The United States is already there. I believe that the progress made by the United States in the operational field of the Vanguard and Explorer as of today, as well as the current brilliant advances in United States nuclear powered marine engines under Admiral HYMAN RWKOVER, have had a tremendous effect on maintaining the comparatively

56

J. G.

FULTON:

peaceful (more shouting than shooting) conditions now existing among the major powers. Why can not agreed rules be established among nations as we take our successive initial small steps into space 1 Could we make the law on each space step as we go 1 We might find this kind of progress in agreement on the law of space easy to achieve, and to build mutual confidence and respect. We in America and the world must quickly realize that no atmosphere operational system of weapons can compete with space vehicles operated at limitless speeds with constant acceleration, slight fuel weight and expenditure, small vehicle mass with almost no structural weight and practically no friction factor. For example, on One firing, the current U.S. Vanguard orbiting vehicle will travel over 30 billion miles with one small non nuclear initial push in staying in orbit as forecast 200 years at a speed of 5 miles per second. And this extraordinary event is within the earth's identifiable atmosphere and gravitational pull at far less than exit speed. What could be the strategic and legal impact on the world of the perfection of an unknown armed vehicle operating beyond present human or instrumental perception at speeds of 100,000 miles per minute or above with preplanned and programmed reentry characteristics? There might be the strategic and legal necessity of a deep band encircling the earth's atmosphere within which every unidentified vehicle or object (including meteors) would have to be destroyed upon entry. Is this a practical and foreseeable strategic and legal necessity? Are we facing not only a "no law" frontier in space, but a "no man," "no vehicle," area, with a mutually enforced "no matter" policy and law for nearer space regions in our planetary system? Must we nations compete first to develop this strategic capability, and then accept the strategic necessity, and enforce it by force, not by law 1 In the vast ocean beyond the earth's atmosphere, neither keels nor hulls, wings nor engines, guns nor tanks, at present suffice. And wonderful and happy to relate, explosions of atomic and nuclear bombs as we know them at present are ineffective and useless. So are our world legal systems ineffective and useless in space. Quo vadis 1 The strategic control of outer space or the power to prevent conquest for control of outer space, where there is no atmosphere and no shock wave, is the answer to the strategic stalemate in the atomic and nuclear weapons field within the earth's atmosphere. I therefore propose a strategic agreement on outer space which will render ineffective the present atomic and nuclear weapons systems of both sides, rather than a continued buildup of such bludgeons that neither side can use, nor effect a decisive advantage. Law would then operate in space when the stalemate is broken. We must therefore set our world scientific and legal course straight for space and courageously order "Full speed ahead, damn the meteors and radiation." Smooth sailing and safe landing to our coming ships in space.

History of Outer Space Legislation in the United States Congress I have hereinbefore stated that I believe that the United States Congress is pro· ceeding upon the correct course in its legislative program relating to Outer Space. Much criticism was heaped upon the legislative and executive branches of government when the USSR sucessfully launched its first Sputnik. It was suggested that possibly we were lax in our efforts to affect legislation relative to fostering a progressive program in outer space. Let us search the legislative record of our Congress in this respect.

A Definitive Study of the Concept and Scientific Strategy of Outer Space

57

On August 2, 1955, during the 1st session of the 84th Congress, Mr. FRANK M. KARSTEN, a member of the House of Representatives, introduced a bill, House Resolution 7843, to establish a Joint Committee on Extraterrestrial Exploration to be composed of nine Members of the Senate, and nine Members of the House of Representatives. The proposed purpose of this Joint Committee was to make continuing studies of activities and problems relating to the development of extraterrestrial exploration and travel. Action was not taken on this bill. On August 29, 1957, during the 1st session of the 85th Congress, I introduced House Joint Resolution 460, to establish a Joint Committee on Earth Satellites and the Problem of Outer Space. This Joint Resolution proposed the following purpose: Whereas the developments of high altitude mechanisms and earth satellites capable of supersonic speeds by remote control are proceeding on many fronts; and the problems of outer space and the many investigations of this area have opened a new field whose impact on our civilization shows tremendous capabilities for good or for ill, and Whereas, for the protection of the general welfare and security of the United States of America, there is needed a joint and continuing comprehensive study in such fields: Now, therefore, be it resolved ... that there is hereby established a Joint Committee on Earth Satellites "and the Problems of Outer Space." On January 9, 1958, in the 2nd session of the 85th Congress, I again introduced a House Joint Resolution which was designated as House Joint Resolution 489, and again proposed the establishment of a Joint Committee on Earth Satellites and the Problems of Outer Space. Including my Joint Resolution there were 29 bills introduced which related to outer space. The first group of bills listed below is concerned with the establishment of congressional committees, for dealing with legislation: House Resolution 9668 (KEATING of New York), House Resolution 9901 (BOGGS of Louisiana), House Resolution 9613 (BROOKS of Louisiana), House Joint Resolution 489 (FULTON of Pennsylvania), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 53 (JAVITS): All of these measures would establish a Joint Committee on Outer Space patterned after the Joint Atomic Energy Committee. The first two (House Resolution 9668, and House Resolution 9901) would establish an 18-man committee while the others would call for 14 men. Senate Resolution 256 (JOHNSON): Sets up a special 13-man Space Committee in the Senate. (Passed February 6, 1958.) House Resolution 473 (COAD of Iowa): Identical language as Senate Resolution 256, but setting up a 31-man Space Committee in the House. House Resolution 474 (BROOKS of Louisiana): Same as House Resolution 473 except it calls for a 13-man committee. House Resolution 496 (MCCORMACK of Massachusetts): Similar to House Resolution 474. (Passed March 5, 1958.) House Resolution 478 (KEATING of New York): Amends rule X of the House by establishing an H-man Committee on Outer Space. The following bills have been introduced to establish or expand existing agencies for operation of projects concerned with outer space: House Resolution 9874 (LANE of Massachusetts) and House Resolution 9966 (COAD of Iowa): These bills are similar and would establish a separate Outer Space Commission patterned after the Atomic Energy Commission. House Resolution 10271 (DURHAM of North Carolina), House Resolution 10352 (HOLIFIELD of California), and S. 3117 (ANDERSON) are identical bills. This proposal would amend the Atomic Energy Act to give the responsibility for outer space development to the Atomic Energy Commission. Authorizes an initial $ 50 million for this purpose. S. 3000 (GORE): Contains a provision authorizing and directing the AEC to accelerate existing programs for the development of nuclear rocket propulsion and a "manned vehicle powered by nuclear propulsion and capable of sustained travel outside the earth's atmosphere."

58

J. G. FULTON: The Concept and Scientific Strategy of Outer Space

House Resolution 11188 (FRELINGHUYSEN of New Jersey) and House Resolution 11860 (FULTON of Pennsylvania): Gives the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) the authority to conduct experiments involving outer space and to coordinate the Government's activities in this area. A second title of this bill establishes an 18-man Joint Committee on Astronautics. (See House Resolution 9668 above.) S. 3233 (YARBOROUGH): Authorizes the National Science Foundation to undertake programs in communications and weather modification. S. 3604 (CASE of South Dakota) : Gives the responsibility for development of outer space to the NACA changing its name to the National Astronautics Agency. Governed by a 17-man Board appointed by the President and a Director appointed by the Board. S. 3609 (JOHNSON and BRIDGES, by request), House Resolution 11881 (MCCORMACK of Massachusetts), House Resolution 11882 (A. RENDS of Illinois), House Resolution 11887 (HASKELL of Delaware), and House Resolution 11888 (KEATING of New York): This is the President's bill. Gives the responsibility for development of outer space to the NACA changing its name to the National Aeronautics and Space Agency. Governed by a 17 -man Board and a Director appointed by the President. The Director consults with the Board but is not bound by their decisions. Two related bills have been introduced which would establish a new Department of Science. S. 3126 (HUMPHREY, MCCLELLAN, and YARBOROUGH): Groups together into a new Department of Science and Technology several existing scientific agencies of the Federal Government, such as the Atomic Energy Commission, National Science Foundation, Bureau of Standards, etc. A Government Operations Committee print analysis of the bill, dated March 26, 1958, recommends amendments which would also include the NACA in the new Department and would create standing committees in the House and Senate to handle these matters, including astronautics and space exploration. S. 3180 (KEFAUVER): Similar to S. 3126. The Secretary of the new Department of Science would be authorized to carry out programs involving development of outer space. Resolutions were offered which would state a policy of Congress concerning outer space. House Concurrent Resolution 265 (KEATING of New York), House Concurrent Resolution 268 (HILLINGS of California), House Concurrent Resolution 329 (FULTON of Pennsylvania) and House Concurrent Resolution 330 (NATCHER of Kentucky). These Resolutions would have the Congress express in strongest terms its desire that the regions of outer space be devoted to peaceful purposes through the United Nations or by such other means as may be appropriate. The above resolutions and a similar House Concurrent Resolution 326 (MCCORMACK of Massachusetts) were referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After hearings on the above resolutions they were revised into House Concurrent Resolution 332, which called for the exploration of outer space by peaceful means and that such exploration be dedicated to peaceful purposes. The Foreign Affairs Committee of which I am a member, favorably reported the above revised Resolution, and it was adopted by the House of Representatives on June 2, 1958. Therefore, it is very apparent on the record that the Congress of the United States has recognized the far reaching importance of the outer space effort. The interest it displayed, and the immediate definite action it effected, clearly establishes that our Congress did not, and does not minimize the urgency of immediate measures, both for national defense and for attaining scientific supremacy. It is our endeavor to develop a long-range approach to the space effort. An approach which will encourage an orderly program of development and exploration, facilitate public understanding of our purposes, and promote international cooperation. I feel that it is the intelligent overall outlook of our Congress and government that will ultimately achieve the intellectual and technological potential of the United States with the utmost force and efficiency.

The Community of Law and Science By

Eilene Galloway! Space may be illimitable but the amount of space man can control by scientific invention and by rules and regulations has limitations. The perimeters of our limitations will change with the development of scientific facts and with our ability to control these facts in their impact upon society. In 1886, Mr. Justice HOLMES counseled that "All that life offers any man from which to start his thinking or his striving is a fact. .. For every fact leads to every other by the path of the air. Only men do not yet see how, always. And your business as thinkers is to make plainer the way from some thing to the whole of things; to show the rational connection between your fact and the frame of the universe. .. To be master of any branch of knowledge, you must master those which lie next to it; and thus to know anything you must know all." [1]. Since the time when our great Justice advised students of the law to become complete in all their powers, the pursuit of knowledge has become so specialized that our thinking is endangered from confinement within compartments. Increased specialization is not only necessary but inevitable as scientific experiments require deeper penetration into detail, but without a concomitant development of the interaction of related fields of knowledge, we shall lack wisdom in controlling general problems which affect the destiny of all mankind. It is a large order to expect any man or group of men to consolidate theory and practice in the new dimension created by space exploration; but unless we start with a total objective and a concept of how it is to be pursued, our interplanetary thinking will be earthbound by tradition and precedent at a time when creative predictions should enable us to keep international law in pace with scientific achievement. Together, these professions have the same objective-the creation of conditions which will promote the general welfare and protect the people in their "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Both science and law must start with an evaluation of existing facts and with assumptions concerning the foreseeable future. The revolution in science and technology imposes an obligation on the scientific community to keep the legal profession informed of the latest developments. National and international lawyers have the matching responsibility of absorbing new facts into the framework of social order. The mutual interests of science and law make their development interdependent. If it were a scientific fact that an impenetrable barrier of radioactivity surrounds the earth, the area of law would be limited thereby; but if, as seems likely, the scientists can surmount such an obstacle, the jurisdiction that could be defined by law would be extended. If accurate photographs can be taken from 1 Special Consultant, Special Committee on Space and Astronautics and the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

60

E.

GALLOWAY:

a satellite encircling the earth, the necessity for determining the intent· of the experiment and its relation to systems of national defense would shape the rules and regulations promulgated for control. H antimissile missiles are developed so that a satellite can be destroyed in orbit, this fact will provide a penalty for satellites which are deemed hostile in intent. H satellites always burned up as they reentered the atmosphere and before they reached the earth, we would not have the legal problem of responsibility for damage; but we have had sufficient evidence that a solution is on its way, and the extent to which scientists can control the reentry of missiles and satellites will determine the substance of national and international law on this matter. It would be possible for international law to lag behind scientific progress as human experience revealed, case by case, what we should permit or prohibit. But this would imply that we do not know the direction in which we are going, and this is indeed far from the truth. The first launching of an artificial satellite did not catch the legal profession unawares. For a good many years, outstanding international lawyers have contributed their thinking to the legal problems which would be likely to arise once man proved successful in exploring space beyond the earth and in a realm where no law exists. Profound analyses have been made of the impact of space activities upon national sovereignty: to what extent a nation could control space vehicles in orbit; whether the discovery, conquest, and occupation of space could be governed by historical precedents; whether the concept of "freedom of the seas" could be used to determine the limits of sovereignty and how zones in space can be defined. The implications of satellites for patterns of warfare and their use as a force for international cooperation and peace have been examined. Problems of property, responsibility for damages, communications and travel are among the many questions which have been probed with imagination and foresight. In fact, the emerging outlines of legal problems have been identified even before their actual crea.tion by advances in space science and technology. The President of the International Astronautical Federation, ANDREW G. HALEY, has made a distinguished and unique contribution in analyzing the basic concepts of space law and in extending our boundaries of thinking. The necessity for definitions of the jurisdiction of air law and space law was recognized by the VIIIth IAF Congress in 1957 when Professor JOHN COBB COOPER was appointed as chairman of a committee of physicists and lawyers charged with the responsibility of drafting definitions and submitting their recommendations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. International acceptance of a common terminology on the subjects involved in space exploration would go far toward promoting agreements which can be implemented in practical ways and help to prevent misunderstandings and confusion. The kind of misunderstanding which can arise was illustrated at a conference of the International Housing and Town Planning Association held in Mexico City in 1938. The representatives of three nations undertook to discuss the topic of the day-underground planning. The Mexican delegate spoke on water and sewage problems; the United States representative discussed subways; and the British delegate dealt with bombproof shelters. Each was correct and yet there could be no meeting of minds on a common problem because there were three different definitions of the term "underground planning". In our overhead planning, the sooner we arrive at agreement on the meaning of words and phrases which are used to define the jurisdiction of states in air and space laws, the fewer the problems we shall be creating for ourselves later on. International space law

The Community of Law and Science

61

cannot result from the sum of the parts of diverse national laws on aeronautics and astronautics. While the nature of the task involved in the formulation of space law has been clarified, the organization of effort in connection with a planned program is still in the making. The question is how best to organize the existing expertness of individuals, professional associations, and official institutions so that their activities cohere around stated objectives. One type of organization that might be considered as a model is that of the International Geophysical Year. Individual scientists, volunteers, semi-official and governmental organizations concentrated their talents toward the attainment of certain ends within a definite period of time. This enterprise has aroused the admiration and respect of world opinion because of its successful example in international cooperation. The projects that would be necessary in order to develop the legal-scientific community are different from those which make up the IGY program, although both include space exploration. Essentially, the projects would be concerned with the evaluation of scientific and technological facts which affect the formulation of law and whose development can be limited or expanded by the kinds of laws which are adopted. Satellites can be tracked not only for the purpose of scientific evaluation, but also for their impact upon society and world order. Minitrack stations for space ideas to coordinate law and science would facilitate the equal development of theory and practice. It is part of the training oflawyers to evaluate the significance of facts which make up the social fabric, but it is not usually a part of the scientists' training to consider the relationship of legal codes to science. There have been many ways, however, in which these two professions have been drawing together since the advent of atomic energy in 1945 and there has been a tremendous increase of interest in the scientific community concerning problems of government, national and international. All that is needed is a concept of integrating our knowledge and channeling effort through an organization which covers the different kinds of expertise which exist throughout the world. A beginning program would undoubtedly include a survey of available resources: of the international and national organizations now working on problems of space science and law; of outstanding individuals who are contributing ideas to professional journals and various committees; of existing treaties and conventions; and of the relationship of the effort to the International Civil Aviation Organization and the United Nations. Exploration of this realm would include an agenda of questions arranged in priority of importance. What is the nature of the interest nations can have in space 1 How will their economy and customs, their weather, health and defense systems be affected by advances in space technology 1 To what extent can nations control the space above them, and what are the implications of dividing space into zones 1 If the people of the world have interests in space which cannot be controlled scientifically and legally, how are they to be protected 1 Can controls be claimed if licensing, prohibitions, and penalties cannot be made applicable 1 How will national laws and international agreements on aeronautics affect the development of international space law 1 Who will determine the limits of law in space, make adjustment to changes, and enforce standards 1

62

E' GALLOWAY: The Community of Law and Science

What provision can be made for a charter and agenda for an international space agency ~ What is entirely unknown, requiring prediction in accordance with probable trends, and what is known and can be readily charted ~ A difference of opinion as to what are the facts may develop during a period of experimentation, and this would naturally have the effect of delaying the crystallization of rules and regulations on any given subject. A gap between science and law is almost inevitable under these conditions, for law must ultimately rest upon acceptance by the people who are subject to its controls. Ways of handling such issues must be devised. H they are quickly recognized, different sets of facts can be analyzed for all their implications, pending a satisfactory solution. This is a type of problem often faced by the medical profession. It has also been present in the problems which have accompanied the development of nuclear energy. The great outpouring of information on atomic energy has helped to educate the people and the legislators whom they elect to make the laws. Worldwide interest in space development indicates that people of all ages are eager for knowledge. To what extent the implications of space law are generally understood is far from clear. It may be that the most popular concept is that expressed by venturesome individuals who wish to buy and sell lots on the Moon. The great cost of space exploration means that it is a matter for government appropriations, and such expenditures require popular support based upon a knowledge of the facts. The revolution in science and technology is rapid, and the danger is that some of its applications will get beyond control. The political, military, legal and social problems which will be created by space exploration require searching analysis in terms of promoting the general welfare. Not to plan a coherent body of legal thought is tantamount to a decision to let rules develop on the basis of trial and error. In 1946 when ARTHUR C. CLARKE wrote "The Challenge of the Spaceship", he counseled that "Morals and ethics must not lag behind science, otherwise the social system will breed poisons which will cause its own destruction" [2]. If man is to match the order of the Universe, his thought must be whole in its dimensions. References 1. O. W. HOLMES, Collected Legal Papers: "The Profession of the Law", p. 30. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1937.

2. A. C. CLARKE, The Challenge of the Spaceship. J. Brit. Interplan. Soc. 6, 75 (1946).

Contribution By

Kenneth W. Gatland1 I can only speak from the standpoint of the engineer, for I am certainly no expert in the fine art of law-international or otherwise. But, nevertheless, I feel most strongly that scientists and engineers share an equal responsibility with the law-makers and should play their part in helping to shape the social sciences which, in this. present age, are lagging so badly. In astronautical development we have a unique opportunity, for we can already see the shape of future events emerging in this fast growing science and have the opportunity of planning certain rules of conduct accordingly before the events themselves occur. Needless to say, we cannot at this stage consider enforcement of a law of outer space, but we can, and should, draw attention to the need for an international code of behaviour both in the interests of humanity and the future of scientific exploration; this should be discussed at the highest international level. The IAF Committee on Space-Law, which met earlier this week in Amsterdam, has suggested a number of points as requiring urgent attention. These are: (a) upper limit of effectiveness of present air law; (b) upper limit of national sovereignty; (c) radio frequency rules affecting artificial satellites and other space vehicles; (d) rules governing the re-entry of falling satellites; (e) rules affecting the operation of satellites for weather observation, radio and TV relays, and other public services; (f) quasi-military functions (e.g. reconnaissance satellites); (g) military conventions; (h) contamination of extra-terrestrial bodies; (i) rules of discovery and occupancy affecting extra-terrestrial bodies; and (j) deleterious effects caused by as yet unknown physical phenomena and techniques. Scientists are already thinking of mounting TV cameras in satellites for the purpose of obtaining an overall picture of the earth's cloud cover and other meteorological phenomena (e.g. the movement of storm centres, etc.). Although this holds promise of revolutionizing the science of weather forecasting, such vehicles could be used to map foreign territories and carry out certain reconnaissance duties. This directly raises the question of national sovereignty, for despite the fact that no objection has been raised to the passage of IGY satellites over sovereign States, the situation would be markedly different if these vehicles carried reconnaissance equipment or were acting as bomb carriers. In view of the belt of intense radiation that has recently been discovered to exist in the region of the earth's magnetic field, the construction of large spacestations as envisaged by Dr. WERNHER VON BRAUN and others as "invulnerable bombing platforms" may never be practicable, and the more immediate threat 1

F.R.A.S.; 431 A, Chertsey Road, Whitton, Twickenham, Middlesex, England.

