New insights into space activities regulation: ab origine to contemporary
Research of problems of International Space Law. Search for approaches to the legal regulation of activities in space. Application of new methods for determining the spatial-territorial jurisdiction of states. Division the aerospace into special layers.
| Ðóáðèêà | Ìåæäóíàðîäíûå îòíîøåíèÿ è ìèðîâàÿ ýêîíîìèêà |
| Âèä | ñòàòüÿ |
| ßçûê | àíãëèéñêèé |
| Äàòà äîáàâëåíèÿ | 05.09.2024 |
| Ðàçìåð ôàéëà | 49,4 K |
Îòïðàâèòü ñâîþ õîðîøóþ ðàáîòó â áàçó çíàíèé ïðîñòî. Èñïîëüçóéòå ôîðìó, ðàñïîëîæåííóþ íèæå
Ñòóäåíòû, àñïèðàíòû, ìîëîäûå ó÷åíûå, èñïîëüçóþùèå áàçó çíàíèé â ñâîåé ó÷åáå è ðàáîòå, áóäóò âàì î÷åíü áëàãîäàðíû.
Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://allbest.ru
New insights into space activities regulation: ab origine to contemporary
Volodymyr Marinich Volodymyr Marinich applicant, The National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine; lawyer in Law Firm “FOX” of Marina Myklush”; member of NGO “Cosmic Law Portal”, Maryna Myklush Maryna Myklush CEO in Law Firm “FOX” of Marina Myklush”; CEO in NGO "Cosmic Law Portal", Svitlana Holub Svitlana Holub Senior lecturer, Academy of Labour, Social Relations and Tourism
Abstract
The research presents new perceptions on the process of regulating space activities based on a synthesis of innovative approaches to regulating such activities and analysis of documents adopted by the international community in this area over the entire period of development of space activities. First of all, the research raises the issue of the format of the existing Space Law (including the form of Conventionalis stipulatio) as well as the question of the possibility of the emergence in the future of several new legal systems to regulate space activities. In this regard, the list of subjects and objects of space activities and space law is revised, and options for their classification and new interpretations are proposed. In addition, at this stage of the research, a proposal is presented for applying a new approach to organizing the legal space of the Universe taking into account the principles of “domestic room ” and “alien room ”. At the same time, this proposal also includes the use of new methods to determine the spatial-territorial jurisdiction of States. Thus, instead of searching for the border between airspace and outer space (which has not yet been successful), the question of the possibility of dividing the entire aerospace into several special layers is considered, namely a layer of spatial security of States, a layer of spatial security of humanity, and open space. Additionally, the research emphasizes the gradual formation in 1958 - 1963 of the first four most important General Principles for Space Activities, which in the future may become the basis for the development of Outer Space Public Law aimed at the benefit of all humanity. According to the author, the findings of this research can be useful to form a new insight into the process of regulating space activities and develop new forms and types of Space Law that will change the international situation in this area for the better.
Keywords: space, space law, space activities, principles, subjects, objects, jurisdictions
Introduction
Compared to the 20th century, in the 21st century space activities have shifted to a new technological and political level of development. The orbits of the Earth are massively occupied by artificial satellites of States and private companies, research stations are sent to the Moon and Mars, plans are being made for the exploration of asteroids and the colonization of the Moon and Mars, and outer space is massively saturated with military satellites and weapons. Moreover, on November 07-08, 2023, at the COSMIC Kickoff Meeting, representatives of NASA and the US White House stated the existence of space armed forces, preparation for celestial bodies colonization, and war in outer space and on celestial bodies.
It is possible to say that the era of global space confrontation has begun. If the process of regulating space activities does not move to a new, qualitatively higher level, then such confrontation threatens all mankind with an orbital satellite war, which can develop into a large-scale space war. At the same time, the mentioned war could lead to the destruction of all mankind. There will be no winners in this war, and the loser will be humanity.