64

K. W.

GATLAND:

appears to lie in "satelloid" aircraft (e.g. the Dyna-Soar project) which could be sent into close satellite orbits and recovered at will. Then there is the problem of the Moon, for now that the first lunar probes are being launched it is important to ensure that no deliberate attempts are made to impact the Moon's surface with space-projectiles, as suggested at last year's IAF Congress by Professor S. F. SINGER [1]. (It will be recalled that Professor SINGER suggested firing an atomic-tipped missile at the Moon to blast a section of the crust into space for scientific observation of the debris from earth.) Any experiment which might carry to the Moon radioactivity or macro-molecules of earthly origin could seriously prejudice the value of future exploration. In the foreseeable future, it appears that we shall be in a position to land some kind of probe vehicle on the Moon, and later to send robot space vehicles to sample the atmospheres of other planets-and possibly to land there, too. I am personally very conscious of this problem as I have recently been concerned with a design study for a probe vehicle intended to effect a "soft" landing on the Moon1 • Called Migrant after Moon, Instrumented Guided Rocket And Notifying Transmitter, the vehicle is designed to leave a carrier rocket in orbit around the Moon and descend to the surface using the technique of rocket braking; it would come to rest in an upright operating position on four shock-absorbing legs. Carrying research instruments and a 1-2 watt telemetering transmitter, Migrant would have six main functions: measurement of surface temperature; micro-meteorite frequency; radioactivity in lunar crust; ion density in (possible) lunar atmosphere; detection of surface gases (if such exist), and seismic investigations of the Moon's interior. The problem that arises with vehicles of this kind is how to ensure they do not contaminate the Moon and planets with macro-molecules of terrestrial origin. This directly raises the importance of developing some effective technique of sterilising interplanetary vehicles. There are many excellent reasons why this should be done. For one thing, exploration of the Moon may be expected to tell us a great deal about the origin of our own planet-and indeed of the whole Solar System which, according to one theory, shared a common ancestory about 4,500 million years ago from a dust or gas nebula at the time the Sun was forming. The lack of any appreciable atmosphere has fortuitously preserved the Moon in the same condition for millions of years so that, in certain respects, its surface may bear some relationship to our own planet before life appeared. Thus investigation of the Moon, and later, Mars and Venus, may yield important clues to pre-life processes at work in the universe which, otherwise, would be denied us. Specifically, we wish to investigate the way complex molecules are formed from the primordial material of the Solar System, and to find out how these molecules, once formed, are duplicated in the slow process of evolution towards living matter. Therefore, if we are careless in our forthcoming probe experiments, we may be in danger of contaminating the very bodies we must rely upon to answer some of the most fundamental questions of human existence. 1 A pilot study made on behalf of the British Interplanetary Society for the purpose of discovering suitable projects that might be developed in Great Britain in collaboration with other nations (viz.: the British Commonwealth/NATO/the USA).

Contribution

65

It is impossible to emphasise too strongly how important these issues are likely to be for the future of scientific exploration, and I will end with a plea that the historic steps now being undertaken in outer space may be guided by a sense of responsibility by all participating nations. In view of the fact that these are purely scientific considerations, with no political "strings" whatsoever, one would imagine they would be among the most likely to succeed in any international agreements we may seek to establish in the field of astronautics. Reference 1. S. F. SINGER, Interplanetary Ballistic Missiles-A New Astrophysical Research Tool. Astronaut. Acta 4, 59 (1958); Proceedings of the VIIIth International Astronautical Congress, BarceloDl!: 1957, p. 597. Wien: Springer-Verlag, 1958.

1 st Space.Law Colloquium

5

Contribution By

F. Gerlach! For many years, scientists of the various branches of natural science, as well as laymen who have been interested in the subject, have all been engaged in trying to bring about the realization of space travel. In most cases, these groups of people have formed national societies in their own countries in order to coordinate their efforts. These bodies, in turn, have joined together to establish the International Astronautical Federation under whose auspices the present Colloquium is taking place. While the first congresses of the IAF were devoted almost entirely to the study of physical and technical problems, and later on to the medical problems of space travel, space law has become-even though there has been a gap of some twenty years between the phases-a continuing subject of negotiation and discussion both inside and outside the IAF; the VIIth International Astronautical Congress, which took place at Rome in 1956, showed quite plainly that the problems of space law could only be solved by those lawyers who not only possessed the necessary competence, but also had a working knowledge of at least the basic principles of the technical and physical problems of space travel. Such basic knowledge should certainly not be taken for granted, as many statements made by jurists over the past years have shown all too clearly, but it is only by serious study that jurists who wish to contribute something of lasting importance towards the shaping of space law can become familiar with the technical fundamentals of jurisprudence in this sphere. About the year 1910, when the nations of the world set out to grapple with the new legal problems which were brought about by the arrival of the motorcar, they were confronted with a problem which involved technicalities experienced in everyday life. The situation is quite different in the case of the problems of space travel and therefore that of space law. In this case, it is impossible for the man in the street, and this means the average lawyer too, to grasp readily the technicalities involved. One hears often enough in legal circles the question as to how indeed a rocket can function at all in airless space, when the air which could support it just doesn't exist. And so it is vital that lawyers should first of all familiarize themselves with the technical and physical preconditions for space travel before they are in a position to contribute something worthwhile to the solution of space law. Even those voices which could be heard at the VIIth International Astronautical Congress of 1956 in Rome stating that all legal problems of space could be met by the existing conventional, private and public law, and that a space law problem in this respect didn't exist, have since been stilled. That some of these questions, for example, that of private law compensation for damage, could 1 Regierungsdirektor im Bundesministerium fUr Verkehr, Bonn, MartinstraBe 24, Germany. .

F. GERLACH: Contribution

67

be covered by the principles of private law seems to be generally accepted. They are, however, of no great importance, as for instance: What is the legal nature of space 1 At what point does the conventional air law stop, and where does space begin, and with it, space law 1 Should State sovereignty extend from the earth to infinity, and if not, where is the frontier 1 What rights and obligations are to be observed on space travel 1 The technical nature of air travel lies in the fact that the air supports the aircraft or airship, just as the nature of sea travel lies in the fact that water supports the ship. For some time, therefore, I have been of the opinion that air law ceases to apply at that point where regular, aerodynamic flight with aircraft is no longer possible (and this frontier lies, at the present stage of technical development and, as far as we can tell, in the future, higher than the aerostatic flight of a balloon). This frontier, according to the research carried out by Professor E. SANGER, which is applied elsewhere in connection with another matter, would lie somewhere in the region of 65 km above the earth's surface; or, if one prefers to follow the theories of Professor TH. VON KARMAN, who calculates the limit as being the ceiling above which flight is no longer possible owing to the thermodynamic heat, the so-called heat limit, at any rate using the materials at present known to us. This frontier would be at a height of approximately 85 km. This, then, would be the extreme limit at which space begins, though it is undeniably conceded that small quantities of the atmosphere are to be found at far greater distance from the earth. But in a flight at such a height the atmosphere no longer acts as a buoyant and carrying element, but rather as a hindrance, and this therefore, in my opinion, should be discarded as an argument that travel at these heights constitutes air flight. In addition, there is the fact that the atmosphere gradually thins out to the density of the interstellar gases, so that every other frontier which might be proposed as a ceiling marking the limits of air law would be completely arbitrary, for, taking into consideration aircraft traffic, there would be little approach to reality. It is my opinion, and I believe that most lawyers who have made a careful study of these problems on a serious natural scientific basis would agree with me, that these questions can only be settled by an inter-State agreement. Space and space law would begin to operate beyond the agreed and established frontier. What rights and obligations would obtain in space travel has also been variously expounded. The solution here will probably be relatively simple. The characteristic of space is that of grand isolation. Therefore, in contrast to Earth, there will be no necessity to work out traffic laws for space, such as for example, a "left gives way to the right" rule of the road, for the chances of two satellites moving on their orbits colliding with each other are practically nil. Therefore, the problem of the usual traffic obligations becomes of secondary importance. One should also not make the mistake of permitting State sovereignty to stretch too far out into space. Those who advocate such proposals generally show that they have not judged properly the physical conditions in space, particularlyregarding its extent. We lawyers, then, must be careful not to be guilty of an intellectual backward step in the twentieth century to the geocentric viewpoint of the Ancients and the Middle Ages. On the contrary, we must first of all prepare ourselves by becoming familiar with the modern teachings of natural science before we can begin to think about advocating opinions which physicists, 5·

68

F.

GERLAOH:

Contribution

astronomers and other experts can only shake their heads over. In addition there is the difficulty that space as such or only a small section of it-for it can hardly be more than this-lacks that mark of individuality which would distinguish it from the next sphere which borders it, so that any kind of sovereignty rights can neither be put into practice materially nor at law. All these questions still require thorough investigation and thought, and we can draw satisfaction from the fact that at least a serious beginning has been made in discussing them.

On the Threshold of Space: Toward a Cosmic Law Problems of the Upward Extent of Sovereignty By

Stephen Gorove1 "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland: Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island: Who rules the World-Island commands the World." Sir HALFORD J. MACKINDER "He who controls the Oosmic Space, Rules not only the Earth But the whole Universe." STEPHEN GOROVE

For the second time in our generation we are witnessing the unfolding of a great scientific evolution which, in the scope of its boundless aspirations, infinite promises, and challenge-ridden perspectives, represents a panoramic phase with hardly a parallel in our history. The gigantic rockets that lifted the artificial moons, the boldest creations of human inventiveness, did much more than place instrument-bearing satellites in orbit around the earth. They lifted man's imagination out of his captive environment and gave a new impetus to, and a realistic expectation of, the fulfilment of his age-old dream: the conquest of space. This outstanding victory of science over the mighty forces of nature seems to have put mankind on the very threshold of space. Scientists tell us that space travel is no longer outside the realm of possibility. A lunar voyage is feasible by applying the basic scientific knowledge and technological know-how available to us today. While many technical problems remain to be solved, voyages to Mars and other planets seem sure to follow in the not too distant future. Such explorations are not only expected to shed light on many hitherto unexplained phenomena in space but will, no doubt, inaugurate new principles of communications and new dimensions of travel. Already from the studies of the current International Geophysical Year, solutions to many problems are foreshadowed, such as disposal of atomic wastes, long-range levels and productivity of the oceans, exploration and resources development in the Antarctica, distribution of oil and mineral deposits, prediction of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. In addition, benefits are expected to irrigation and agriculture, weather forecasting, radar and electronics, radio, telephone and television systems. The information obtained is likely to result in a better understanding of the atom, and may well revolutionize our concept of the universe. For the first time in known history, space travel will enable us to 1

Professor of Law, New York Law School, 244 William Street, New York 38,

N. Y., U.S.A.

S.

70

GOROVE:

observe our own planet from outer space and obtain a better view of our cosmic environment. But man's penetration into the limitless regions of space holds out another and more frightful challenge. Military and other experts tell us that whoever has the capability to control space will likewise possess the power to exert control over the surface of the earth. From space, the masters of the undifferentiated continuum will have the capability to change the weather and to alter the levels of the sea; they will be able to bring about major changes in our present environment. Whoever gains that position, will gain control over the world for the enslavement or for the dignity of man. MACKINDER'S classic dictum l , and SPYKMAN'S one-time realistic appraisal 2, reflecting the assumptions of an earth-bound geography, seem no longer adequate in the Era of Space. With his unparalleled potentialities, the interplanetary man of the new epoch may well be in need of an all-inclusive warning: He who controls the Oosmic Space, rules not only the Earth but the whole U niverse3 • The dawn of the Cosmic Age in the challenging shadow of the extinction or survival of human aspirations under freedom, justice and law, not only taxes the wisdom of the best brains in the fields of science and technology, but it also puts a supreme premium on the efforts of our social engineers, legal technicians and policy-makers to adjust man's own behaviour to his newly unfolding spatial environment. At this most critical moment in human history, faced with such common accusations that modern science has once again 'far out-stripped' the law and that technological progress poses a serious threat if the respective legal problems are not settled beforehand, what excuse does the 'space lawyer' of the mid-twentieth century have for not having invented a magic panacea to solve the pressing problems created by the advent of space communications 1 Indeed, there seems to be no special body of domestic or international law to cope with the multitude of questions in regard to already existing or future situations which are likely to arise with man's venture into space. Until Russia's Sputnik soared into the skies, the juridical problems of space were largely theoretical and somewhat remote to deserve the devoted attention of lawyers and policy-makers. Today, when several satellites have already made innumerable trips around the fringes of outer space, there still is a strong conviction maintained by many legal authorities that it would be too early to establish a comprehensive system of law to govern relationships in space without a more accurate knowledge of the conditions that exist there. Changes, it is frequently said, take place slowly even in municipal law and changes in international law occur much more slowly. Moreover, law usually concerns itself with facts and manned space travel is not a fact yet. Only with the physical facts in hand, and after a more thorough acMACKINDER summed up his geopolitical conception in the following words [1]: "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland: Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island: Who rules the World-Island commands the World." 2 SPYKMAN believed that if there was to be a slogan for the power politics of the Old World, it should be [2]: "Who controls the rimland rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world." 3 The term "cosmic" has been defined in WEBSTER'S New World Dictionary as "relating to the universe as a whole" or to "the universe exclusive of the earth" (p. 333, 1956 ed.). The term is used here in the second connotation. A precise delineation, in reference to law, of the words "exclusive of the earth" will have to await later prescriptions and patterns of practices by decision-makers in the world community. 1

On the Threshold of Space: Toward a. Cosmic Law

71

quaintance with space, should we formulate opinions and develop legal rules as to conduct therein. The international law of the seas was not crystallized before the seas were used; hence, it is felt that the law governing space should also await the time when space will be used more effectively. Similarly, it is said, that any attempt to codify what has been referred to as 'space law', 'metalaw', 'astronautical law' or what may well become known as cosmic lawl , 'Y0uld have an adverse effect on the progress we are making in the field of space explorations. Whatever view one may take, it would seem that legal developments are greatly influenced by scientific innovations and discoveries. Technological progress is an inexhaustible source of new demands, identifications, and expectations presenting the law with an ever-changing pattern, and a variety of situations which it must attempt to tackle if it is to avert instability and chaos. The problem of formulating a body of law governing cosmic space is nO longer purely theoretical. The miraculous, almost daily achievements of science are making it increasingly practical. Apart from the broader questions of whether the establishment of a new structure of law will or should take the form of an international convention or whether the law of the universe will or should grow like common law from custom and practice or by analogy to what is already settled, a closer analysis and clarification of some of the problems raised by man's debut in interplanetary space may be helpful, even if it does not claim to offer ready-made solutions. One of the primary topics with which legal theory has occupied itself for a very considerable time centers around the problem of the upward extent of national sovereignty. How far can a state claim the space above its territory 1 Are there any limits on sovereignty in the vertical direction beyond which no nation can exercise its jurisdiction 1 A brief historical survey may be useful to indicate the over-all development of the law, domestic and international, and enable us to evaluate whether, and to what extent, it is possible to draw upon existing legal principles or use analogy in attempting to cope with the problem. Early philosophers have given thought to the problem as to the nature of the air as One of the elements and to the question of whether the space above the land may be owned or conquered for the purposes of man. Roman law distinguished the air (aer) that we breathe from the air space (coelum) superjacent to the land. The air, just as the ocean and the flowing water of a natural stream, was considered res communis and was not susceptible of private dominion. On the other hand, Roman law protected public and private rights in regard to space above the land whenever and as to such height as was deemed necessary for the occupation and use of such space. The frequently asserted Latin adage, "Oujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum" (he who owns the land, owns it to the skies) has not been found to occur in this form in the Roman texts but has been traced back more directly to a gloss from which the commOn law seems to have borrowed it, as evidenced by COKE'S and BLACKSTONE'S language. In its strictly literal meaning, however, the maxim has been repudiated under the growing impact 1 At the present time, there is no body of established legal prescriptions to enable us to delimit with precision the exact border lines of this prospective branch of the law. Prior prescriptions or practices on the part of authoritative decision-makers in the world community are needed before any such body of law can accurately be defined. In terms of a mere projection, and broadly speaking, it may be assumed that co8mic law will govern such relations as will or do arise out of or in reference to the use of cosmic space.

72

s. GOROVE:

of aerial navigation and advances in communications, and the Supreme Court in the United States v. Causby case even went so far as to assert that the doctrine extending common law ownership of the land to the "periphery of the universe" had "no place in the modern world" [3]. While private law has developed in the direction of limiting the landowner's rights in space apove his land with respect to height, public law seems to have made no such allowances. Whatever views some enlightened thinkers and theoreticians may have entertained, both earlier developments, as well as a long list of international agreements, protests over aerial intrusions, domestic laws and restrictive practices of more modern origin bear witness that the idea of 'complete and exclusive' sovereignty of a state in the 'air space' above its territory has become a firmly embedded principle of both international and internal law. The appearance of artificial satellites far up in the skies once again has brought the old scepter of sovereignty over the air space sharply into focus. The great many recent theories which have been advanced on this subject-irrespective of whether they interpreted the meaning of 'air space', or called upon science to state its precise limits, or invoked analogy to the law of the seas-have had one common objective, namely, to determine whether national sovereignty in the vertical direction should be limited or not, and in case of an affirmative, to set its boundary line. There is a broad consensus of opinion that the elongation of national sovereignty into the limitless spheres of the universe is, both from a theoretical and a practical viewpoint, untenable. It is pointed out that sovereignty cannot extend ad infinitum because the very rotation of the earth and the difficulties involved in effectively controlling far distant regions make the proposition that sovereignty should extend upwards indefinitely an impracticable, if not an impossible, and meaningless abstraction. While there is an almost equally wide agreement that national sovereignty should not reach beyond the air space, or aeropause, there is an extensive dispute over its exact meaning or precise physical expanse. Air space, it is said, is differentiated from cosmic space inasmuch as the former is a natural appendage of the earth. According to LE GOFF, air space is that portion of the atmosphere where life is possible for man [4). Others, on the other hand, by interpreting some of the existing treaties on aviation, maintain that by air space, atmospheric or air-filled space is meant. Mr. O. SCHACHTER, of the United Nations, while still interpreting the "purpose and intention" of respective international agreements, defines air space in terms of the atmospheric elements necessary to "lift aircraft" [5], though, it is said, such a position has no critical reference to the problem. Still another view, held by Mr. A. G. HALEY, claims that air space terminates at the jurisdictional boundary line which, on the basis of our present scientific knowledge, may be provisionally set at the height of approximately 275,000 feet!. Following an essentially different approach, Professor J. C. COOPER, in 1951, suggested that the upper boundary of a state's territory should be fixed at a point between the upper limit of the air space and the upper boundary of the earth's attraction, to be determined at any time by the physical and scientific ability of "anyone State to control the regions of space directly above it" [7). Faced with a barrage of criticism, ranging from the utter indefiniteness and impracticability of his theory to the intangibility of scientific progress permitting control, and the implications of might makes right, Professor COOPER, in 1956, 1 Mr. HALEY arrives at this tentative figure by using VON KARMAN's calculations, and calls the critical boundary the "KARMAN primary jurisdictional line" [6].

On the Threshold of Space: Toward a Cosmic Law

73

advanced a substitute for his earlier, tentative suggestion. He recommended the adoption of an international agreement for the purpose of establishing three zones above national territory. The first zone would extend, in accordance with the Chicago Agreement of 1944, to heights at which conventional aircraft may be operated, and would be designated 'territorial space'. The second zone, referred to as 'contiguous space,' would stretch to an altitude of 300 miles, and in this region all non-military aerial devices would have the right of transit when ascending or descending. Finally, above the 'contiguous space,' there would be freedom of passage for all instrumentalities [8]. This proposal has also been subjected to heavy criticism, even after its more recent modification by Professor COOPER to extend the 'contiguous zone' to a height of 600 miles. Objections to his recommendations have been raised on the ground that it is premature to foresee any particular division of space; that the proposal does not define the extent of 'territorial space;' that the extension of sovereignty up to 600 miles is unrealistic because of the very geophysical characteristics of the earth and the incapability of the detection or interception of high altitude rockets by states above which they are at any particular moment; that the concept of 'contiguous space,' based on the analogy of territorial waters, is incorrect, unnecessary and not susceptible to implementation; and, finally, that since 'contiguous space,' by Mr. COOPER'S definition, contains the last traces of air, it belongs to the atmosphere, the use of which is already governed by precise rules. A careful examination of the preceding theories seems to indicate that the solutions arrived at by the interpretation of international conventions on aerial navigation can, at best, have a doubtful validity in reference to the questions we are facing in the Cosmic Age. Such conventions were not created in realization of the potentialities of man's penetration into space, and there appears to be little reason to apply them with respect to problems and situations for which they were never designed. A contrary position, for all practical purposes, would mean either to attribute intentions to states which they obviously did not have at the time of the conclusion of aerial conventions, or to suggest intentions which they might have had but which could hardly serve as a basis for the solution of situations of an essentially new dimension and order. A determination of the present upper limits of national sovereignty, by interpreting the 'air space' concept of earlier conventions to mean 'atmospheric space,' that is, a space stretching as high as the atmosphere extends, or any space where atmosphere is found in the slightest degree, would, in fact, set the jurisdictional boundary line, according to latest scientific estimates, to approximately 30,000 miles, and it could hardly be argued that such was the intention of states when they agreed on complete and exclusive sovereignty over their respective air spaces. On the other hand, Mr. SCHACHTER'S proposal offers a solution which, in terms of determining the intention of states adhering to earlier aerial conventions, may be a correct interpretation but which can have but little reference to the problems created by the ascendance of man-made instruments into space. It would seem, therefore, preferable to admit squarely that theoretical interpretations of old conventions, just as the application of conceptual analogy or the resort to mathematical formulae or scientific findings, in and by themselves, are of limited value if taken out of the context of the major conditioning factors which are likely to affect the eventual solution to a problem of such sensitivity, scope and magnitude.

74

S.

GOIWVE:

While most of the discussed proposals do recognize, to a greater or a lesser degree, the impact of science on the development of the law, it would seem that they underestimate the stark realities of the world power process and its intimate interaction with other processes in the world community. Seen in such a light, the early part of the present century, for instance, has amply demonstrated that FAUCHILLE'S proposals [9], just as many other equally eloquent theories, had to bow their heads before the rising tide of international mistrust, excessive nationalism and considerations of national security. While the eventual acceptance of the principle of 'complete and exclusive' sovereignty over the air space superjacent to national territory may have had little to commend itself, nevertheless, it has been the outcome of the socio-political environment, of the pattern of goals, identifications, expectations and other conditions which influenced the decision-carrying value judgements. It would seem, therefore, that the suggested tentative solutions-irrespective of whether they are based on scientific data, analogy to maritime law, or interpretations of aerial conventions,-should be tested against the totality of major underlying variables which are likely to affect authoritative prescriptions by decision-makers in reference to the problem of the upper extent of sovereignty. The factors that underlie, in general, decision-making in the world community are well-known. They operate within the context of the over-all conditions and trends prevailing therein. Today, even a perfunctory glance at the present structure of our vastly changing world arena and newly emerging cosmic environment reveals a highly precarious, kaleidoscopic, but still strongly bipolarized pattern!, that tends toward a vanishing-man concept of warfare, fluctuates under the constant shadow of atomic and hydrogen holocaust, the daily increasing potentialities of annihilation from space, and the grim warning indicated by the axiom: He who controls the Oosmic Space, rules not only the Earth but the whole Universe. Under such prevailing conditions, national decision-makers can hardly be expected to adopt solutions which are not based on the present-day realities of world affairs. While the broad policy objectives of nations have been said to range from national 'self-extension' to the rather isolated instances, if any, of 'self-abnegation,' the state system of the twentieth century has been and it still seems to be strongly predicated upon the policy of national 'self-preservation' and security as a minimum goal. The fact that most states have cooperated so far in the program of the International Geophysical Year, as well as the additional fact that no protests have been made against the circulation of man-made satellites above national territories, does not necessarily mean that the decision-makers have abandoned their policy based upon self-preservation and security, nor does it imply that a broad rule of international law has already been created, as intimated by Professor COOPER [ll] and others. The fact that permission has not been asked to place satellites in orbit, and that the nations over whose territories the satellites are traversing have raised no objections, does not necessarily carry with it the implication that they have recognized a definite zonal limit on the upper extent of their sovereignty. Rather, it would seem to indicate that they have not treated the present artificial satellites launched in connection with the International Geophysical Year in the same manner as they treated foreign aircrafts, balloons, and other objects flying over their territory at much lower altitudes. Hence, the limitations in 1 For a recent institutional manifestation of attempts on the part of underdeveloped nations to tone down the bipolarity of world politics, see GOROVE [10].

On the Threshold of Space: Toward a Cosmic Law

75

regard to this precedent, if we want to call it a precedent, are inherent in its nature: The states have agreed or tacitly consented to the satellite program only within the context of the current scientific experiments with their limited objectives, non-aggressive purposes, and idea of mutual toleration. Beyond their respective national interests, the common focus of scientific interest, as well as the fact that most nations were in no position to effectively prevent such experiments, the major reason for the present-day tacit approval or noncommittal attitude seems to be that no nation has considered the satellites launched so far to be an immediate threat to its security, since they have not developed as yet into full-fledged instruments of war or military reconnaissance. Once, however, that stage is reached, and all indications are that it will not be in the distant future, underlying states-living in an essentially similar world community-will be unlikely to jeopardize their national security by agreeing without safeguards to the movements of space instrumentalities at altitudes where such space objects may enable a potential aggressor to deliver a decisive blow or surprise attack which would give the assailant an unmatchable military advantage. No doubt decision-makers are likely to ask themselves questions concerning the type of activities in which foreign spacecrafts or other instrumentalities are or would be engaged, and the extent to which a state would be able to exercise effective control in the higher regions. If military science reveals to the decision-maker that it would be a national suicide to allow unchecked foreign satellites to circulate freely above a certain height over national territory, then a suggested solution to set the upper limit of national sovereignty below this height-no matter how attractive from an interpretative or scientific viewpoint or from the standpoint of analogy,-is most likely to be discarded by a rational decision-maker. In conclusion, it would seem that a meaningful attempt to solve the thorny and highly sensitive problem of the upper extent of national sovereignty should take account of the most important conditioning factors likely to affect authoritative decision-makers. The lesson of the current International Geophysical Year, just as that of the first half of this century, as well as the present overall climate and prevailing trends in the world community, seem to substantiate the view that unless the suggested solutions set the upper limit of sovereignty beyond the minimum requirements of national security, they are very much unlikely to survive the hair-splitting scrutiny of decision-makers. Since such minimum requirements expressed in terms of height will probably increase with the growing potentialities of the use of cosmic space for military purposes, the acceptance of a permanent height may, after a time, no longer satisfy the minimum security requirements. On the other hand, the acceptance of an expandable height limit would not only seem impracticable but may also make it difficult for a nation to exercise effective control over the extended regions. Another alternative of an equally limited value would be to meet the minimum requirements of national security not by an upward extension of national sovereignty, which would most likely hamper scientific progress and the many uses of outer space for the benefit of man, but in terms of a highly precarious system of reliance on deterrance by retaliation. In such a situation, underlying states would not object to the movement of foreign space instrumentalities above a certain height, if their space objects can also move freely above foreign territory at certain altitudes. Obviously, such an unguarded system may not be a desirable solution, since it would be no protection against military reconnaissance or surprise attack, and it would precariously rest-short of good faith-on deterrance by retaliation.

76

S. GOROVE: On the Threshold of Space: Toward a Cosmic Law

The third, and, perhaps, the most desirable alternative, would seem to be the devising of an international inspection system which would be considered adequate by decision-makers to satisfy the minimum requirements of national safetyl. While there will undoubtedly be many technical problems to be worked out and mutual suspicions to be overcome in connection with an international inspection system, nonetheless, if there is a sufficiently strong common focus of interest in space exploration, it would appear to be a rational alternative to the present, somewhat chaotic, situation and to a precarious system of reliance on deterrance by retaliation. Once such an international inspection system is in operation, and the minimum requirements of national security have been fulfilled, the decision-makers would face comparatively little difficulty in arriving at whatever solution may be most practicable and feasible in the light of scientific progress. The foregoing survey of legal developments and the latest theories advanced to solve the problem of the upward extent of national sovereignty in the light of the dawn of the Cosmic Age, indicates a complete lack of authoritative prescriptions, and significantly points up the need for an early international inspection system and agreement, since the time element may be a dangerous factor in view of the fast-moving pace of technological and military innovations and discoveries to allow for complacent meditation or the slow development of international custom. References 1. Sir H. J. MACKINDER, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150. New York: H. Holt & Co., 1919. 2. N. J. SPYKMAN, in: The Geography of the Peace, edited by H. R. NICHOLL, p. 43. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1944. 3. U. S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946). 4. M. LE GOFF, Traite tMorique et pratique de droit aerien, p. 20. Paris: Dalloz, 1934. 5. O. SCHACHTER, Legal Aspects of Space Travel. J. Brit. Interplan. Soc. 11, 14 (1952). 6. A. G. HALEY, Space Law-The Development of Jurisdictional Concepts. Proceedings of the VIIIth International Astronautical Congress, Barcelona 1957, pp. 170-185. Wien: Springer-Verlag, 1958. 7. J. C. COOPER, High Altitude Flight and National Sovereignty. Internat. Law Quart. 4, 417 (1951). 8. J. C. COOPER, Legal Problems of Upper Space. Proc. Amer. Soc. Internat. Law 50, 91 (1956). 9. P. FAUCHILLE, Le domaine aerien et Ie regime juridique des aerostats. Paris: Dalloz, 1901. 10. S. GOROVE, Hwnanizing the Atom: Establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency. New York Law Forwn 8, 246, 258ff. (1957). 11. J. C. COOPER, Flight-Space and the Satellites. Internat. Compo Law Quart. 7, 82, 87 (1958). 12. Department of State Bull. 86, 123 (1957); United Nations, General Assembly, Official Records, 11th Sess., 1st Comm., 828th Mtg. (Jan. 25, 1957); New York Herald Tribune, Feb. 4, 1958. 1 President EISENHOWER, in his State of the Union message on 10 January 1957, proposed the conclusion of an international agreement which would "mutually control outer space missiles and ilatellite development." The subsequent American proposal "to ensure that research and development activities concerning the propulsion of objects through outer space would be devoted exclusively to scientific and peaceful purposes" was considered unacceptable by the Soviet Union unless accompanied by the liquidation of American bases abroad [12].

Technical Proposals By

Donald L. Herrl It is a hallmark of this International Space-Law Colloquium and the IAF Congress that, as a private citizen of the United States of America, I am granted both the privilege and the honor to responsibly address to you my few remarks today, not as a lawyer but as a technologist, in the spirit of assistance and cooperation. For this privileged responsibility, I address my thanks to the Chair and the distinguished Panel of lawyers. Firstly, on the matter of nomenclature, I am not at all impressed by the many times suggested use of mere altitude, in miles off Earth's surface--and the use of the various air-age names for the different altitude bands or regions. Rather, I should like to recommend for serious consideration and, I hope, ultimate acceptance-in the interests of flexibility, unrestricted adequacy and unbounded extension throughout Space--a nomenclature in which regions of space carry (1) the name of the closest determining mass, (2) the name of the primary (or primary and secondary) physical phenomenon characteristically representing and defining the space-region, (3) the use of successive Roman numerals for recurrence of that type of characteristic space-region. Thus, Earth-Proton-II would define a second volume of space near Earth characterized as a proton belt or band. It is believed that these means provide--at least for a few human generations-an unbounded, meaningful, named mapping, using a finite number of definitive words, of the overlapping volumes of Space as they are discovered, explored and understood. Secondly, I should like to suggest most respectfully to the international jurists of this Space-Law Colloquium and to its continuations that great care and reasonable caution be exercised in order to avoid injection into the fundamental body of Space-Law hidden, unexpected and unnecessary legal "booby-traps" (based upon fundamentally erroneous interpretation or extrapolation of scientific fact and technological feasibility). We still find and pay either penalties for or homage to such legal booby-traps in both the International Rules of the Road at sea and in the corresponding International Rules for air transport and navigation. Close, amiable collaboration-as staff assistants to you lawyers-of fundamentalist scientists and engineers seems vital. Thirdly, and finally, all nations of the world need realize now that they need now to become parties to and active, cooperative members in this formulation of Space-Law by the nations of the world. Any nation or nations abstaining, on the basis of a self-imposed exile therefrom, for any reason whatsoever, will make (1) an Earth Space-Law impossible of sound conception and useful application, (2) 1 B.S., M.S., E.E., Consulting and Designing Engineer, 240 Alta Avenue, Santa Monica. Calif.• U.S.A.

78

D. L. HERR: Technical Proposals

such self-exiling nations suspect in their ultimate ambitions and peaceful place in the family of Earth-nations. My sincere thanks, Mr. President, for the opportunity to appear before this distinguished Panel of international lawyers to respectfully submit at the present time these three basic suggestions on International Space-Law from this scientist's point-of-view.

Comments By

Robert Homburgl The conquest and utilization of space beyond the limits of the atmosphere have ceased to belong to the field of fiction and have become realities. Whether regarded from a scientific or legal point of view, the stage of purely theoretical discussions has, to a large extent, been passed. Technical progress, too, today provides jurists with sufficiently important and numerous data for them to begin laying the foundations of Space Law. One may well ponder on the construction of such a law: An International Convention regulating Astral-Navigation (Astronautics); A Universal Union for the utilization of inter-sidereal space etc. But whatever the final decision may be, it is quite certain that there will be no worthwhile and stable foundations unless a detailed blue-print is first drawn up by competent architects.

Need for a Preliminary Plan A well-founded plan would not only provide for co-ordination and concentration of operations, systemize and clarify discussions, prevent repetitions, ensure economy in carrying out investigations and avoid useless efforts, but would also provide a better knowledge of all the problems involved and their interdependence. In this way, the consolidation of Space Law will be fostered by the suppression of contradictory solutions offered by jurists occupied in narrow and highly specialized fields. But experience gained in other spheres of international law has shown us that such a plan must be flexible, firstly to make such a plan acceptable to all nations within the framework of their own domestic legal principles, and secondly to make it possible to apply the Space Law realistically to each new situation as it arises and according to the urgency of the moment. Elaboration of a Plan In working out a program, we would suggest that the work could be conveniently divided into four separate sections: Section I-Terminology, Section 2-Purpose of the Law, Section 3-Public Law, Section 4-Private Law. 1 Attorney at the Court of Paris, President of the Legal Committee of the French Astronautical Society, 39 Rue du General Foy, Paris VIII, France.

R.

80

HOMBURG:

Section I-Terminology Should we define the new law by an adjective describing its jurisdiction, as we have done in the case of Maritime Law and Air Law 1 Should we use the term "Space Law" or "Spatial Law" 1 Should we use the term "Astronautical Law", as they say in certain countries "Aeronautical Law" instead of "Air Law" 1 It would seem preferable to reserve the expression "Astronautics" to describe traffic and navigation in space, and to adopt "Space Law" to embrace not only the problems of space utilization but also the problems of the status of celestial bodies and interplanetary law. Are we to give a common name to the various apparata and vehicles which are actually used 1 Would the term "Astronef" (star-ship) be used alongside that of aeronef (air-ship) 1 Or should we call rockets, missiles, satellites by their proper names 1 And should the word "satellite" be reserved solely to describe an artificial satellite 1 What about the moon, which has been a satellite of our earth for so long 1 Section 2 -

Purpose of the Law

Space, it seems, appears to consist of a number of layers, or superimposed zones, which are known as the atmosphere, troposphere, stratosphere, ionosphere, exosphere etc. That part of space which extends as far as the extreme limits of the atmosphere is already subject to Air Law regulations. Certain jurists advocate an extension of this Law, while others are in favour of an entirely new set of regulations. In the latter case, would Air Law continue to co-exist along with Space Law, or will it be absorbed by the latter and become simply a section of the Space Law, just as the atmosphere represents only a fraction of space 1 Under any hypothesis, Air Law must in any case be adapted to meet the new circumstances created by the navigation and traffic of the new vehicles traversing the atmosphere. Section 3 -

Public Law

Part A - Space Statute Since the promulgation of Air Law, jurists remain divided in their opinions as to whether: 1. Sovereignty of subjacent states should extend over space beyond the atmosphere; or 2. There should be complete freedom in the use of space. With regard to the first system, a precedent in its favour can be found under Air Law in the international Conventions of 1919 and 1944. On the other hand, these Conventions limit the sovereignty of subjacent states to the atmosphere layer. As far as those in favour of the doctrine of the freedom of space are concerned, they could stress the point that there is no common measure between considered dimensions of space segments, and that new factors, such as terrestrial attraction, the rotation of stars and planets etc., make the practice of a law giving sovereignty over inter-sidereal space very difficult, if not impossible.

Comments Part B -

81

Statute for Natural Satellite8 and Planet8

Annexation appears to have only a few supporters, at least at the present stage. Control and management are solutions which would probably mean creating new and specialized agencies under the authority of an international organization. Part 0 - Statute for Artificial Satellite8 Part D -

Traffic and Navigation

Whatever system may be adopted for space (absolute or limited sovereignty, absolute or controlled freedom), rules must be adopted regarding the policing of space, including efficient regulations dealing with apparata or guided rockets and space-ships, controlled either from earth or by a crew, or apparata reacting only to natural forces (as is the case with the present artificial satellites). Part E -

Juridical SY8tem for A8tronef8 (Star-Ship8)

a) Nationality, b) Control, c) Ship-board regulations (security, police etc.). Part F - Radio Oommunication8 Again we are faced with the same problems as in Air Law. One of the most urgent questions is that of the division and assignment of frequencies. From now on, certain bands or wavelengths should be reserved for astronautical requirements. Section 4 -

Private Law

Astronautical traffic and navigation will raise a number of juridical problems regarding Private Law which Air Law hitherto has to contend with: Responsibility for damage to third parties (persons and effects) on the ground or during flight, Wrecks, etc. Conclusion Elaboration of a new international and-if possible-universal Convention. (The speaker proposes that a plan for the project of a universal Convention be prepared and elaborated by an IAF juridical committee.)

1 st Space-Law Colloquium

6

Definition of Air Space By

Robert Jastrow1 The definition of air space is a matter of fundamental interest in jurisprudence, but it also poses an interesting physical problem. The boundary to the air space of a nation may be defined with respect to possible regimes of flight, as suggested by Professor VON KARMAN. However, I believe that outer space must be defined as the region traversed by vehicles which have been placed in orbit around the earth, or which have escaped from the gravitational attraction of the earth. The reference to orbiting vehicles, or satellites, immediately introduces the possibility of a physically sound definition for the limits of air space. I have in mind the fact that at low altitudes a satellite is quickly deetroyed by atmospheric friction. In order to be considered an orbiting satellite, the vehicle must last for at least one circuit of the earth before destruction by friction. Therefore, I suggest that the boundary to the air space of a nation should be defined as the altitude at which the density of the atmosphere is sufficiently low to permit the completion of one circuit by an orbiting vehicle, without destruction by atmospheric friction. Our calculations of satellite lifetimes indicate that this critical altitude is 100 miles for a satellite of a typical weight and dimensions, i. e., a weight of one ton and a cross sectional area of 30 square feet. The critical altitude of 100 miles will vary by approximately 5 miles when allowance is made for the uncertainty of the density of the atmosphere at that altitude, and also for reasonable variations in satellite mass and cross sectional area, or more properly, the ratio of these last two quantities. This figure of 5 miles represents the degree of arbitrariness in the proposed definition.