In turn, such an unfortunate state of affairs in space law indicates that existing international law has ceased to regulate space activities and is gradually turning into atavism. international space law jurisdiction
At the same time, even a superficial glance is enough to understand that today the process of regulating relations in outer space and on celestial bodies resembles frozen volcanic lava. This lava previously flowed in different directions, bypassing uncomfortable areas, and is now frozen in different places resembling a patchwork and leaky blanket with a lot of patches.
Thus, we can conclude that international law in its present form cannot solve current problems in regulating space activities.
To make a positive difference in Space Law, it is necessary to find new formats and approaches to regulating space activities. First and foremost, it is necessary to reanalyze the process of development of Space Law from its origins to the present.
The purpose of the paper is to develop a new vision and understanding of Space Law based on the results of previous research on this topic.
Materials and methods
To date, many scientists, diplomats, and honored lawyers have studied the evolution of the process of regulating space activities, e.g., N.R. Malysheva, V.V. Galunko, O.S. Stelmakh, Marcia S. Smith, B. Cheng, Albert K. Lai, I.A. Csa- bafi, O.Y. Asamoah, Ogunbanwo O. Ogunsola, Everett C. Dolman, I.H.P. Diederiks-Verschoor, V. Kopal, Jonathan F. Galloway, M.N. Shaw, F. Tronchetti, O.J. Lissi- tzyn et al.
However, it should be noted that all of them mainly provide deep analysis only of global international documents on the regulation of space activities, such as international treaties or UN conventions. At the same time, other international documents, such as Resolutions and Declarations adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (the UN GA or the UN General Assembly) were subjected to only superficial analysis concerning their insignificance. In turn, it was precisely this position that led to the emergence of a “patchwork” and “leaky” quilt, which today consists of the so-called Space Law, where most of the processes have remained unsettled or are irresponsibly violated.
In addition, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that, in general, scientists considered the process of regulation of space law only from the point of view of states or international organizations bypassing the point of view of such participants in space activities as people, non-governmental, and commercial organizations. This has led to the fact that such studies have become one-sided and have missed other important elements of the process of regulation of space activities. In this regard, during 2021-2023, the authors of the paper conducted the first cycle of studies based on a deep analysis of all international documents in the field of space activities regulation adopted by the international community in 1958 - 1963.
The results of these studies were published in the papers “Regulation of space activities during the 1958-1963 period» [10], “Space Law, Subjects and Jurisdictions: pre- 1963 period” [11], «Outer space public law: the 1958-1963 period. Part 1» [8], and «Outer space public law: the 19581963 period. Part 2» [9], “Fundamental principles of outer space (cosmic) law development” [13], “The Outer Space (Cosmic) Law Portal” [12].
To obtain the most effective scientific results of the research, general scientific methods (analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, and system-structural), general philosophical methods (dialectical and hermeneutics), and special methods (historical and legal, formal legal, comparative legal) were applied.
To date, the mentioned research cycle is the first thorough study of all international documents in the field of regulation of space activities adopted by the international community in 1958-1963.
The results of the above studies made it possible to form a new insight into the process of regulating space activities and propose new forms and types of Space Law that will change the international situation in this area for the better.
Results
1. Outer Space Law. General concepts. Any researcher who studies the processes of regulation of space activities understands that Outer Space Law is a unique type of law.
I.e., why it cannot be compared with other types of law, such as maritime or air law because these types of law regulate relations within Earth. In turn, the planet Earth is the natural habitat of a human, where one is born, grows old, and lives, and where all natural environments are intercom- nected with each other and with a human.
However, the environment for the application of Outer Space Law is the Cosmos: open outer space, celestial bodies, stars, and other natural objects beyond Earth that are not the natural habitat of humans and do not belong to anyone. I.e., outer space and celestial bodies are alien environments for a human, where one is only a guest.