1 U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, currently with National Aeronautics and Space Agency, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Space Law and the Fourth Dimension of Our Age By

Kenneth B. Keatillg1 Introduction A striking parallel may be drawn between the physical world in which we move and the philosophical world which guides our affairs. In each of these worlds we have encountered a new dimension. In our physical world we stand on the brink of Space, looking down the long corridors of time to an unending region where there is no East or West, no up or down, no weight, no wind, no sound. We are about to cast off into this mysterious "space-time continuum" [1] both to satisfy our curiosity and to enhance our position on Earth. Taking the long view it may well be, as one of America's foremost scientists asserts, that man at present is merely creating a new "chink" in his atmospheric curtain through which to extend his meager knowledge of the universe [2]. Nevertheless, this tentative beginning, this new physical dimension being opened by missile and satellite technology, has created urgent new social problems on our immediate planet-problems which should also make us aware of the rapid materialization of a new philosophic dimension. For lack of a better word, we might call that dimension "Tempo". Tempo connotes relative rates of speed or movement, the distinguishing characteristics of motion, or (more pertinently here) the rhythm of events. And this is precisely the new dimension which our 20th century civilization must take into account if it is to progress, or even survive. The accelerating momentum of history, the figurative shrinking of the globe, the telescoping of time-these things now form a major component which must be included in any human equation designed to solve the social conflicts of the future. I Historically, civilized man has progressed along the planes of three philosophic dimensions: his Power, his Knowledge, his Conscience. Each of these has interlaced the others. What men and nations have done, where they have gone, how they have conducted themselves and what they have accomplished has been determined essentially in accordance with these basic dimensions. Power has implied the ability to do and to control, the wealth and resources necessary to this end, plus the requisite physical energy and disposition to act. Knowledge has meant the know-how, the understanding, and the application of truth or logic to given situations. Conscience has displayed itself in ethics and morals, in religious development, and in rules of law conceived from IIAMMURAD! to HOLMES. 1

U.S. Sena.te, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 0*

84

K. B.

KEATING:

All human experience points to the fact that Conscience-that is, lawis the element most needed to provide an atmosphere favorable to the march of progress. Without it, unbridled Power will produce misery; and Knowledge will be perverted to aid and abet in that production. Yet Conscience, or law, has traditionally followed the fact. It has always trailed its own need. In the past this has been relatively unimportant, or at least not critical. Now, due to the evolution of the Fourth dimension of our Age-Tempo-the lag between law and its need is becoming crucial. It is becoming a dangerous thing to tolerate. In these days of the longrange guided missile, the fast nuclear submarine, the hydrogen bomb and the instrumented satellite, it is foolhardy for nations to operate anytime, anywhere in a state of anarchy. Yet this is just what is happening in Space, which may thus become a fertile region for the growth of international misunderstanding or conflict. In my judgment, we have reached a turning point in civilization-that is, the means to push out into Space-where law can no longer afford to lag behind scientific achievement, but must stay abreast of it or even anticipate it. Many competent lawyers and officials appear to doubt the urgency in connection with any beginning code for Outer Space. OSCAR SCHACHTER, director of the United Nations legal division, has observed that "from the point of view of the international lawyer... international (scientific) cooperation must precede the development of specific rules of law" [3]. LOFTUS BECKER, legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State, and Admiral CHESTER WARD, judge advocate general of the Navy, both eminent spokesmen for the American government, clearly prefer a general maintenance of the status quo during the foreseeable future. BECKER indicated in testimony to Congress that he felt existing doctrines were adequate to handle most Space problems at present [4]. WARD takes the seemingly tenable position that we do not yet have enough information about Space to regulate man's activities in it [5]. Other legal scholars assume extended views along the same line. Professor LEON LIPSON of Yale University and Professor NICHOLAS D. KATzENBACH of the University of Chicago suggest that the absence of any law of Outer Space is, for the time being, a healthy condition-one which will gradually change, bit by bit, as conflicting interests arise and are properly weighed in the balance [6]. Influential attitudes such as these must not be ignored. But they are far from being unanimous. Other prominent lawyers are in disagreement with them. For example, JOHN COBB COOPER, the distinguished authority on international air law, and ANDREW G. HALEY, general counsel for the American Rocket Society, both are on record as favoring a prompt effort to iron out legal problems presented by Space exploration [7]. The celebrated rocket expert WERNHER VON BRAUN senses the current science-law dilemma when he observes: "One of the most crucial problems of our times lies in the fact that the very nature of technology is dynamic, while the forms of political law and order which mankind needs for a peaceful coexistence are fundamentally static" [8]. This general concept, as noted, may have been true in the past. It may be true now. But it can change-and should. In fact, I foresee a time when the dynamic development of rules of law may in some instances shape the trends of technology-an idea recently touched upon, at least implicitly, by the President of the American Bar Association,

Space Law and the Fourth Dimension of Our Age

85

CH.A.RLES S. RHYNE: "The new frontiers in the conquest of Space are exceeded only by the problems in human relationships which flow from our physically indivisible world. Here too the law offers our best hope. The lawyer has always been the technician in man's relationship to man ... Perhaps joint effort on law for peaceful control of Outer Space can pave the path to legal machinery to insure peace on planet Earth" [9]. Put another way, effective adherence to a code of behaviour in Space conceivably could shift subsequent technological emphasis away from warlike efforts in the scientific field.

II To my mind, much of the confusion surrounding the need or possibility of a code for Outer Space stems from: 1. A too-anxious desire to resolve at once the thorniest legal questionmark conjured up by our prototype activities in Space-that is, the question of fixing a limit on the upward extent of national sovereignty. 2. An unnecessary and undesirable blending of civil and military problems. Both these factors are closely tied in with national security-in short, with the tremendously complex matter of disarmament. The driving force behind the desire to limit national sovereignty into Space, as well as proposals to bar Space from military use, is the same force which has led the nations of Earth into long unfruitful efforts to reach agreement on disarmament. It is, basically, a noble force. And if it has thus far been a totally frustrated one, that is no reason to ignore its existence in the future, particularly where Outer Space is concerned. The appearance in our time of that Fourth philosophic dimension-Tempomakes it imperative that we keep on trying to obtain some dependable agreement on securing Space for peaceful use. According to broad samplings of opinion, a big majority of the free world's people feels this way [10]. I have myself introduced measures to put Congress on record as favoring such an agreement [11] as have other members of Congress. But we must face facts, and the facts are that securing any such ban on a dependahle basis is fraught with many of the same difficulties which attend disarmament. In other words, the prospects for getting more than some vague and pious general statement, on an international level, are obviously dim. Until they brighten-what 1 Do we stand by and observe 1 Do we wait for conflict to appear and then seek to overcome it piecemeal 1 If so, do we attempt this by individual persuasion, through bilateral negotiation, or via regional cliques 1 I think not. World civilization has passed the point-again due to a rising Tempo in human affairs-where it can afford to sashay into Space without some anticipation of the consequences or permit the concept of Space regulation to "just grow." That is too risky in the BUCK ROGERS era we are rapidly entering. The alternative, then, would seem to be an immediate multilateral effort to begin work on the formulation of Space law in areas where most nations might be willing to give it effect-namely, the civil uses of Space. Emphasis goes with both words. Admitting that it will be no easy task, in many ways, to distinguish civil from military uses of Space, I am not ready to concede that it cannot be done. It can be done if the problems are approached with logic and reason. Under the

86

K. B. KEATING:

circumstances, it must be done. For the civil arena represents not only the best possibility for a Space code, but agreements reached in this theatre may well serve as a peaceful beacon to guide nations as they probe into Space-"a standard," as it were, "to which the wise and honest can repair" [12]. It is also important, for the present, to concern ourselves mainly with the use of Space. This is quite a different thing from dominion or territorial sovereignty; and by concentrating on activities and licence to use it may be possible to avoid some of the pitfalls which inevitably lurk about the conference table when territorial claims or other vested interests are involved. One need only recall the abortive Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea last spring to perceive that danger. By the same token, if we begin now on at least the start of law Space relative to civil uses, we may create sufficient precedent-substantively and procedurally-to prevent the evolution of vested interests or unreasonable claims in Space. We can be sure such claims will be made, both those with some color of right and those without. Doubters might ponder this statement made not too long ago by a prominent Soviet lawyer: "Historical, political and legal facts give us a claim to full sovereignty over the Arctic seas. The international rules governing the open seas cannot be applied in the Arctic. The Arctic Seas are our national waters whose legal status must rest on unconditional recognition of the USSR's sovereignty" [13]. The exploration of Space-by its very nature and by the present inability of most nations to contest claims therein-presents one of those situations in which "vested interests" may be asserted almost overnight if not forestalled by prior agreement. This thought has already been suggested by C. WILFRED JENKS of the International Labor Organization: "While it is healthy that the evolution of law should follow rather than anticipate that of life, there are circumstances in which the possibility of developing the law on sound principles depends primarily on an initiative being taken in the matter before de facto situations have crystallized too far" [14]. Spacewise, this contention seems peculiarly applicable today. In any event, if we are able to reach a few important agreements on operational levels, even though they require much initial flexibility, we would be creating a new force in the world which conceivably could make itself felt in today's taut regime of international politics and perhaps contribute measurably to a lessening of world tensions. To some extent, the International Geophysical Year may have done just this. It is a point worthy of reflection.

ill What matters might a first conference on law for Outer Space profitably discuss 1 I have no special expertise in the technology of Space, but a number of possibilities and needs come readily to mind. Among them: The filing of "flight plans" for satellites and missiles other than those intended as sounding instruments or those scheduled to be lost in Space. Dr. JOHN P. HAGEN, director of the Vanguard project, has cogently pointed out the value of notice and agreement on satellite orbits, both in order to prevent scientific confusion and to minimize the political danger of falsely identifying peaceful craft as hostile objects [15].

Space Law and the Fourth Dimension of Our Age

87

Continuing agreements for exchange of technical information as to (a) performance of spacecraft, and (b) accumulation of data. Workable schedules for spacecraft broadcasting in regard to (a) use of frequencies, (b) signal codes employed, (c) cooperative triggering of transmissions to permit more accurate reception of information. Return-to-earth covenants in regard to (a) the surrender of craft downed on foreign soil and (b) liability for possible trespass and damage. Navigational cooperation to facilitate fixes, tracking, telemetering, rescue and the like. Possible agreements regarding safe passage for scientific craft-which may require some pre-launching inspection in certain cases. Pooling of international knowledge, equipment, personnel and funds where particularly significant and costly projects are to be undertaken. Perhaps, when and if such points as these have been woven into the fabric of a beginning Space law, it will then be possible to consider seriously the question of national sovereignty into the sky-at least to the extent of formulating agreements on the "limited sovereignty" championed by some outstanding thinkers [16] or by finding a maximum territorial limit which nations will be willing to recognize.

IV In any effort along the foregoing lines, it must be kept in mind that there are differences between aeronautics and astronautics, between the Earth's envelope of atmosphere and Outer Space. I am well aware of influential views to the contrary. The Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, General THOMAS D. WHITE, states that: "In discussing air and space, it should be recognized that there is no division, per se, between the two. For all practical purposes air and space merge, forming a continuous and indivisible field of operation" [17]. General D. L. PUTT, research and development chief of the Air Force echoes the identical thought [18]. From the standpoint of military tactics this may be so. I am not competent to argue that question. But from the practical standpoint of developing Space law, the military view is immaterial. In the first place, a majority of today's leading military minds seem to doubt if Space itself will have much more than nominal significance, strategically, for many years to come. It is their contention that the cheapest and most effective means of waging war are likely to remain on an earth-point to earth-point basisthat is, Space will be employed mainly for surveillance or simply as a medium of momentary transit for earth-to-earth vehicles or missiles. In the second place, under long established doctrines of international law and under the United Nations charter [19] all countries now have the legal right to take whatever steps are necessary to insure their defense-whether on land, sea, air or, presumably, in Space. Indeed, the United States and Canada have long since availed themselves of this privilege when they set up Air Defense Identification Zones and assumed jurisdiction for security purposes over large areas of the oceans bordering their coastlines [20]. It follows that, since all nations claim their only interest in armed might rests with the principle of self defense, and since legal freedom in this regard is already spelled out in international law and in the United Nations charter, there is every reason to proceed with whatever agreements can be reached rel-

88

K. B.

KEATING:

ative to the use of Space without worrying over much about whether we shall hamstring the military. However, the assertion that there is no difference between air space and Outer Space certainly does not hold scientifically, politically or legally. It is true that we are at present unable to make a precise distinction between them in any of these three languages. But we can say this: The one element (air space) is a fixed property of Earth. It is as much a part of our planet as the land and sea, and it is therefore subject not only to legal doctrines of property and equity, but to physical manipulation and control. The latter, in fact, already has been evidenced in connection with such projects as weather modification and the regulation of air pollution. The other element (Outer Space) is in a different category. While we may some day discover "substance" in Space that will lend itself to capture and control, the most we can say now is that man's activities there are the only governable factors. The contrast is considerable, physically and socially-which brings to mind a notable warning penned by Justice FRANKFURTER in regard to the development of air law as it may pertain to established laws of land or sea: "One of the most treacherous tendencies in legal reasoning is the transfer of generalizations developed for one set of situations to seemingly analogous, yet essentially very different, situations" [21]. We can be reasonably sure, I think, that the aeronaut and the astronaut will one day find themselves governed by rules which are by no means identical. In short, there are differences between air space and Outer Space-differences apt to diverge even further as man probes deeper into Space and comes in contact with other celestial bodies. The tricky question, of course, and the meaty one, is: how do we go about developing a worthwhile code for Space behavior 1 Many scholars believe that this should evolve slowly, on an ad hoc basis, according to the evolution of each individual problem or need as it attains prominence in the international community [22]. Some suggest that "the United Nations is the proper forum for necessary discussion" [23]. My own view falls somewhere between . .As indicated, it is my belief that the matter is too urgent to be left to the normal routines of social evolution. Nor do I think that the United Nations itself, which now bears a stamp of ineffectiveness in regard to disarmament and territorial waters, should be the agency to do the initial work. The United Nations could, of course, be used expeditiously at a later date in evaluating and/or adopting draft agreements. I suggest exploring the possibility for a specialized agency in astronautics to be brought into relationship with the United Nations according to the terms of its charter [24]. Perhaps some existing specialized agency capable of doing the spadework already exists. But this is doubtful. The International Civil Aviation Organization would seem to be the most nearly appropriate unit to take over the Space code task. However, there is a very real likelihood that the ICAO, both by its charter and because of pre-disposed and specialized ways of thinking, is not the proper agency for the job [25]. Besides, it would appear that the ICAO already has more legal problems to care of than it can handle-including the development of acceptable doctrines to facilitate such touchy matters as the status of air space over territorial waters, the use of airways above international zones, and the regulation of international airlanes in light of the coming commercial jet age [26].

Space Law and the Fourth Dimension of Our Age

89

In all probability, therefore, a new specialized agency would have to be created, preferably from some existing organization. To me, the logical candidate is the International Astronautical Federation, an experienced non-governmental group composed of respected scientific societies from 25 nations, including the contemporary leaders in the Space arena, the United States and the Soviet Union. While there may be good reasons for the IAF to remain independent of the United Nations or any other authoritative organization, and while the traditional emphasis of the Federation is on science rather than law-I submit that no effective beginning toward Space law is possible without recourse to the kind of technical knowledge contained within the IAF membership. If the IAF can be persuaded to set up a permanent headquarters and establish a permanent legal division to study the embryonic regulatory problems of Space, it could well serve as the initial instrument to carry forward this vital task. It might thus formulate plans for working out the draft of a Space code to be submitted eventually to a World Oonference on the UBe of Ouier Space-possibly a conference held here at The Hague within a year or two. There is no suggestion here as to the form such a draft should take. It might be a set of agreed-upon positive rules. It might be a convenant of things-not-to-bedone. It might seek to establish an international Space Organization to regulate the more distant phases of Space exploration, such as advanced lunar or interplanetary probes or investigations which generally transcend national interests. Any number of possibilities exist. Conclusion None of this is intended to imply that a beginning toward Space law will be easy to draft, easy to accept, or immediately possible to enforce. Such facets of the problem, important as they are, do not really figure in the point with which I am most concerned. The point, in summary, is this: If some effort toward Space law is begun-an effort which merits international recognition and which, by association with the most powerful legalized international institution in the world, can be assured of global consideration at the proper time-then we shall have created an attitude, a precedent, an expression of belief in the need to prevent anarchy in Space which may crystallize eventually into effective law. Equally important, as MICHAEL .AARONSON recently observed [27], mere recommendations of this nature can result in "international and consequential national controls" in highly important allied fields. In other words, the essence of a suggested Space law, whether or not adopted in itself, may spill over into other areas of international law and thus exert an influence for lasting peace. On the other hand, if we attempt nothing in this direction the Tempo of our Age may force us into sudden desperate situations. In all probability this will be the precise result of indefinite indolence or of a wait-and-see policy toward regulating Space behavior. At best we are likely to fall into the ways so aptly described by a contemporary English editorial on Space law: "One conclusion is that these problems will provide international jurists with years of detailed study and, such being the case, the big powers can ignore the whole thing until it is time to appoint another commission to amend the laws of the last, which were, of course, so out-of-date as to be inapplicable. .. The giddy cycle of law chasing power bui never quite catching up will thus be perpetuated" [28].

90

K. B. KEATING: Space Law and the Fourth Dimension of Our Age

Perhaps I am rushing things with these recommendations, stretching possibilities too far, too fast. Many informed and intelligent people, I am sure, will think so. But I incline toward the philosophy of the fellow who remarked: "When you reach for the stars, you may not quite get one; but you won't come up with a handful of mud, either."

References 1. L. BARNETT, The Universe and Doctor Einstein, Revised Edition. New York: New American Library, 1952. 2. F. L. WHIPPLE, The Coming Exploration in Space. Saturday Evening Post, Aug. 16, 1958, p.33. 3. O. SCHACHTER, Proc. Amer. Soc. Internat. Law 1966, 106. 4. Hearings before the House Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, 85th Congress (1958), on House Resolution 11881, pp. 1269-75. 5. CH. WARD, Projecting the Law of the Sea into the Law of Space. Judge Advocate General J. 1967, March, p. 3. 6. L. LIPSON and N. D. KATZENBACH, Symposium on the Law of Outer Space, Ohio State University, April 12, 1958. 7. J. C. COOPER, Address at Regional Meeting of American Bar Association, February 22, 1958; A. G. HALEY, Testimony before the House Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, 85th Congress (1958), on House Resolution 11881, p. 1434. 8. W. VON BRAUN, Missiles and Rockets 1967, June, p. 75. 9. CH. S. RHYNE, Legal Horizons of Space Use and Exploration. Address at University of South Dakota, April 19, 1958. 10. New York Herald Tribune World Poll, July 20, 1958, discloses the following sentiment in favor of President EISENHOWER'S plan to bar Space from war uses: Denmark - 76%; Sweden - 76%; Netherlands - 66%; France - 65%; Britain - 64%; Germany - 61 %; Japan - 56%; Venezuela - 56%; Italy - 54%; Mexico-52%. Largest antiban sentiment recorded was: Italy-36%; Japan -36%; Germany-26%; France-24%. 11. House Concurrent Resolution 265, 85th Congress (1958). 12. G. WASHINGTON, Speech to the Constitutional Convention, 1787. 13. M. VISHNEPOLSKI, 1952, reported at Trans. Grotius Soc. 41, 149 (1955). 14. C. W. JENKS, International Law and Activities in Space. Internat. Compo Law Quart. 6, 101 (1956). 15. loco cit. [4], p.307 et al. 16. D. GOEDHUIS, The Air Sovereignty Concept. J. Air Law and Comm. 22, 209 (1955). 17. TH. D. WHITE, Air and Space are Indivisible. Air Force Mag. 1968, March, p. 40. 18. loco cit. [4J, p. 103. 19. Charter of the United Nations, Article 51. 20. Canad. Bar Rev. 30, 257 (1952). 21. Braniff Airways V. Nebraska Bd., 347 U.S. 590; 74 S. Ct. 757 (1954). 22. M. McDOUGAL and L. LIPSON, Perspectives for a Law of Outer Space. Amer. J. Internat. Law 62, 407 (1958). 23. L. MUNRO, Address before the Harvard Law School, June 11, 1958. 24. Charter of the United Nations, Chapters IX and X. 25. loco cit. [3], p. 100. 26. Harvard Law Rec. 1968, April 10, p. 2. 27. M. AARONSON, Space Law. Internat. Relations 1968, April, p. 426. 28. Solicitor's J. 101, 965 (1957).

Observations By

Eugene Pepinl I First of all I wish to congratulate the President of the International Astronautical Federation, Mr. A. G. HALEY, for convening this First Colloquium on the Law of Space; the large attendance not only of lawyers but also of scientists demonstrates the general interest by the Law of Space. I am in complete agreement with the remarks made by the presiding speaker of the panel. The necessity for further studies of the legal problems deriving from the progress in astronautics becomes every day more evident. Such studies should necessarily be conducted on a real international basis and the Federation seems to me the best medium to permit close cooperation between lawyers and scientists. Therefore, as the so called "Committee COOPER" established in Barcelona by the preceding Congress never met and has now disappeared as a result of the resignation of its chairman, I propose that a new Committee, but a permanent one, be established in the framework of the Federation and open to lawyers of all astronautical societies in the world. Such a Committee would examine any legal problem the solution of which might be devised by an international convention, as all the speakers agreed on the necessity of such a Convention. As the space problems are also under consideration in the United Nations the President of our Federation would certainly notify the Secretary of the United Nations of the establishment of a Permanent Legal Committee of the Federation. II

The Drafting Committee designated by the President has prepared the following resolutions which reflect the preoccupation of all the lawyers here present. If the Colloquium approved such resolutions, they would be submitted for final approval to the meeting of the Federation. Resolutions2 1. That the legal problems involved by the development of Astronautics be settled through a new international Convention; 1 Director, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, 3644 Peel Street, Montreal 2, Quebec, Canada. 2 These Resolutions proposed by the Oolloquium were adopted by the IXth Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, Amsterdam, August 25-30, 1958.

92

E. PEPIN: Observations

2. That within the framework of the Federation there be created a Permanent Legal Committee, open to lawyers of the various Societies or groups affiliated with the Federation, and whose members be entrusted with the study of all the problems of the law of space to be included in the Convention mentioned in Resolution No. 1. 3. That the above resolutions be communicated to the Secretary General of the United Nations who should be assured of the desire of the Federation of cooperating in any initiative to be taken in the field of Astronautics by the United Nations.

The Internationalization of Outer Space and the Unificatibn of World Astronautical Strategy; the Ecumenical Nature of Astronautics By

Flavio A. Pereira1 I. The Imperative of Astronautics. The Ecumene Astronautics is one of a number of technological developments of the present age. As a scientific, economic and political force, it must be considered as the greatest human (or ecumenic) activity open to all nations, regardless of their size, importance, or international political status. From the philosophical point of view, Astronautics represents the final period in the development of the Ecumene, or Human Biosphere, so that the entire history of mankind may be considered as a veritable ecumenization of the Cosmos. We must look upon world evolution in technology in this sense. Astronautics also ratifies the psychological or "spiritual" unity of humanity, through which it must be 'transformed into an instrument worthy of this dignity. This ecumenization of the Cosmos began on our planet a thousand years ago, and soon it will be extended to adjacent heavenly bodies, beginning with the Moon. Venus and Mars, ecospherical planets in the STRUGHOLD terminology, will be ecumenized after the Moon. We must define the Ecumenization of the Solar System, not only in the sense of its empirical or practical dimensions, but also as a juridical and cultural problem. That is to say that the penetration of human activities into outer space by means of cibernetical vehicles, or manned spaceships, will lead to far-reaching philosophical and anthropological modifications in the existing international political structure. For Astronautics, historically speaking one of the final scientific revolutions, will concern heights which have never been reached since the egocentric conception of the world was replaced by the geocentric, by the heliocentric, and finally by the galactocentric conception.

II. The International Astronautical Federation The International Astronautical Federation was organized for the dissemination, support and defence of space theories. In its ideological structure, it is implied that Astronautics is an activity of the human race as a whole. The IAF gave proof of this when it admitted to membership the "Commission of Interplanetary Communications" of the "Academy of Sciences of the USSR", although 1 Chairman of the Scientific Council, Sociedade Interplanet8.ria Brasileira, Caixs Postal 6450, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

F. A.

94

PEREIRA:

that Commission has not the nature of a society as have the other members of the IAF. It is also implied that Astronautics has flourished as a direct result of scientific and technological progress, and that this progress is at the back of this wonderful human cultural endeavour, which all of us have made use of and profited by. By force of logic and common sense, there are no national or religious frontiers among scientific and technological communities, because natural science is an achievement of the human spirit and able to coexist with non-scientific doctrines. Astronautics, therefore, must be a branch of research by the whole world, that is to say, an ecumenical science, and therefore the enormous scope of space strategies far surpasses and transcends all other past and present international problems. The IAF, therefore, must assume the responsibility of coordinating world astronautical strategy. In order to carry out this mission-namely to fulfil the important task which falls de jure and de facto within the competence of the IAF-the IAF must be reorganized in order to include the whole of the scientific world and other leading organizations which support it.

m.

International Commission of Outer Space

I would like to take this opportunity at the IXth Congress of our Federation, to propose that an International Committee of Outer Space be created, with a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary and five members, each of whom shall be a member of an affiliated society. The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and the Secretary are to be appointed at this Congress, and the five members by the IAF. This International Committee of Outer Space, in addition to other duties with which it may be charged eventually by the IAF, would lay down the rules and foundations for World Astronautical Strategy. In this connection, I would like to suggest a plan of operation. But firstly, I should like to justify my proposal as follows: 1. The period of experimental launching of satellites will be followed by flights to the Moon. 2. Aware that the USA and USSR have carried out the most active research in space medicine or bio-astronautics since the end of World War II, the International Committee of Outer Space must address a widespread appeal to all societies, scientific academies and the governments of these two countries to give the International Committee of Outer Space all technical and scientific information concerning space medicine and spaceship ecology. With such information at its disposal, the IAF could work for the benefit of all nations in this field.

IV. BuIes and Foundations of World Astronautical Strategy The International Committee of Outer Space will study a Plan of Rules and Foundations of World Astronautical Strategy. I propose that the following points be included in its agenda: a) Spaceships: shape, size and characteristics. Permanent, orbital, unmanned satellites. Manned space satellites. Space platforms under international jurisdiction (UNO). Cibernetical vehicles for watching the Moon, Venus and Mars. Unmanned artificial satellites of Venus and Mars.

The Ecumenical Nature of Astronautics

95

b) Moon Base for astrophysical and astrobiological observation. Plans for the construction of this observatory-laboratory would be guided by the IAF and the International Council of Societies of Astronomy. c) Space Law, Astronautical Law and Metalaw. Plan. Proscription of military use of outer space, including the heavenly bodies. Declaration that the heavenly bodies are res nullius, and that the law applicable to them must be one of international coimperium under the United Nations Organization. d) Astrobiology. The Committee is to work out a symbolic system based on Semantics and Mathematics to allow possible contact with other rational beings. e) World Astronautical Strategy. The principles of world astronautical strategy will be: 1. The unification of space research by the USA and the USSR; 2. The future expansion of Astronautics; 3. International exchange of scientific information; 4. To conduct all space strategy according to the higher ecumenic meaning of Astronautics.

V. Declaration Finally, I propose that all societies affiliated to the IAF take this opportunity to issue the following declaration: "The societies meeting in Amsterdam appeal to all governments for their goodwill in order that the political, legal and scientific problems of outer space may be faced in a manner fitting to the greatness and seriousness of these problems. "These societies, therefore, urgently appeal to the governments of their countries to support and adopt the following principle at the UNO Assembly: "The Moon is the heritage of all humanity, and may only be exploited scientifically by organizations recognized and supported by the UNO. "The IAF makes a direct appeal to the UNESCO and the UNO to adopt the same attitude as the IAF. "We appeal to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization to convene an international conference on this problem, and to create a Juridical Outer Space Council directly responsible to the Secretary-General of the UNO and in close contact with the International Committee of Outer Space. "This Declaration shall be signed by IAF members of the directorate, by the delegates of affiliated societies, and shall be sent to all governments of the world."

The Hellenic Contribution in Astronautics By

S. Plakidis1 In my capacity as President of the Hellenic Astronautical Society I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my thanks for the admission of our Society as a Member of the International Astronautical Federation. Greece being a small country, her contribution in astronautics is necessarily limited. However, our interest in the subject is beyond any doubt. Space Law is of considerable importance, and international agreement under the auspices of the United Nations Organization is highly desirable. Our lawyers must co-operate in promoting this new and original problem facing their profession, side by side with our professional and amateur astronomers who are invited to exploit the proverbial clarity of the Hellenic sky and to offer their own contribution in the exploration of outer space.

1 Professor at the University of Athens; Director, National Observatory, Athens, Greece.

Design for a Law of Space By

Jean Rivoire1 The government of the United States encountered no objection when, in 1955, it announced its intention of launching artificial satellites of the earth as a contribution to the International Geophysical Year. Later, the Soviet Union announced a similar plan without evoking any reaction either. Public opinion at that time regarded these projects with scepticism, if not with indifference. The situation changed radically at the end of 1957 and at the beginning of 1958 when the first satellites began circling around the earth, and when they became the focal point of fierce international competition. General admiration for these achievements became tempered with a feeling of uneasiness which, unfortunately, could not be removed by claims of justification. At the present time, some of the information collected by means of satellites may indeed be of strategic value. Eventually, when the problem of reentering the lower atmosphere has been solved, it will be possible to transport thermo-nuclear charges into space by means of satellites, and to direct them back to earth at a chosen time and place, the attack being controlled by radioelectric means. Under such conditions, satellites launched into space constitute permanent potential bases of aggression secure from counter-attack. It is therefore hardly surprising that some countries, aware of these disquieting facts, object to foreign artificial satellites being allowed to fly over their territories. However, in my opinion, this attitude is erroneous for a number of reasons based on both the facts and the law. The fact that a satellite did not move above a given country would by no means ensure security. If any of these artificial bodies returned to earth out of control either as a whole unit or in pieces, it would certainly not follow its normal trajectory in falling. Depending on its initial altitude and velocity, it might hit any point on the terrestrial globe. Is any country legally entitled to forbid the passage of an artificial satellite over its territory 1 Nothing is less certain. In October 1957, a Soviet jurist stated that it is not the satellite which penetrates the space area of certain countries, but rather that it are the space areas of these countries which put themselves temporarily within the orbit of the satellite in consequence of the rotation of the earth [1]. This is not only an original idea, but something which should be given some thought. Certain habits in thinking and judging which we have acquired on this earth are not applicable in an extra-terrestrial world. In penetrating new areas of space, astronautics confronts us with fresh problems. Following the success of artificial satellites we shall enter a new era of travel 1

5 Rue J. J. Rousseau, Paris, France.

1 st Space.Law Colloquium

7

98

J.

RIVOIRE:

between the earth and the moon, and later on, there is no doubt that we shall see interplanetary travel. When we consider this, it seems to be nonsense to hold the idea of a country's air-space being trespassed on. It would be absurd to grant particular rights to a state over space through which the moon passes at this time. Is it therefore to be agreed that a state which sends a rocket to the moon may claim sovereignty or ownership of this heavenly body, claiming title as first occupant 1 In earlier times, when an explorer discovered a hitherto unknown land or continent, he did not appropriate it for himself, but dedicated it to his sovereign or to his country. Now, as the scale has changed, such a claim would not be for the benefit and honour of the first human beings to reach the moon, or their countries, but for the benefit of mankind as a whole. It would be an analogy to say that France and Switzerland lay claim to sovereignty over the depths of the ocean as their nationals were the first to penetrate to the bottom of the sea in bathyscaphes. This would be considered to be sheer nonsense, and it is no less ridiculous for a state to lay claim to sovereignty over a planet. These reflections give us some idea of the peculiar nature of the juridical problems with which we are confronted as a result of the developments in astronautics. An appropriate solution must be found quickly, and it should not be based on precedence. Waiting for the first differences to arise in the hope that their eventual settlement will provide a law of precedence would mean exposing ourselves to inadmissible risks. An international agreement seems, then, to be indispensable. Several personalities, in particular Russian and American, have expressed favourable opinion on this principle. On December 9, 1957, Sir LESLIE MUNRO, President of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization, declared that the Assembly should meet perhaps in special session in 1958 in order to study the problems of interplanetary craft. On June 2, 1958, the House of Representatives in Washington voted a resolution demanding that the United States propose that an international agreement on the utilization of space for peaceful purposes should be signed. But what would be the content of such an agreement 1 Various formulas were suggested by jurists, as has been pointed out on several occasions by Mister ANDREW G. HALEY, President of the International Astronautical Federation [2]. Each of the formulae which have been suggested up to now contains several attractive aspects, but they have proved to be difficult to put into practice when subjected to detailed examination. In my opinion, the best solution would be one in which all the following demands would be met: - It should not be an obstacle to progress in astronautics, but should guarantee its utilization for peaceful purposes. - It should be in accordance with the latest scientific data and with the fundamental principles of law. - Its rules should be expressed plainly and clearly, and elastic enough in order to be readily adapted to changing technical conditions brought about by rapid development. - It should conform and harmonize with agreements, conventions, and

Design for a Law of Space

99

other legal treaties which are at present in force. In particular, it should not intrude into the sphere of air law. The way leading to the penetration of an entirely new realm has been opened, and we must therefore prepare an entirely new branch of the law in order to control it. The actual details should be left until a later date, and will be worked out according to the exigencies of the moment and the circumstances. It would be illusory to attempt to establish them in advance. But we must now lay down the framework and prepare a directive to follow, attempting to reconcile the demands that we have cited. This new branch of the law should be called the Law of Space rather than astronautical law. The latter title would restrict its meaning to "navigation" only, and would not cover space proper nor the stars. Essential differences between Space Law on the one hand, and maritime and air law on the other are immediately apparent. States wield complete sovereignty over their territories, their territorial waters and the air space immediately above them. But we have seen that this sovereignty must not be claimed in the realm of astronautics. The open sea and the air above it constitute an area into which everyone may freely penetrate, provided that certain international rules are respected. Analogous regulations would prove to be inefficient if applied to astronautics. In this field, it is not sufficient for international regulations to be made. In view of the difficult nature of the problems which could arise, only a body equipped with the necessary technical competence and legal capacity would be able to apply the regulations in each individual case and be able, whenever necessary, to state authoritatively that a breach of the regulations had taken place. We have thus come to the conclusion that there must be a body able to take efficient action, which does not represent the state which launched the spacecraft in question, nor the state or states over which the spacecraft has passed. Such a body which might be called the "High Authority of Space" as suggested by Mr. PIERRE AUGER [3], director of the Department of Exact and Natural Science at the UNESCO, or more modestly, the "Space Agency", would derive its authority from an international body which should logically be the United Nations Organization. It should, however, be able to wield its authority in a realm in which the very conception of a "nation" no longer exists. We think that the space authority should be termed "extra-national" rather than "international" . The essence of Space Law, and consequently the fundamental mission of the Space Agency, would be to safeguard its "extra-national" character. It must ensure that the launching of satellites and the establishment of interplanetary relations are carried out under conditions primarily of benefit to science and to the whole of mankind. It must also guard against the possibility that certain states, more technically advanced than others, might colonize space for their own profit or use it for military purposes. And finally, it must oppose any form of international partition of space. The term "space" is a vague one, and so one of the first problems to be grappled with would be to define precisely the area to which Space Law is to be applied. It is convenient to establish clearly: - The area governed by air law, where the sovereignty of the different states is recognised. 7*

100

J. RIVOIRE:

- The area governed by Space Law and subject to the Space Agency only. Today, international air law is regulated by the Chicago Convention of December 7, 1944. Its first Article stipulates: "The contracting states recognize that every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory." According to Mr. EUGENE PEPIN [4] and Mr. JOHN C. COOPER [5], director and former director respectively of the Institute of International Air Law at the McGill University of Montreal, the expression "air space" covers only that part of the atmosphere which is dense enough to support an aircraft or a balloon. How high does this layer gO? At the present stage of scientific knowledge it is not yet possible to establish precise limits based on indisputable physical phenomena. Mr. OSCAR SCHACHTER, director of the General Legal Division of the Secretariat of the United Nations, estimates the boundary to be at an altitude of about 40 miles (65 Kilometers) [6]. The definition of "aircraft" to which the Chicago Convention applies was not given by the Convention itself but in a text issued later by the International Civil Aviation Organization. It reads: "The aircraft is a machine which can derive support in the atmosphere from reactions of the air." This definition includes balloons, dirigibles, airplanes and helicopters; but it excludes satellites and rockets (teleguided or not). It is therefore quite clear that the present air law does not apply to anything linked with astronautics. It is true that the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization proclaimed at its meeting in July 1956 at Caracas that the problems of space belonged essentially to its sphere of competence. However, this contention is not supported either by physical laws or by legal texts. Provided that the limits of space law are established at an altitude higher than about 40 miles, it is quite certain that this new authority will in no way violate the air law at present in force. What limits should be chosen under these conditions? The question is liable to be the subject of considerable discussion. As far as we are concerned, we would suggest an altitude of 300 Kilometers. This is the altitude beyond which the satellites would be positioned in order to keep their heat and braking power within reasonable liInits. All spacecraft which are above an altitude of 300 Kilometers would then come under Space Law, including those which fail to attain satellite speed and fall back on the earth. From a purely physical point of view, the possibility of constructing spacecraft from extremely heat-resisting materials which can be turned into satellites below the 300 Kilometer ceiling is not to be excluded. Such a spacecraft would have to be governed by space law, regardless of its altitude, for it would possess features which would bring it within the sphere of astronautics. Therefore Space Law will apply: - on the one hand, to anything which is beyond the 300 Kilometer ceiling, and - on the other hand, to satellized spacecraft regardless of their altitude. Far from being restricted, the sphere of international air law could be extended as high as this ceiling. In the first place, the air space mentioned under Article 1 of the Chicago Convention could be extended up to an altitude of 300 Kilometers, and a new definition of the aircraft could be adopted-such as: "An aircraft will be any machine capable of keeping itself aloft in air space. Such a machine, however, will automatically cease to be considered as an aircraft

Design for a Law of Space

101

when it rises above the 300 Kilometer limit, or when it begins to move on a continuous orbit" (like a satellite). In practice, should any state or organization, either civil or military, wish to send into space an artificial satellite or rocket above the 300 Kilometer ceiling, it should be required to give notice of the intended launching to the Space Agency. The latter should then put into effect all appropriate controls, such as laying down the wave lengths to be used for radio-electric communications, the launching conditions to be observed with regard to other spacecraft already launched into space etc. Any failure to give advance notice of the intended launching or any other violation of the Agency rules would be considered a breach of international law and recognized as such by the United Nations Organization. There then arises the question of sanctions, as suggested by Professor V. ALESSANDRONE-GAMBARDELLA. A craft which does not attain an altitude of 300 Kilometers and which does not become a satellite would be snbject to the same regulations as an airplane. It would therefore require the express consent of states to pass through their air territory at the early stages of its flight. When, however, a spaceship passes beyond the 300 Kilometer ceiling or begins to fly in an orbit, it would automatically be subject to the rules and control of the Space Agency. The Agency would then be responsible for any damage which might be caused, for example, by a collision in space, by disintegration and damage caused by pieces of the craft falling on earth etc. Craft which would not pass beyond the 300 Kilometer boundary and would not exceed a speed of 27,000 Kilometers an hour (an approximate speed at which a spacecraft cannot become a satellite at an altitude below 300 Kilometers) would in no way be affected by Space Law. Such craft would include artillery projectiles, airplanes (including jet-planes carrying out "ballistic flights"), and most forms of rockets. Rockets with a very wide range of action whose trajectories would culminate at altitudes higher than 300 Kilometers would be subject to Space Law. It is possible that this conception might not fit in with the strategic thinking of certain states. IT this is the case, the jurisdiction of Space Law might be limited to an altitude of 1500 instead of 300 Kilometers. (This would not affect the position of satellites, which would remain subject to Space Law at any altitude.) It is not necessary for a rocket - whatever its potention range of action might be - to fly higher than an altitude of 1300 Kilometers. The limit of 1500 Kilometers, therefore, would allow states the chance of testing intercontinental military missiles under conditions similar to those existing today, subject to a possible disarmament agreement. Sooner or later, the development of astronautics will inevitably make Space Law necessary. At present, it is possible to outline the principles for a future Space Law without modifying the existing provisions of international law, and without affecting the balance of world armament. Appropriate measures should, however, be taken now without waiting for astronautics to be used by one or several states for the purpose of achieving political or military ends. The best method of procedure would perhaps be to mobilize politicians, technicians and lawyers of a number of nations and let them submit reports for approval to the General Assembly of the United Nations. It is imperative that a Space Agency under the auspices of the United Nations Organization be set up in order to establish a central authority, to work out

102

J. RrvOIRE: Design for a Law of Space

an agreement on the means of control and on the question of sanctions, and to define the area to which Space Law is to be applied. All these problems will no doubt lead to considerable and lengthy discussion, but one is surely justified in hoping that the negotiators will be prepared to make concessions in order to reach such an agreement which is so indispensable to the future. References 1. G. ZADOROZHNYI, The Artificial Satellite and International Law. Sovietskaya Rossiya, Oct. 17, 1957, p. 3. 2. See especially: A. G. HALEY, Space Law-The Development of Jurisdictional Concepts. Proceedings of the VIIIth International Astronautical Congress, Barcelona 1957, p. 170. Wien: Springer-Verlag, 1958. 3. P. AUGER, in "Occident", Paris, August 1958. 4. E. PEPIN, Space Penetration. Speech before the American Society of International Law, April 1958. 5. J. C. COOPER, Legal Problems of Upper Space. Speech before the American Society of International Law, April 1956. Proc. Amer. Soc. Internat. Law 60, 91 (1956). 6. O. SCHACHTER, Who Owns the Universe? In: Across the Space Frontier, edited by C. RYAN, p. 118. New York: The Viking Press, 1952.