In this regard, we should not expect from Outer Space Law the classical form of law due to the exclusivity of the environment concerning which this new law is developed. This also applies to States for which Outer Space Law can be formed both based on international treaties and unilateral obligations of States set out as joint public promises (Con- ventionalis stipulatio), which can be considered Resolutions and Declarations of the General Assembly of the United Nations (the UN General Assembly or UNGA) or other similar official documents [11, p. 575].
Moreover, Outer Space Law would not always rely on hard international acts, and in the future, it may be based on new principles and conditions beyond State agreements, especially in the part that concerns human relations. No one deprives the United Nations of the capacity to develop a unified Outer Space Law for States, but this does not mean that people (in person, or through private companies, or nongovernmental organizations) cannot elaborate their agreements on relations in outer space and on celestial bodies outside the United Nations. On the contrary, this means that there may be a large number of such agreements, depending on the number of space communities established on the basis of such agreements.
In turn, given the possibility of creating an unlimited number of different space communities, Outer Space Law may also consist of an infinite number of treaties, declarations, or other documents regulating relations in such communities that can have different subject compositions and be based on different principles and ideologies, which in turn can form different legal systems.
At the same time, already at the initial stage, it can be assumed that these legal systems may be worlds apart from each other.
E.g., there may be legal systems designed for “Animal Rationale” individuals who can understand and voluntarily adhere to equitable principles [11, p. 574]. In this case, such legal systems would not be based on strict coercion to comply with norms of behavior but on voluntary compliance with any general principles, showing how to act correctly (fairly) and incorrectly (unfairly) without responsibility for incorrect actions.
There may also be classical legal systems that assume that all individuals are only “Animal capax Rationis”, i.e., they could comply with rules (norms) only under the pressure of fear and responsibility [11, p. 574]. Such legal systems would establish (impose) mandatory compliance with specific rules of behavior (norms) despite doubts about their fairness with the mandatory establishment of responsibility for their violation.
There can be an infinite number of such legal systems. I.e., it follows that Outer Space Law in a global projection may consist of diverse and fundamentally different legal systems. At the same time, some of these systems may already exist, and some may only be developed in the future.
Such diversity can exist until all cosmic communities decide to act based on a single generally accepted document (but only by voluntary agreement) or until they all move to a new level of spiritual relations.
Taking into account the above, as well as given previous studies, Outer Space Law can be described as a set of legal systems regulating space activities, implying different legal ideologies and various subject composition, and also an environment of application that extends to outer space and celestial bodies beyond Earth [11, p. 576].
2. Legal systems of Outer Space Law. Based on previous studies from this cycle, today we can assume the formation over time of at least three legal systems of Space Law: Outer Space Law of Principles (or Animal rationale ius), Outer Space Private Law (or Cosmic Private Law), Outer Space Public Law (or Cosmic Public Law) [11, p. 576].
At the same time, taking into account the previously stated legal aspects [11, pp. 574-576], these systems can be described as follows.
Outer Space Public Law. Outer Space Public Law is a legal system that is a part of the Corpus juris gentium but has distinctive features associated with the conditions of its application in a space that is alien to both people and States.
At the same time, as practice has proved, public international law lacks mechanisms to ensure its implementation. I.e., neither the State, the union of states, nor the international community as a whole has a generally recognized executive apparatus capable of legally forcing any State to fulfill its international obligations (except for unlawful force or economic coercion). Moreover, this is impossible in outer space beyond the jurisdiction of all States. Thus, it shall be recognized that in public international law, it is impossible to establish binding rules for all States but only to agree on negotiated obligations.
In this regard, Outer Space Public Law would also consist only of the legal obligations of States (and then only until the relevant States renounce them) and may be described as follows.
Outer Space Public Law (or Cosmic Public Law) is a legal system of permanent obligations assumed by public subjects of space activities (various forms of political-territorial organization of society such as States and similar organizations as well as their unions and associations) regulating the activities of such subjects and the relationships between or among them in Cosmos.