The Responsibility of States for the Damage Caused by Launched Space-Bodies By

I. H. Ph. de Rode-Verschoor1 One of the topics which may be discussed at an international conference may be the responsibility of states for possible damage caused by launched space-bodies. For it will be the states which will have to bear the responsibility, because, whereas air-navigation is carried out to a large extent by civil aircraft, in spacenavigation only state-owned spacecraft will be used for some time to come. In this respect we need only to consider the high cost of launching these spacecraft. The Chicago Convention can only be applied to civil aircraft. It will therefore be necessary to make an entirely new set of regulations for stateowned spacecraft. In formulating rules concerning this responsibility for damage, it will be necessary to register and identify the launched spacecraft and make provisions for a compulsory registration of space-satellites in order to determine the identity of the state to be held responsible. The basis for this onus of responsibility is clearly set down in Professor MEYER'S "Verkehrssicherungspflicht" [1]. The professor states the principle, which is now widely familiar in all countries, that states have the duty of avoiding damage, because by creating a source of danger, this automatically incurs a responsibility to the community. Now in my opinion one can visualize three solutions regarding this responsibility: 1. That the state launching the spacecraft shall accept full responsibility for possible damage (comparative to the Rome Convention and the principle of risk). 2. That the state shall be entitled to make certain reservations, as, for instance, under the Warsaw Convention (principle of the liability of fault), excluding, for example, responsibility in the case of force majeure: for instance, an unforeseen collision with a meteor. 3. The setting up of an International Guaranty Fund to pay for damage caused by satellites (except in a case where damage is caused intentionally, in which case the state responsible would be liable to make compensation). Each state interested in astronautics would be required to contribute to the Fund. This third solution may be desirable, for in the future it may not be possible to insure against damage caused by earth-satellites in view of the enormous risks and uncertainty. 1 Privaatdocent in Air Law at the University of Utrecht; Leestraat 43, Baarn, The Netherlands.

104

I. H. PH. DE RODE-VERSCHOOR: The Responsibility of States

Such a Fund could be set up under the control of the United Nations, an international body which most experts have already pointed out as being the most competent organization to control traffic in outer space. The United Nations Organization is willing to study the problems connected with outer space, as is evidenced by the declarations made by this body some months ago. It will be vital to regulate the liability in case of damage caused by spacecraft with close regard to one of the basic principles of air law, namely that third persons who are not associated with the air traffic should be protected as much as possible. Reference 1. A. MEYER, Rechtliche Probleme des Weltraumfiugs (Legal Problems of Flight

into the Outer Space). Z. Luftrecht 2, 37 (1953).

The Need for a New System of Norms for Space Law and the Danger of ConDict with the Terms of the Chicago Convention By

M. Smirnoffl In view of everything which has been said and written about space law in the United States [1], Canada [2], Europe [3] and in other parts of the world, some points are now quite clear and, in theory, there is almost unanimous accord on the essential elements of the law of space. These basic principles are as follows: (1) It is commonly agreed that the system created by the Chicago Convention is not adequate to solve the problems of law presented by the advent of space Bight. For many reasons, the terms of the Chicago Convention, which repeat the principles of the Paris Convention of 1919 concerning the sovereignty of States over the air space above their territory, cannot be applied to conditions in outer space. First of all, there are many formal and technical reasons and arguments why the Chicago system cannot be applied to outer space. In Article 1 of the Chicago Convention, we find the concept of the "complete and exclusive sovereignty" of the State "over the air space above its territory."Article 3 states that the Convention applies to civil aircraft and the definition of the term "aircraft" is the same as that contained in Annex A of the Paris Convention of 1919; that is, "all machines which can derive support in the atmosphere from reaction of the air." Both the word aircraft and its definition are hardly applicable to conditions in space since in space there is no air or atmosphere. Apart from these purely formal arguments there are very important technical facts which prevent the application of the principle of State sovereignty to outer space. The sovereignty of the State has two main characteristics. One is the fact that sovereignty must be real in the sense that it can be defended by the State which claims it. The other characteristic is that, if the claim is to be based on a fact, one must know exactly where this fact occurred. Neither of these characteristics can be found in outer space. First of all, in view of the present technological development, no State can defend its right of sovereignty at an altitude of 2,000 miles, for example. Furthermore, it is impossible to so locate an occurrence 2,000 miles in space that one could say that it took place in the sovereign regions of Belgium or of neighbouring Holland. The majority of theorists agree that the system of the Chicago Convention is not applicable to the conditions of outer space. Therefore, with Bights in space being more and more common we are presented with the dangerous possibility that outer space is at present a legal vacuum. This fact became obvious when the satellites began their journies round the earth. Article 8 of the Chicago Convention was completely forgotten and no one protested against the Bights of the satellites. 1

Zahumska hr. 37/III, Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

106

M.

SMIRNOFF:

The International Geophysical Year agreement can only partially be regarded as a juridical basis for flights in outer space or as a tacit consensus of all the nations of the world. The real reason why no one protested is found in two facts. The first is that the nations were psychologically unaware of the imminent dangers which space flights presented to mankind. This state of unawareness was also apparent at the beginning of the 20th century when no one seriously protested against the flights of the WRIGHT brothers, BLERIOT and others. The second fact is that, because of the legal vacuum in outer space, no one who might have wished to make such a protest could find any firm and stable principles in the law upon which it could be based. This lack of rules or regulations concerning outer space creates a very serious danger for all of the States and nations of the earth. If the launching of the satellites on1y partially revealed the existence of this danger, it is quite clear that the peril will be reinforced by future developments in space flight. It is enough to point out certain problems which are inherent in the present state of space technology. A danger is presented in the fact that States can without warning launch rockets and satellites which may pass through the flight lanes of the innumerable airlines which cross their territories. In time, the lack of regulation will cause this danger to increase. We can easily visualize a rocket or satellite going astray because of some technical defect and causing heavy damage to the civilian population of another country. For the moment we shall pass over the military uses of spacecraft and the dangers they present. What Professor MEYER calls "Verkehrssicherungspflicht" [4], or what may in English be called a mutual obligation not to disturb or endanger national and international air transport, is enough to create a need for bringing this vacuum in the field of space law to an end. (2) While almost everyone agrees in theory that there is a need for filling this legal vacuum, the question of how to do so is another problem. To the large majority of writers [5] the on1y way to solve this problem is an international convention. All authors are not united in the choice of the organization which will convoke a conference for the elaboration of this agreement. But after the official initiatives taken in the United Nations we think that the most convenient way to solve, or to begin to solve, this problem is by the holding of a conference under the auspices of the UN. We do not forget, however, that not all nations are members of that body. But, and this is quite clear, every nation is interested in solving this problem. Therefore, we think that the invitations to this conference on the problems of outer space should be sent by the UN to all of the nations of the world. Thus, the name of this gathering really would be the World Conference on Outer Space Problems. At this point we should, of course, mention the possibility of giving the ICAO the mission of summoning such a conference. In view of its experience, the ICAO would normally be the most appropriate organization to deal with this matter. Nevertheless, there are two reasons why we prefer that the first conference be held by the UN. Although the ICAO has a great number of members its membership is smaller than that of the UN. The second reason is that this is a new problem which, besides its technical novelty, contains many elements of a political nature. Although we think that it is better that the first conference be under the auspices of the UN, this does not in any way exclude the possibility that the ICAO could be of considerable assistance in the work of any organization which might be formed by the conference to deal with these problems. Everyone agrees that the Chicago Convention cannot serve as a basis for the new regulation of outer space and that an international convention to deal with

The Need for a New System of Norms for Space Law

107

this matter should be convoked. Discord appears only when a solution of this problem is proposed. This is quite natural when we consider the novelty of the question and the political importance attached to any discussion of the legal problems of outer space. Although the principle of sovereignty is generally agreed to apply to air space, with some recently indicated limitations [6], it is not as well received when applied to outer space or even to limited areas in space [7]. We are indeed aware of the difficulties which the proposed international conference will encounter. For our part, we think that the classic principle of sovereignty of the State over the space above its territory has no application to outer space. When last considered, the application of this principle to the air space itself was modified and limited in the interest of air traffic and cultural ties between peoples and nations. Therefore, and this is the focus of our paper, we think that the new convention or agreement on the legal status of outer space will be based on principles which will differ substantially from those which support the Chicago Convention. It is from this fact that the danger referred to in the title of this paper arises. This danger is the creation of systems, different in their essential elements, which will in fact regulate but two phases of the same transport entity. To be more clear, our fear may be expressed in other words. We are afraid that the two systems will conflict and that the conflict will especially occur in the case of an airship which in the first stage of its assent will be under the terms of the Chicago Convention and, after it has left the atmosphere, under the prescriptions of the new convention. When we add the almost insolvable difficulties which exist in determining a frontier between air space and outer space, this possibility of conflict becomes much more serious. We have seen that, in theory [8], all of the proposed delimitations of space in a vertical sense are ingenious fictions, but fictions nevertheless. To base the legal solution of such a problem as the responsibility for acts along such borders on this kind of delimitation is to create what is at this time an almost insolvable legal conflict. It is quite certain that this problem will be one of the crucial questions before the proposed conference but we do not see any possible solution. The conference may adopt one of the several proposals which follow: (1) A system for outer space based on absolute rights of sovereignty; (2) A system based on the freedom of the whole of outer space. This is the best solution in a world based on collaboration among the peoples but it is a very dangerous thing in a world divided in two. It is clear that it is this system which may be in eventual conflict with the norms of the Chicago Convention; (3) A system based on different zones of outer space (the COOPER system) which would be ingenious if a line could be traced in space as easily as a frontier is drawn on the ground. This system also presents a possibility of conflict with the Chicago Convention. Therefore, we do not think a solution can be found for the legal status of outer space which will not, at the same time, be in conflict with the system of rules embodied in the Chicago Convention. In short, any solution proposed before an international conference on outer space would be in danger of so conflicting. The logical and natural consequence of these thoughts is that any draft of a new convention must bear a close and narrow connection with the Chicago Convention. That is, in creating a new system of legal rules for outer space, the new conference must amend the Chicago Convention in such a way that a common system of rules applying to air space and outer space is created. Although at present it may seem difficult to change the Chicago Convention, we thinlr it is the only correct way to deal with this problem.

108

M.

SMIRNOFF:

To simplify, we can say that the basic law of outer space is freedom of passage, with the necessary provisions being made for sound and reliable transport activities, for the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of the States, and for the free development of the science of astronautics. On the other hand, in relation to the air space, one can, by a further and consistent limitation of the now slightly obsolete principle of absolute and exclusive sovereignty and through an absolute guarantee to the State below the air space that their interests will be safeguarded, arrive at a single system of laws which will be a synthesis of these two different systems. We do not say that this synthesis will be easily achieved. Divergent interests on a national basis will intervene to postpone this agreement. However, we are certain that any concession of sovereign rights within an adequate atmosphere of mutual confidence, will be compensated a hundredfold by the gains resulting from the uninterrupted progress of astronautics and the other sciences which will be advanced as a result of the exploitation of outer space. We are also aware of the danger that the revision of the Chicago Convention may jeopardize the consensus which that Convention represents. Similar fears were expressed during the revision of tlie Warsaw Convention but we saw that they were unfounded. Therefore, we hope that this conversion of the Chicago Convention into a general system of space regulation will bring into the circle of contracting parties, those States which are still outside it. This general system, by avoiding a conflict between the law of air space and that of outer space, will be the best solution and we think that everything must be done to overcome all of the difficulties which will surely lay in the path of such a solution. However, these difficulties should not be allowed to frustrate this work which is in the interests of all mankind for a more prosperous future on earth and in outer space. References 1. J. C. COOPER, High Altitude Flight and National Sovereignty. Internat. Law

Quart. 4, 417 (1951). - Legal Problems of Upper Space. Lecture before the American Society of International Law, April 25-26, 1956. Proc. Amer. Soc. Internat. Law 60, 91 (1956). - Roman Law and the Maxim "Cuius est solum" in International Air Law. Publication No.1 of the Institute of International Air Law, McGill University, Montreal, 1955. A. G. HALEy, Space Law-Basic Concepts. Tennessee Law Rev. 24, 643 (1956). - International Cooperation in Astronautics. Foreign Service J. 36, No.4, 42 (1958). - Space Law and Metalaw-A Synoptic View. Harvard Univ. Law Rec. 23, No.8 (1956). C. W. JENKS, International Law and Activities in Space. Internat. Compo Law Quart. 6, 99 (1956). O. SCHACHTER, Legal Aspects of Space Travel. J. Brit. Interplan. Soc. 11, 14 (1952). E. WEINMANN and H. C. MAcDOUGALL, The Law of Space. Foreign Service J. 86 (1958), April. 2. E. PEPIN, The Legal Status of the Air Space in the Light of Progress in Aviation and Astronautics. Publication No.2 of the Institute of International Air Law, McGill University, Montreal, 1957. -Legal Problems Created by the Sputnik. Publication No.4 of the Institute of International Air Law, McGill University, Montreal, 1958. 3. W. MANDL, Der Weltraum. Ein Problem der Raumfahrt. Mannheim-BerlinLeipzig: Bensheimer, 1932.

The Need for a New System of Norms for Space Law

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

109

A. MEYER, Rechtliche Probleme des Weltraumflugs (Legal Problems of Flight into the Outer Space). Z. Luftrecht 2, 37 (1953). - Der kiinstliche Erdsatellit aIs Rechtsproblem. Neue Ziircher Ztg., October 22, 1957. - Anmerkungen zu dem Vortrag, gehalten von J. C. COOPER am 26. April 1956 iiber die rechtlichen Probleme des Weltraums. Z. Luftrecht 0, 171 (1956). WELF HEINRICH PRINCE OF HANOVER, Luftrecht und WeItraum (Air Law and Space), p. 72. Doctor Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law and Political Science at the George August University of Gottingen, 1953. CHENG, BIN, International Law and High Altitude Flights: Balloons, Rockets and Man-Made Satellites. Internat. Compo Law Quart. 3, 487 (1957). K. H. BOHME, Lufthoheit und Weltraumflug. Z. Luftrecht 0, 184 (1956). D. GOEDHUIS, The Limitation of Air Sovereignty. Conference of the International Law Association, Dubrovnik 1956. JOEDEN, A.thersouveriinitiit oder A.therfreiheit. Jb. Internat. Recht 3, 85 (1954). J. KROELL, Einem WeItraumrecht entgegen. Z. Luftrecht 1, 254 (1952). MIN-MING-PENG, Le vol a haute altitude et l'article l-er de la Convention de Chicago. Rev. FranQ. Droit Aerien 6, 390 (1952). W. GULDIMANN, Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum. Z. Luftrecht 1, 213 (1952). A. MEYER, op. cit. in Z. Luftrecht 0, 182 (1956). J. C. COOPER, in the above mentioned lecture before the American Society of International Law, April 25-26, 1956, and A. MEYER, op. cit. p. 180, and others. D. GOEDHUIS, op. cit. See the different views about the problem of sovereignty in BOHME, op. cit., and by MEYER and COOPER. The system of three zones which was proposed by Professor COOPER for the outer space is only a continuation of the system of zones which F AUCHILLE introduced in the early years of the 20th century for air space. P. FAUCHlLLE, Le domaine aerien et Ie regime juridique des aerostats. Paris: Dalloz, 1901.

Definitions and Subdivisions of Space Bioastronautical Aspect By

Hubertus Strughold1 Whenever matters of astronautics are discussed, the word space is used in a great variety of ways, such as outer space, deep space, free space, interplanetary space, cosmic space, and so on. But space is an immensely vast area even within our solar system and its environmental conditions are by no means uniform. We need an exact definition of what is meant by these terms, where above the earth's surface space begins, and what subdivisions of space may be conceivable and practical. In brief, we now need a kind of "geography of space,"-what we might call spatiography. This field refers, of course, only to the empty space itself. The description of the environmental conditions on the celestial bodies is called planetography, of which geography (Earth), areography (Mars), and selenography (Moon) are special cases. Both spatiography and planetography are subdivisions of an all embracing cosmography. In the following we shall confine our discussion to the space of the solar system based essentially on space medical considerations or on bioastronautics. A spatiography of this kind may also be useful for other aspects of astronautics such as space technology and space law. The first and perhaps the most important question that interests us is: Where above the earth's surface does space begin? According to theories in astrophysics, the atmosphere as a material continuum extends to about 1000 kilometers, or 600 miles. In this region collisions between air molecules or atoms become very rare and the atmosphere thins out in the form of a spray zone (exosphere) into the nearly perfect vacuum of space. But this astrophysical aspect is not relevant to astronautics and especially not to manned space flight. In this respect the cessation of the atmospheric functions and effects determine the border between atmosphere and space. Without going into detailsAs low as 15 km (about 10 mi.) and 20 km (12 mi.), the atmospheric pressure functions to provide the lungs with oxygen and to keep the body fluids in the liquid state are no longer effective. At about 25 km (16 mi.) the air, due to its low density, can no longer be utilized for cabin pressurization; instead we need a sealed cabin the same type as is required in space. At 40 km (24 mi.) we are beyond the region of absorption for cosmic rays. The same is true at 45 km (28 mi.) concerning ultraviolet of solar radiation. The 50 km (30 mi.) level is about the limit for aerodynamic lift and navigation even for the fastest winged craft. 1 M. D., Ph. D., Professor of Space Medicine and Advisor for Research, Air University, School of Aviation Medicine, U.S.A.F., Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, U.S.A.

H. STRUGHOLD: Definitions and Subdivisions of Space

111

At about 100 km (60 mi.) the rarified air ceases to scatter light and to transmit sound, resulting in the strange darkness and silence of space. At 120 km (75 mi.) we are beyond the meteor absorbing region of the atmosphere. This is practically also the aerodynamic heat limit. And, finally, at about 200 km (120 mi.) air resistance approaches zero. This mechanical border of the atmosphere is its final functional limit. At this altitude the "appreciable" or effective atmosphere terminates. For the whole atmospheric range within which the various atmospheric functions for manned flight cease, the term "aeropause" has been suggested. We can also explain the environmental situation in this region by saying that with the vanishing of its functions the atmosphere becomes partially space equivalent at 15 to 20 km and progresses step by step to total space equivalence at 200 km as far as the effectiveness of the atmospheric functions is concerned. Three of these steps on the ladder to space, or in the intra-atmospheric space equivalent region, where atmosphere and space overlap, deserve our special attention: 1. The physiological zero line of air pressure at about 20 km, at which the environment for the unprotected human body attains the equivalent of a vacuum; 2. The technical zero line for useful aerodynamic support and navigation by control surfaces at 50 km (30 mi.). Above this line we deal exclusively with ballistics, and navigation by control surfaces has to be replaced by reaction control. This altitude is considered by some law experts the limit for national authority over the air space; and 3. The mechanical zero line of air resistance at about 200 km (120 mi.). Here we enter the region of the "KEPLER Regime" where the laws of celestial mechanics, unhindered by air resistance, are fully effective. It is here where space in its connotation "outer space" actually begins. Such is the picture of the border between atmosphere and space based on a physiological and technological analysis. For astronautical purposes, what are the possibilities of subdividing the void of our solar system beyond the earth's "effective" atmosphere 1 At first glance it may seem strange to draw borderlines or demarcation lines in an environment in which emptiness is the rule and concentrations of matter, in the form of celestial bodies, are the exceptions. There are, however, several ways to subdivide space based on environmental-ecological, on gravitational and on topographical astronomical considerations. First, of vital interest to the astronaut are the environmental-ecological differences in the environment of 8pace it8elf, before he considers the celestial bodies. To begin with, the space environment in the vicinity of celestial bodies is different from that in free interplanetary space. It shows some peculiarities caused by the mere presence of their solid bodies, by optical properties of their surfaces, and by forces originating in these bodies and extending into space. In the vicinity of the earth, for instance, on one side we are protected from cosmic rays and meteorites by the solid body of our globe itself-just as we are protected on one side of a house against rain, hail, or wind. Other peculiarities of the space environment near the earth are its shadow, its own radiation, and reflected solar radiation, which influence the heat balance of a space vehicle and pose special visual problems. The forces which cause special regional environmental differences in the space near the earth are those of the geomagnetic field. The magnetic field of the earth

112

H.