At the same time, such obligations of public actors can be of several types, e.g. contractual (mutual) obligations (the fulfillment of which is carried out only if they are fulfilled by all parties to the relevant international treaty), unilateral obligations (stipulatio), joint unilateral obligations (Conven- tionalis stipulatio), and others types of obligations. These obligations, in formal terms, can be assumed by public subjects together with responsibility for the failure to fulfill such obligations or without such responsibility. However, given the absence of a mechanism for holding public subjects and entire nations accountable, such responsibility would be only a formal element of this law.
Outer Space Private Law. In turn, Outer Space Private Law is a classic type of law, i.e., it is similar to the law that is common in modern society. Its only differences would be the conditions of its application (alien environment) and the conditions of control (civic non-public bodies). Thus, Outer Space Private Law can be described as follows.
Outer Space Private Law (or Cosmic Private Law) is a legal system ofpermanent norms (rules of behavior) that are formed, controlled, and enforced by non-public subjects of space activities (organizations and/or individuals unable or unwilling to voluntarily comply with equitable principles) within the society or communities they created, and which regulate the behavior and relationships of such subjects in Cosmos. In a sense, Outer Space Private Law can be compared to the INCOTERMS (enforcement of which is carried out by arbitration courts and Chambers of Commerce and Industry) but only on a larger scale and in a different environment of application.
Accordingly, there is a high probability that the development and control of the implementation of Outer Space Private Law would also be carried out by similar bodies and organizations, e.g., Space Arbitration Courts and Space Chambers.
Outer Space Law of Principles. The peculiarity of this legal system is that the Outer Space Law of Principles is the exclusive right of individuals, and only they could be its authors (creators). I.e., neither States, private companies, unions of States, nor their representatives could be the authors (creators) of the Outer Space Law of Principles since this right is not and cannot be another element of the Corpus iuris gentium.
At the same time, any system of principles of space activities created within the framework of the Outer Space Law of Principles may only be based on voluntary compliance with such principles within a voluntary society (or community) that accepts these principles as a basis or was established based on such principles. I.e., to say, no one can ever force anyone to perform or oblige to comply with any system of permanent principles of space activities within the framework of the Outer Space Law of Principles.
Proponents of classical legal systems may call this system utopian because they do not believe in the ability of people to create equitable principles and voluntarily comply with them. However, this system is a viable option and can be described as follows.
Outer Space Law of Principles (or Animal rationale ius) is a legal system that may consist of one or many systems of permanent principles of space activity formed by individuals within the voluntary society or community they have created and describing fair forms of relationships and behavior of individuals (Animal rationale) in Cosmos.
At the same time, due to the lack of security for the Outer Space Law of Principles (in the form of enforcement of the principles or establishment of punishment for their non-compliance), control of compliance with the principles of space activity can be carried out either by each individual or by a group of individuals or by the entire society (or community). Such control may also be exercised by permanent or temporary non-public bodies or organizations established within the relevant society (or community) that have the right to make decisions regarding compliance with the principles of space activities. At the same time, such decisions can be acts of a purely advisory and/or informational nature.
The prototype of such a legal system as the Outer Space Law of Principles can be oral or written agreements between two or more crew members of spaceships or space stations based on which they voluntarily regulate their relationships in space. However, when it comes to such a permanent community, today it is unknown about the existence or attempts to create at least one system of permanent principles of space activity within the framework of the Outer Space Law of Principles. Most likely, this is the type of “law” that has yet to be introduced, and which over time would go beyond dogmatic models and become a new type of law for the entire Universe - “Universum iuk)
3. Subjects of Space Activities and Outer Space Law. Subjects of space activities. The subject of any activity usually implies an initiator and active participant in such activity, who has a goal and moves towards it and also makes decisions and controls such activity [15, p. 39]. In this regard, subjects of space activities include all participants in space activities - i.e., those who carry out activities related to the exploration and/or use of outer space and celestial bodies on Earth and/or beyond it [11, pp. 576, 577].