STBUGHOLD:

strongly influences the influx of corpuscular rays of solar and cosmic origin by channeling them into the polar regions and storing them or deflecting them back into space over the equatorial regions. The polar lights and the high intensity radiation beIts, above 600 miles over the magnetic equator, recently discovered by VAN .ALLEN by means of the Explorer Satellites, are manifestations of this geomagnetic influence upon the density distribution of ray particles in earth near space. For all these reasons, space in the vicinity of the earth is distinctly different from open interplanetary space. H we wish to emphasize this fact, we might use for that region in which the earth's influence upon the environmental-ecological qualities of space is distinctly recognizable the designation "circumterrestrial space." The same consideration applies more or less to the other planets and the moons (for instance circumlunar space). For the circumterrestrial space, or nearby space, we might assume an extension up to 5 earth radii, depending on the outer boundary of the great radiation belt. Beyond this region we enter deep space. In a certain respect, however, the earth's influence reaches much farther into space than explained above. The factor in question is gravitation, the environmental dynamical substrate for space navigation. Theoretically, the gravitational field of the Earth, as of every other larger celestial body, extends, of course, to infinity in terms of celestial mechanics; but the astronaut is especially interested in those areas in which the gravitational force of a celestial body prevails over those of other celestial bodies. In the astronautical literature they are known as spheres of gravitational influence. We might call them, briefly, gravispheres. The gravisphere includes the potential satellite sphere which in case of the earth reaches as far as about one and one-half million kilometers, or nearly one million miles. This is the reach of the earth's satellite holding power. Beyond this distance, at which interplanetary space begins, the gravitational field of the Sun becomes predominant for a space vehicle, and the Earth can exert some influence upon it only in the form of disturbances. The potential satellite sphere of our Moon, according to O. RITTER, extends to about 60,000 km from its center; that of Venus 1 million, and of Mars one-half million km; Jupiter's potential satellite sphere is more than fifty million km in radius. The first order gravisphere in our solar system is, of course, the gravitational empire of the Sun, which blends far beyond Pluto with the gravitational noman's-land between the stars. As second order gravispheres then can be considered those of the planets, and as third order gravispheres, those of the moons, the smallest gravitational provinces in our solar system. Thus we arrive at a subdivision of space based on the extension of the gravitational territories of the various celestial bodies. This dynamographic aspect of space may be useful for a better understanding of the nature and spatial extension of satellite flight and (gravitational) escape operations such as lunar, interplanetary, and planetary space flight. But we can subdivide space on still a larger scale based on intensity variations of solar electromagnetic radiation as we encounter them when travelling through the whole planetary system from Mercury to Pluto; in other words, as we encounter them as a function of the distance from the Sun. Because this function follows the inverse square law, these variations are very extreme and they involve, of course, all important portions of the solar electromagnetic spectrum (heat rays, light, and ultraviolet rays). In fact, we would not go too far by speaking of a zonation of

Definitions and Subdivisions of Space

113

interplanetary space in this respect, an analogon to the torrid, temperate, and cold zones in the earth's climate. Such a line of thinking leads to the assumption of a zone which is not too hostile to space operations and in which the conditions on planets are compatible with the possibility of life as we- know it. This zone may extend from the region of Venus to Mars and can be called ecosphere of the Sun. A further discussion of this ecological subdivision of the space within our solar system, however, and also that of a topographical astronomical subdivision of space [such as cislunar, translunar space (KRAFFT EHRICKE) , interstellar, intragalactic, and intergalactic space] goes beyond the scope of this colloquium. References K. BUETTNER and H.lIABER, The Aeropause. Science l1/i, 656 (1952). J. C. COOPER, High Altitude Flight and National Sovereignty. Internat. Law Quart. 4, 417 (1951). 3. H.lIABER, Man in Space. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1953. 4. A. G. HALEY, Current International Situation and Legal Involvements with Respect to Long-Range Missiles and Earth-Circling Objects. In: Vistas in Astronautics, p.310. London-New York: Pergamon Press, 1958. 4a. A. G. HALEY, International Cooperation in Rocketry and Astronautics. Jet Propulsion 25, 627 (1955). 5. O. SCHACHTER, Who Owns the Universe? In: Across the Space Frontier, edited by C. RYAN, p. 118. New York: The Viking Press, 1952. 6. H. STRUGHOLD, H. HABER, K. BUETTNER and F. HABER, Where Does Space Begin? Functional Concept at the Boundaries between Atmosphere and Space. J. Aviat. Med. 22, 342 (1951). 6a. H. STRUGHOLD, Space Equivalent Conditions within the Atmosphere. Astronaut. Acta 1, 32 (1955). 6b. H. STRUGHOLD, The Ecosphere of the Sun. J. Aviat. Med.26, 323 (1955). 7. WELF HEINRICH PRINCE OF HANOVER, Luftrecht und Weltraum (Air Law and Space). Doctor Dissertation subInitted to the Faculty of Law and Political Science at the George August University of Gottingen, 1953. 8. C. S. WmTE and O. O. BENSON, Physics and Medicine of the Upper Atmosphere, a Study of the Aeropause. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1952. 1.

2.

1 st Space-Law Colloquium

s

Remarks By

Bjorn Tuneld1 For more than 30 years I have been deeply interested in all the research work and developments concerning space flight and space problems as a whole, and particularly those in the field of technology. As a lawyer, I later became interested in the legal problems involved in the use of space, and 1, have been making a careful study of them. For we must of course have legal regulations regarding the use of space, as otherwise the position would become chaotic. I have already read some papers on the subject, and I have deep respect for the authors' great knowledge concerning all the problems involved. I am proceeding with my own studies on the subject, and I would have liked to have contributed a paper of my own. However, my own thoughts on the matter are not sufficiently matured, and, because of the short time available, I have been unable to prepare a paper on the subject. I should be glad, however, to offer my own ideas at a later date. In my opinion, every effort should be made to lay down in concrete form the fundamental legal status of space and its relation to our "present world", and, if possible, to define the legal position concerning a number of various problems of leading importance which are closely associated with space. As I see it, it is of vital importance to provide our politicians in good time with all the help we can, so that they, who have to take the executive decisions, can take the proper course. In view of the extensive work which has to be accomplished I should like to participate in this fascinating task for the future prosperity of mankind, making my own contribution as far as I am able to.

1

Stadskansliet, Gustaf Adolfs torg 4, Gothenburg 0, Sweden.

Remarks By

Olgierd W olczek1 I am not a lawyer myself, but I think that my remarks concern a matter of legal importance. This is the question of the juridical height of the boundary between "air space" and "outer space". We all agree that with the development of rocket techniques and of aviation, aircraft and other craft will continue to fly higher and faster than ever. For the aircraft of the future there seems to be no practical limit concerning the altitude at which they will fly. The X-15, a typical modern hypersonic aircraft equipped with a rocket motor, for example, can achieve an altitude of 160 km, and when provided with an appropriate booster, will reach a much higher altitude, perhaps 300 km, or even more. For this reason, I think that the best solution would be to set as a practical limit of "air space" the altitude at which we can effectively put our artificial satellites-the first true astronautical objects evolved by man. This is an altitude of a little more than 200 km. But the density of the very rarified gas layer at this altitude varies with time, the geographical position, the changes in solar activity, and so on. And for these reasons, I propose that the practical limit of "air space" be set at an altitude of 200 km, irrespective of the geographical position and other factors. This altitude, however, is not the true threshold of space. I am convinced that our high altitude rockets, even the "Pioneer", have not reached the interplanetary medium. Our way to other worlds is not yet open. I think that we shall still meet with great obstacles which will have to be overcome-for example, a layer of very hot "gases" which will prevent us reaching the Moon or sending rockets in its vicinity either this year or next. I am a very great enthusiast of cosmic travel, but I am also a realist. I wish every success to Professor W. VON BRAUN and to all scientists who are working on the Moon probes and similar projects. However, in my opiniou, I believe that all contemporary rockets will be destroyed at a certain altitude-probably in the region of 100,000 km-by great heat. All these craft will vanish without trace. I am at present working on the scientific explanation for my frankly pessimistic opinion. It is still too early to give more detailed information on the subject, but I will set out a better scientifically founded account when my work is further advanced. In my own view, I would not name the area above the proposed "air space" limit of 200 km as "space", for true "space" begins at far higher altitudes. I would therefore propose that the area above the 200 km limit be called "transitory space". We will then have three distinct space zones: "air space" (0-200 km), "transitory space" (200- ... km), and finally "cosmic space", or simply "space". 1

Polskie Towarzystwo Astronautyczne, Politechnika, Gmach Glowny, pok. 318,

Warsaw 10, Poland.

8*

A Code for a New Frontier By

Philip B. Yeager1 Principles, like comets, have a way of reappearing throughout the ages. The obligation which faces men today, as they prepare to cast loose from their planet, is not a new one. That duty is to make sure the civilization of Earth reaches its ultimate destiny, to make sure that it is neither stunted nor destroyed enroute. It is a duty which has faced the men and women of the world from the beginnings of human evolution. Today it stands before us newly packaged, newly labelled in relation to the tremendous social problems inherent in Space exploration-but it is the same old Basic Obligation of Mankind. What it boils down to is this: man must use self-control and effectively adjust his differences if his world is not to revert to the world of the jungle. And most people, I think, will agree that the jungle of today does not differ greatly from the jungle of 100,000 years ago. In other words, progress implies that we must continually develop new rules of behavior to fit new situations. From Cicero to Sputnik

One of the very first to recognize the obligation of humanity toward its own growth-as well as the first to take a recorded Space flight (in fancy)was Scipio Africanus, the Younger, who lived more than a century before Christ. At least CICERO, in his engaging treatise on "Scipio's Dream", projects the great Roman general into the Milky Way where he seeks answers to his inner conflict through conversation with his departed father, Paulus. From this exalted, galactic, vantage point Paulus is able to impress upon Scipio that "men are created under the law which obliges them to take care of their world" [1]. That is the principle which flashed across the horizon of Scipio's timeand the one before us today as we consider some of the long-range reasons for developing a workable design for living in Outer Space. The problems are big. If we classify them in accordance with their relative urgency, they emerge something like this: Immediate Problems-such as: the status of Space vis-a-vis the nations of Earth; jurisdiction of activities in Space; protection against interference from Space in earthly affairs; and the regulation of civil activities beyond our atmosphere. 1 Staff Consultant to the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

PH.

B.

YEAGER:

A Code for a New Frontier

117

More Distant Problems-such as: ownership or use of the moon and other celestial bodies; exploitation of extra-terrestrial resources; development and use of substance and forces found in Space. Remote Problems-such as: relations with intelligent life encountered in other worlds. When we stop to contemplate that, so far, man really has not done a great deal in Space, it is not difficult to acquire a somewhat inhibited feeling that we are being presumptuous in our considerations of the political and legal control of Outer Space. But even aside from the aspect of national security-which admittedly is a most vital spur to the exploration and use of Space-the pressures likely to require a beginning Space law now appear to be bearing down on us swiftly. That talented and veteran "Space buff", ARTHUR C. CLARKE, has probably defined those pressures as well as anyone. They are, he says: (1) The limited physical resources of Earth. (2) The bursting force of our accelerating population. (3) The necessity of a new outlet for the pioneering instincts of the human race. (4) The need for advanced scientific knowledge. (5) The native curiosity of us all. It is a significant commentary that even those primarily concerned with the military phases of Space recognize the overwhelming drive which lies behind the desire for greater knowledge and which is engrained in human curiosity. For example, WERNHER VON BRAUN and General JOHN B. MEDARIS, both of whom are guiding lights in the United States Army's ordnance missile program, have emphasized strongly that natural curiosity and the quest for knowledge for its own sake are the strongest of all sustaining forces now propelling man toward the new frontier of Space [2]. Perhaps another way of putting it would be through this syllogism: Space is "there". Man can now, or soon will be able to, go there. Ergo-he will go!

The Fork in the Road Ahead So it appears that civilization is approaching one of those momentous forks in the highway of history-perhaps the most momentous of them all. And the view from here, from 1958, discloses three branches to the road ahead. We can bear off to the left and go down the road to annihilation, riding our missiles, our nuclear warheads and our spacecraft to mutual destruction. We can veer to the right, where science begins to overshadow the political doctrines of the past to become in itself the new political doctrine of technocracy-where the stark, antiseptic technocrats of GEORGE ORWELL'S "1984" materialize into frightening reality. Or we can move straight ahead into a theatre of time where mind and spirit rule, subjecting technology to their needs, probing the reaches of the Universe in search of ultimate truth and understanding.. Some say, or at least profess to believe, that there is no imminent danger of our choosing the left fork or the right. Perhaps this is so. To my mind, however, under the current state of world law, it is possible to be pushed down the road to destruction-by either design or accidentin spite of a majority intent to the contrary. There is competent support for this theory in the views of many knowledgable men-including those of J. C. COOPER, recognized authority on air law, who says: "The existing (legal) hiatus

118

PH. B. YEAGER:

in Space can lead to grave international misunderstanding if permitted to continue too long" [3]. So far as the rising political power of Science is concerned-examples exist in all advanced nations today. What happened to the STALIN-LYSENKO creed of genetic predetermination, for instance, when it ran into more demonstrable scientific theories 1 It was banned by governmental authority. And what has happened to the American political institution of the party platform since the electronic advent of radio and television 1 There are many who insist the platform has taken a back seat to the reassuring voice and the "TV personality", so that what is at issue becomes less important than how it is presented. The two situations are not intrinsically comparable. They simply illustrate, in different ways, the impact of technology on national politics. In any event, having arrived at the fork in the road we are, as one of America's most prominent industrial technicians reflects, worried. "We are ill at ease among the immense forces we have summoned from the deep. The dust stirred up by the march of progress gets into our eyes and blurs our vision ... We feel ourselves like children playing with matchesand we have grown afraid" [4]. But this need not be the case, and our best hope for overcoming our fears and for keeping ourselves moving down the straight road lies in the rule of reasonable law. So it is not, in my view, an unwise or unseemly presumption for those who believe in the power of justice, equality and self-government to begin work on a code for Outer Space. That code may spell the difference between harmony and holocaust. Moreover, as Paulus admonished Scipio, man is obliged to take care of his world. This is his job. There can be no logical reason to feel apologetic about efforts to do it in a civil manner. A Change in the Public Those who assert that the world is not yet ready for Space Law seem to be following the assumption that there has been little change in social or political outlook in recent decades. The facts seem to refute such an assumption. Obviously, this century has witnessed tremendous scientific and technological advance-a change, possibly, so great as to obscure important corollary advances made in the social sciences. In education, national cultures, international exchange, government and law. Knowledge, if not understanding, is beginning to penetrate even the most backward areas of Earth. The world's public is rapidly becoming a fairly sophisticated product which the leaders of our times might be wise to recognize as such. Thinking is less restricted. Provincialism is on the wane. Perhaps an example of the tendency toward the broader concept of selfinterest can be detected from the panorama of American history. At the time of the formation of the United States government, in 1787, citizens thought of themselves almost exclusively as Virginians, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, Massachusetts-men, etc. By the time of the Civil War identification was by the label of "North" or "South". When World War I became a reality for Americans, it was the United States against Germany. In World War II it became the Allies versus the Axis. Now the entire globe is fairly well divided between the camps of East and West.

A Code for aNew Frontier

119

The point is that the entire trend of history has seen a constant widening of the interests with which all individuals, not merely Americans, identify themselves. To me, this evolution of individual self-interest is extremely important. For it seems to suggest at least the possibility that humans are becoming worldminded enough to give effective consideration to a code for Space behavior. It may even be that they are well ahead of their designated leaders. At least there is plenty of evidence that groups of citizens in all parts of the globe are willing to be bound by self-imposed rules arising from a community ot interestsinterests which transcend political nationalism to a great extent. The affiliation of world groups devoted to labor, health, education, meteorology, aviation, atomic energy, etc., is patent testimony. The International Geophysical Year itself is an excellent demonstration of the trend.

Impact of Defense and Leisure None of this is intended as a plug for World Government, which is quite a different thing from international or world law [5]. But the capability of men to develop a law for Outer Space is becoming increasingly crucial for two reasons. First, we are about to be catapulted into Space, ready for it or not, as a natural concomitant to progressing defense research and development. Secondly, as our scientific abilities increase and as great new blocs of leisure time are thrust upon us by labor-saving techniques, we are almost certain to be confronted with a radical and massive unrest. When a majority of Earth's people need no longer struggle to assure themselves the basic essentials of existence-food, clothing and shelter-where do they turn? That time is not yet here, but it may be relatively close. And when it arrives, there must be someplace to go and something to do-something more meaningful than the cinema, the golf course, the backyard garden or the nearest bistro. In short, we will have to contend with a global hunger for stimulation and creativity which Space exploration alone is likely to satisfy. If these predictions are correct and if in the years ahead a sizeable share of our endeavors spill over into Space, shall all this motion of mankind go unregulated? Each of us is familiar with the unsightly, inefficient, sprawling growth of urban areas which has taken place in every nation of the world due to the lack of planning and foresight. Do we want this, figuratively, for Space? The answer, I think, is "no". If the parallel is something less than precise, there is nevertheless enough substance to it to make the point-modern civilization, whether Earthbound or Spacebound, is simply too complex to operate without some basic ground rules. These rules are the important thing-together with the capability and the disposition to create them. I believe we have the capability. Whether we have the disposition remains to be seen. Incidentally, the charter of the United Nations encourages "the progressive development of international law and its codification" [6], and permits special organizations to do initial work along these lines [7]. So it would appear that the legal framework within which such efforts could be started is available to us already.

120

PH. B. YEAGER:

The Coming

or Intellectual Pre· Eminence

Suppose we carry the tremendously influential factors of our Age, technology and mass education, a step further. What can we expect from them 1 L. V. BERKNER, one of the chief architects of the IGY, has an idea: "The satellite symbolizes an intellectual attainment that may dominate the period immediately ahead as the most powerful single instrument of national policy. We should examine this view closely, or we may unwittingly miss the opportunity to realize its great potentialities" [8]. BERKNER elaborates on this theme by asserting that "intellectual preeminence" has already become one of the potent weapons in the nationalistic arsenals of modern man. He believes it is taking its place beside the two traditional instruments of national policy-wealth and power-and that if the world's armed might remains in reasonable balance, then, as time goes on, intellectual preeminence will take over as the most potent single force abroad in the land. In paraphrase: with a knowledgable citizenry standing before them, nations will have to vie with each other for influence and support-not through their military machines and gold reserves, but through their appeal to the intellect of the individual. The thought seems to be that in the future few will find themselves attracted to the banners of traditional Power; many will cluster about the new standard of Intellect. Perhaps this is over-simplified and overdrawn. But the BERKNER theory is a good springboard from which to consider the most likely political forces of tomorrow. Can the final answers to a peaceful, prosperous and progressive planet ever lie solely, or even predominantly, with intellectual pre-eminence 1 I would be inclined to suggest that moral force, combined with intellectual pre-eminence, will be the final instrument of national policy-provided that man can somehow buy enough time to let his civilization evolve this far without blowing himself up. There is nothing particularly novel about this idea other than its possible application in the highly technical, highly organized era to come. In essence it is part of the basic philosophy of Christ, of Buddha, of Mohammed and others. Perhaps its foremost champion today is historian ARNOLD TOYNBEE. At least TOYNBEE has posed the classic riddle of human destiny in terms of moral power: "Man's intellectual and technological achievements have been important to him, not in themselves, but only insofar as they have forced him to face, and grapple with, moral issues which he might have managed to go on shirking. Modern science has thus raised moral issues of profound importance, but it has not and could not have made any contribution towards solving them." Solving the moral issues may depend on many things. But a strategic element of the solution doubtless depends on what Sir LESLIE MUNRO calls "the art of living together" [9]-plus a code of world behavior through which to establish minimum standards of national conduct for the Age of Science now approaching. The Role of Space Law Some sort of Space law must eventuate as part of that code, if for no other reason than to set our thoughts flowing toward reason and order as we contemplate Space and its exploration. I believe that any logical move in this direction, no matter how puny or tentative, will pay priceless dividends in the long run-and not merely to keep Space free, but to keep us free as well.

A Code for a New Frontier

121

That is, if most of us become accustomed to the idea that a single code can be accepted by all, or nearly all, of the nations on Earth, in spite of widely varied cultures and histories, then the chances of anyone political entity imposing its will on the rest of the globe by any other method than law should be markedly reduced. What I am driving at is simply a rather sublimated parody of the old ballad, "How Are You Gonna Keep 'Em Down on The Farm Mter They've Seen Paree 1" Dictatorship is apt to be indigestible after a diet of democratic law. But the danger is there. ALDOUS HUXLEY puts it succinctly when he warns against being caught by surprise by advancing technology. In his view science may be perverted to produce the one condition requisite to permanent dictatorship-inducement of the people to love their subjection to minority rule. As he sees it, prevention, not cure, is the only safeguard-prevention by establishing the principles and the rules of freedom first and making sure technology hews to them rather than permitting technology to make the rules. Something along the same line is inherent in the discourse of Roy JOHNSON, director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency, when he speculates on the possibility of that old standby of science fiction-the Death Ray [10]. Some of the inventions "just around the corner" by virtue of our speeding research programs could, indeed, lead to that "ultimate weapon". If it happens, any holder of the secret or patent is a potential Emperor of Earth-unless the force of world opinion as crystallized into law is solidly against him. Obviously, no law is going to deter a madman. On the other hand, a generally accepted global code of behavior will be cause for serious reflection and second thought by those who may feel the relatively normal human impulses toward conquest. There is no suggestion here that a code for Outer Space either could be or should be designed as a panacea for all the political ills which beset this world and this time. But if we can get such a code, regardless of its initial efficiency, mankind will at least be morally committed to the principles of freedom, equity and civil settlement of disputes in areas beyond the atmosphere. Then, if moral and intellectual pre-eminence truly does gain stature as a geopolitical force of the future, our chances for the peaceful development of Space will, accordingly, be that much brighter. Perhaps, too, the reward which Scipio saw in his dream of Space-the "harmony of the spheres"-will rebound like a radar signal and spread its echo across all the continents of Earth. References 1. CICERO, Somnium Scipionis. De re publica, Book 6. 2. Hearings before the House Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, 85th Congress (1958), on House Bill 11881, pp. 16, 61, 137 et al. 3. J. C. COOPER, Proc. Amer. Soc. Internat. Law 60, 85 (1956). 4. D. SARNOFF, A Faith for Tomorrow. Guideposts 1968, Sept., p.4. 5. CH. S. RHYNE, Legal Horizons of Space Use and Exploration. Address at University of South Dakota, April 19, 1958. 6. Charter of the United Nations, Article 13. 7. Charter of the United Nations, Articles 55, 59. 8. L. V. BERKNER, Foreign Affairs 8, 221 (1958). 9. L. MUNRO, New Zealand Law J. 33, 378 (1958). 10. loco cit. [2], p. 1163 et al.

Members of

The Permanent Legal Committee of the

International Astronautical Federation (As of April 10, 1959) Dr. YASUO ABE, Chief, International Section, Civil Aviation Bureau, Ministry of Transportation, No.1, I-Chome, Ote-machi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan. Prof. Avv. VINCENZO ALESSANDRONE-GAMBARDELLA, Via Val Cristallina 2, Rome, Italy. Mr. Justice E . .ALTEN, Supreme Court of Norway, Uranienborg Terrasse 17, Oslo, Norway. Dr. MANU AMATAYAKUL, Director-General of the United Nations Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bangkok, Thailand. The Honorable VICTOR L. ANFuso, Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Prof. Dr. .ALVARO BAUzA ARAUJO, Rio Negro 1380, Montevideo, Uruguay. Dr. ARNo BARBER, Neulinggasse 11/7, Vienna III, Austria. The Honorable PERKINS BASS, Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. MajorK.M.BEAUMoNT,380GreshamHouse,OldBroadStreet,London,E.C.2,England. RALPH E. BECKER, Esquire, Brookhard, Becker & Dorsey, 1700 K Street, N.W., Washington 6, D.C., U.S.A. The Honorable .ALVIN M. BENTLEY, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. SPENCER M. BERESFORD, Esquire, Special Counsel, Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Prof. Dr. CEZARY BEREZOWSKI, Director of the Institute of Law of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland. Dr. Lmz DE GONZAGA BEVILACQUA, Rue Saint Martin 20-27, Bauru, Sao PaUlo, Brazil. H. T. P. BINET, Esquire, Honorary Secretary, Astronautical Society of Canada, 3644 Peel Street, Montreal 2, Canada. Dr. CHARLES BOASSON, Lecturer, International Relations University, and Honorary Secretary, Israel Branch, International Law Association, P.O. Box 718, Telaviv, Israel. Dr. MANFRED BODENSCHATZ, Deutscher Luftpool, Koniginstrasse 28, Munich 22, Germany. The Honorable OVERTON BROOKS, Chairman, Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Mr. JULIUS N. CARN, Administrative Assistant to Senator Alexander Wiley, U.S. Senate, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. The Honorable HOWARD W. CANNON, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, U.S. Senate, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. The Honorable HOMER E. CAPEHART, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. BERNARD CHAZEN, Esquire, Baker, Garber & Chazen, 1 Newark Street, Hoboken, N.J., U.S.A. Dr. .ALDO ARMANDO COCCA, Lawyer, Chairman of the Argentine Interplanetary Association, Delegate to the Legal Committee of the ICAO, Juan Francisco Segui 4444, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The Permanent Legal Committee of the IAF

123

Dr. MAXWELL COHEN, School of Law, McGill University, 3644 Peel Street, Montreal 2, Canada. Prof. JOHN COBB COOPER, 1 Armour Road, Princeton, N.J., U.S.A. Dr. HERBERT CULMANN, Deutsche Lufthansa, Claudiusstrasse 1, Oologne, Germany. WILLIAMTucKERDEAN,JR.,Esquire,Secretary,CornellLawSchool,Ithaca,N.Y.,U.S.A. Mr. L. DELANNEY, Transport and Communications, The United Nations, New York, N.Y., U.S.A. Dr. VICTOR JOSE DELASCIO, Counsellor on Aeronautical Law, Ministry of Communications, Oaracas, Venezuela. Mr. PAUL G. DEMBLING, Assistant General Counsel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1512 H Street, N.W., Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Mr. SPHRANG DEVAHASTIN, Vice Chairman of Civil Aviation Board, Ministry of Communications, Bangkok, Thailand. Mr. S. W. L. DE VILLIERS, Department of Transport, Transport Building, Pretoria, Union of South Africa. The Honorable CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR., Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Mr. SAMUEL E. EASTMAN, School of Industrial Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 50 Memorial Drive, Oambridge, Mass., U.S.A. Prof. NATHAN FEINBERG, Professor of International Law and Relations, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. GEORGE J. FELDMAN, Esquire, 350 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y., U.S.A. Mr. KENNETH FINCH, Federal Communications Commission, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Mr. GERALD F. FITZGERALD, Room 814, International Aviation Building, 1080 University Street, Montreal, Canada. Lic. ANTONIO FRANCOZ RIGALT, Cases Grandes 258, Mexico Oity D.F., Mexico. Dr. KyoZl FUNADA, 35 5-chome, Aoyama-Minami Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan. Prof. Dr. AUGUSTO R. FUSTER, Legal Adviser, Direcci6n General de Aeronautica Civil, Yegros 87, Asuncion, Paraguay. The Honorable CORNELIUS E. GALLAGHER, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Mrs. ElLENE GALLOWAY, Special Consultant, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, U.S. Senate, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. ARTHUR F. GARMAISE, Esquire, 1448 Peel Street, Montreal 2, Canada. Mr. KENNETH W. GATLAND, F.R.A.S., 431A Chertsey Road, Whitton, Twickenham, Middlesex, England. Mr. J. G. GAZDIK, International Air Transport Association, Terminal Centre Building, 1060 University Street, Montreal 3, Canada. Mrs. Mag. Jur. ELENA GENOVA, Juriscounsult, Bulgarian Civil Air Transport, PI. Narodno Sobranie, Sofia 12, Bulgaria. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. FRITZ GERLACH, Regierungsdirektor im Bundesverkehrsministerium, Martinstrai3e 24, Bonn, Germany. Prof. STEPHEN GOROVE, Professor of Law, New York Law School, 244 William Street, New York 38, N.Y., U.S.A. Prof. KURT GRONFORS, Institute of Legal Science, Handelshogskolan, Vasagatan 3, Gothenburg C, Sweden. Dr. VICENTE GUMICIO, Junta de Aeronautica Civil, Huerfanos 812, Office 418, Santiago, Chile. Dr. CONSTANTINE C. HADJIDIMOULAS, Attorney at Law, 53 F. Roosevelt St., Thessalonike, Greece. Dr. O. HADJIVASSILIOU-EvGENIDOU, Chief, International Affairs Section, Civil Aviation Service, Ministry of Communications and Public Works, 16 Nikiforou Street, Athens, Greece. Prof. G. EDWARD HAMILTON, Huerfanos 972, Office 603, Santiago, Chile. Dr.WELFliEINRICHPRINCEOFHANOVER,Blittersdorffpl.29,Frankjurt a. M.,Germany. Dr. JAMES J. HANRAHAN, Holloman Section, American Rocket Society, Inc., P.O. Box 807, Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., U.S.A.

124

The Permanent Legal Committee of the IAF

The Honorable WAYNE L. HAYS, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Mr. SVERRE HOLSTEN, Directorate of Civil Aviation, Kirkegaten 15, Oslo, Norway. ROBERT HOMBURG, Esquire, Avocat a la Cour de Paris, President de la Commission Juridique de la Societe Franctaise d'Astronautique, 39 Rue du General Foy, Paris VIII, France. Mr. JEAN-PIERRE HOULE, Chief, International Relations Division, Air Transport Board, Ottawa, Canada. Dr. J. HUBENER, Bundesverkehrsministerium, Kaufmannstra13e 58, Bonn, Germany. Dr. J. IVANYI, Director of Posts, Official in Chief of the Ministry of Communications and Posts, Budapest 7, Hungary. Mr. C. WILFRED JENKS, International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland. Mr. JOHN A. JOHNSON, General Counsel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1512 H Street, N.W., Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. EDWARD J. KENN, Esquire, 14 Wall Street, New York 5, N.Y., U.S.A. The Honorable DAVID S. KING, Committee on Science and Astronautics, U. S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. General K. KIRILOV, General Manager, Bulgarian Civil Air Transport, PI. Narodno Sobranie, Sofia 12, Bulgaria. ARNOLD W. KNAUTH, Esquire, Lowenstein, Pitcher, Spence, Hotchkiss, Amann & Parr, 25 Broad Street, New York 4, N.Y., U.S.A. Mr. EITARO KOMABAYASHI, Chief of Maintenance Control and Supply, J.A.L. Company, Tokyo, Japan. Dr. H. KRUG, Forschungsinstitut fUr Physik der Strahlantriebe e.V., Stuttgart-Flughafen, Germany. Mr. SAMUEL KUCHEROV, Head, Special Projects Section, Air Information Division, Library of Congress, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Prof. JOSEF L. KUNZ, College of Law, The University of Toledo, 1034 Prospect Avenue, Toledo 6, 0., U.S.A. Prof. MANFRED LACHS, Professor of Internat. Law, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland. HARRY C. LAMBERTON, Esquire, 1908 Q Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C., U.S.A. ALBERT C. LAZURE, Esquire, Chief, Legal Office, Office of the Chief of Ordnance, Department of the Army, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Mr. MAURICE LEMOINE, Directeur General Adjoint d'Air France, 2 Rue Marbeuf, Paris VIII, France. Prof. EDWARD H. LEVI, Dean, The Law School, University of Chicago, Chicago 37, Ill., U.S.A. Dr. 1. M. LEVITT, Director, The Fels Planetarium of The Franklin Institute, Philadelphia 3, Pa., U.S.A. Prof. AVIGDOR LEVONTIN, Professor of Private, International and Interreligious Law, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. Mr. M. FERREIRA DE LIMA, Legal Adviser in Aviation Matters, R. das Flores 77-10, Lisbon, Portugal. Prof. LEON LIPSON, The Law School, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., U.S.A. ALLAN N. LITTMAN, Esquire, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Standard Oil Building, 225 Bush Street, San Francisco 4, Calif., U.S.A. Mr. CHEN-HAN LIU, Counsellor, Ministry of Communications, Republic of China, Taipei, Taiwan, China. Mr. DANIEL LUREAU, 57 Rue Albert Barraud, Bordeaux, France. Mr. JACEK MACHOWSKI, Counsellor, Polish People's Republic Permanent Mission to the United Nations, 151 East 67th Street, New York 21, N.Y., U.S.A. The Honorable WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, U.S. Senate, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Mr. TSUYOSHI MANO, Sec. 519 Marunouchi Building, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan. DAVID B. H. MARTIN, Esquire, Legislative Assistant to Senator Leverett Saltonstall, U.S. Senate, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A.

The Permanent Legal Committee of the IAF

125

Dr. MARIO MATTEUCCI, Secretary General, International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, Via Panisperna 28, Rome, Italy. JACOB E. MAx, Esquire, Max & Koenig, 22 Journal Square, Jersey Oity, N.J., U.S.A. DAVID F. MAXWELL, Esquire, Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, 1418 Packard Building, Philadelphia 2, Pa., U.S.A. Mr. A. SMITH McDONALD, Executive Director, Air Transport Board, No.3 Temporary Building, Ottawa, Canada. !AN E. MCPHERSON, Esquire, Law Department, Canadian National Railways, Montreal 1, Canada. Lic. JUAN ARCE MEDINA, Compania Dominicana de Aviaci6n, Oiudad Trujillo, D.N., Dominican Republic. Dr. ALEc MELLOR, Docteur en Droit, Avocat ala Cour d'Appel de Paris, 9 Boulevard Jules Sandeau, Paris XVI, France. The Honorable LEE METCALF, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Prof. Dr. ALEX MEYER, Institut fiir Luftrecht, University of Cologne, AlbertusMagnus-Platz, Oologne-Lindenthal, Germany. Mr. lzAAc J. MINTZ, Legal Adviser, Legal Adviser's Office, Ministry of Transport and Communication, State of Israel, J erusawm, Israel. The Honorable WALTER H. MOELLER, Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. The Honorable WAYNE MORSE, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Dr. INGO V. MUNCH, Institut fiir Auslandisches und Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Mertonstrasse 17, Frankfurt a. M., Germany. The Honorable KARL E. MUNDT, U.S. Senate, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Sir LESLIE MUNRO, 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Mr. ICHIRO NARAHASHI, Representative of Japan on the Council of ICAO, Room 1014, International Aviation Building, 1080 University Street, Montreal, Canada. Prof. BORKO NIKOLAJEVIC, President, Air Law Section, Society for International Law, 8 Jundulicev Venac, Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Prof. Dr. E. PEPIN, Director, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, 3644 Peel Street, Montreal 2, Canada. Prof. Fu VIO A. PEREIRA, President, International Scientific Council, Sociedade Interplanetaria Brasileira, Caixa Postal 6450, Sao Paulo, Brazil. HERZEL H. E. PLAINE, Esquire, Office of the General Counsel, Atomic Energy Commission, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Prof. Dr. STAVROS PLAKIDIS, Laboratory of Astronomy, University of Athens, Director, National Observatory, 57 Solonos Street, Athens, Greece. Dr. N. M. POULANTZAS, Alte Universitat-Strasse 17, Mainz, Germany. Prof. MILOS RADOJKOVIC, Secretary General, Yugoslav International Law Association, Bulevar Revolucije 67, Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Prof. FRIEDRICH WILHELM VON RAUCHHAUPT, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Prof. Dr. OTTO RIESE, Judge at the High Court of the European Communities, Luxembourg, Luxembourg. Prof. Dr. GERD RINCK, Herzberger Landstrasse 26, Gottingen, Germany. Prof. JOHN RITCHIE, III, Dean, The School of Law, Northwestern University, Ohicago 11, Ill., U.S.A. Miss MARGUERITE E. RITCHIE, Office of The Deputy Minister of Justice, Department of Justice, Ottawa, Canada. Dr. JEAN RIVOIRE, 5 Rue J. J. Rousseau, Paris VII, France. Dr. I. H. PH. DE RODE-VERSCHOOR, Privaatdocent in Air Law at the University of Utrecht, Leestraat 43, Boom, The Netherlands. Mr. A. BEATTY ROSEVEAR, Q.C., Trans-Canada Air Lines, 360 McGill Street, Room 511, Montreal 2, Canada. The Honorable J. EDWARD ROUSH, Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A.

126

The Permanent Legal Committee of the IAF

Mr. A. C. RUSSELL, Crown Solicitor's Sub-Office (Civil Aviation), Henty House, 499 Little Collins Street, Melbourne C. 1, Australia. Dr. HASSAN SAFAVI, Legal Adviser, Department General of Civil Aviation, Ministry of Roads, Mehrabad Airport, Teheran, Iran. Dr. DIGEDDINE SALEH, Conseiller, Cour Supreme, Conseil d'Etat, Cairo, United Arab Republic. The Honorable LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, U.S. Senate, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Mr. OSCAR SCHACHTER, Director of Legal Affairs, United Nations, New York, N.Y., U.S.A. Mr. CHRISTOPHER SHAWCROSS, Q.C., 1 Harcourt Buildings, Temple, London, E.C. 4, England. Dr. CHARLES S. SHELDON, II, Technical Director, Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. FRANK SIMPSON, III, Esquire, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, Balthis & Hampton, 458 South Spring Street, Los Angeles 13, Calif., U.S.A. The Honorable B. F. SISK, Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Dr. MICHEL SMIRNOFF, Zahumska br. 37/III, Belgrade, Yugoslavia. JOHN R. SNIVELY, Esquire, 401 West State Street, Rockford, Ill., U.S.A. The Honorable JOHN J. SPARKMAN, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Prof. ROBERT E. SULLIVAN, Dean, School of Law, Montana State University, Missoula, Mont., U.S.A. Dr. BRANISLAV SUPICA, Federal Transport Member, Nemanjina 6/IV, Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Dr. MARTIN SWEIG, Office of the Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Prof. Dr. YUICID TARANO, Department of Jurisprudence, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. Dr. LUIS TAPIA, Chief, Section of Aeronautical Law, Instituto Francisco de Vitoria de Derecho Internacional, Duque de Medinaceli 4, Madrid, Spain. HOWARD J. TAUBENFELD, Esquire, Counsellor at Law, 200 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco 2, Calif., U.S.A. Mr. BJORN TUNELD, Stadskansliet, Gustaf Adolfs torg 4, Gothenburg C, Sweden. Dr. CONSTANTINE G. V AICOUSSIS, Attorney at Law, 35 Churchill Street, Chrysicopoulos Building, Athens, Greece. Prof. PETROS G. VALLINDAS 4, Sekeri, Athens, Greece. Mr. J. E. VAN DER MEULEN, Vice President, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Floris Grijpstraat 19, The Hague, Netherlands. Prof. Dr. ALFRED VERDROSS, Professor of International Law, University of Vienna, Vienna I, Austria. Rear Admiral CHESTER C. WARD, The Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Dr. HUBERT WESSELS, Assistant to the Institute of Air Law, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. Mr. R. V. WILBERFORCE, 3 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London, W. C. 2, England. Dr. HANS-HERBERT WIMMER, Koniginstrasse 28, Munich 22, Germany. CLARENCE L. YANCEY, Esquire, Cook, Clark, Egan, Yancey & King, Commercial National Bank Building, P.O. Box 77, Shreveport 81, La., U.S.A. Mr. PHILIP B. YEAGER, Staff Consultant, Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A. Prof. Dr. KISABURO YOKATA, Department of Jurisprudence, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. Mr.TAKASHIYoSHIDA,Counsellor, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice, T okyo, Japan. Prof. Dr. KARL ZEMANEK, Professor of International Law, University of Vienna, Vienna I, Austria. Dr. MAREK ZYLICZ, Institute of Air Law, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland.

Springer-Verlag in Wien

Proceedings

Vth International Astronautical Congress Innsbruck 1954 Editor-in-chief

Friedrich Hecht Vienna With 165 figures. VI, 307 pages. 6%HX 9W'. 1955 $ 13.80, £4.18.6d., S 348.-, DM 58.-, sfr. 59.30 *

Proceedings

VIIIth International Astronautical Congress Barcelona 1957 Editor-in-chief

Friedrich Hecht Vienna With 233 figures. VII, 607 pages. 6% H x 9 Y2 H. 1958 Full cloth $ 29.75, £10.12.6d., S 750.-, DM 125.-, sfr. 128.-

*

Proceedings

IXth International Astronautical Congress Amsterdam 1958 Editor·in-chief

Friedrich Hecht Vienna With 424 figures. XII, 970 pages. 6% HX 9Y2 H. 1959 Two volumes Full cloth $ 49.50, £17.13.6d., S 1248.-, DM 208.-, sfr. 213.-

*

* Members of IAF member societies will obtain the Proceedings at a reduced price with a reduction of 20 per cent Obtainable through any bookseller