Therefore, the subjects of space activities can be considered all types of individuals, non-state societies and communities as well as all types of public actors (various forms of political-territorial organization of society such as States and similar organizations as well as their unions and associations) who carry out activities on Earth and/or beyond it related to the exploration and/or use of outer space and celestial bodies.
Subjects of Outer Space Law. In turn, subjects of law are commonly understood as participants in legal relations (actual or potential) who have legal capacity (formal legal capacity and dispositive legal capacity) in specific legal relations and can perform subjective rights and legal duty in such legal relations [1, pp. 394, 395].
Moreover, under the classical canons of law, at birth, any individual on Earth enjoys legal capacity that is recognized by public subjects of international law and public subjects of national law (States) by the place of national registration of such person and regardless of the participation or desire to participate in legal relations [1, p. 395].
For this very reason, subjects of law on Earth can be of two types as follows: a person who participates or declares a desire to participate in legal relations (an actual participant in legal relations) and a person who does not participate in such relations and does not declare the relevant desire (a potential participant in legal relations).
However, these rules cannot apply beyond Earth, since Cosmos is an alien environment for all legal actors on Earth (including States) and lies beyond their jurisdiction and national registration. Accordingly, classical Earthly legal capacity established by subjects of international law and subjects of national law on Earth does not apply to subjects of legal relations in the Cosmos.
In this regard, and given the fact that no one can establish a legal capacity for anyone in the Cosmos (since no one has jurisdiction in the Cosmos), the implication is that the Cosmic legal capacity is not the original attribute for all subjects of legal relations on Earth (i.e., it is not implied at birth). Accordingly, the Cosmic legal capacity cannot exist for a potential participant in legal relations - i.e., it cannot exist for a person who does not participate and does not declare a desire to participate in legal relations. In this case, it can be shown that the Cosmic legal capacity may be attributed to an actual participant in specific legal relations related to space activities - i.e. the person who participates or has expressed a desire to participate in such legal relations with subsequent adherence to the provisions of the relevant legal systems of Outer Space Law.
Thus, the subject of Outer Space Law can only be an actual participant (who participates or is willing to participate) in specific legal relations related to space activities and is capable of exercising subjective rights and legal obligations in such legal relations.
In turn, according to existing dogmas, which are based on the canonical interpretation of the concept of a subject of law, it is generally accepted that only States and international organizations, on the similarity of the United Nations, can be subjects of Outer Space Law [15, p. 39].This is justified by the fact that only States and international organizations are participants in international legal relations that arise in connection with space activities carried out under their jurisdiction and control [15, p. 39].
Certainly, in matters that concern Outer Space Public Law, this point of view may be partly correct, since States and international organizations can indeed be subjects of such law. However, the above list of subjects of Outer Space Public Law can be considered complete only for the present, provided this point of view does not take into account the possibility of the emergence in the future of new politicalterritorial organizations of societies (the form of which may differ from the form of the State) on celestial bodies and even in outer space beyond Earth.
I.e. it would be more correct to regard the subjects of Outer Space Public Law as all types of public actors (various forms of political-territorial organization of society, including States and similar organizations, as well as their unions and associations) who take part in legal relations related to space activities by officially acceding to any provisions of Outer Space Public Law.
At the same time, it is necessary to understand that in the process of space activities, new legal systems may be formed that differ from Outer Space Public Law, which have been discussed in this paper (e.g. Outer Space Law of Principles or Outer Space Private Law). Accordingly, for new legal systems, the interpretation of the concept of a subject of law would differ from the previous formulation.
For instance, taking into account the features of Outer Space Private Law described in this paper, it can be concluded that the subjects of Outer Space Private Law can be all types of individuals, non-state societies, and communities that take part or want to participate in certain legal relationships related to space activities by adherence to the relevant provisions of Outer Space Private Law.
In turn, only Animal rationale individuals who openly declare recognition and explicitly comply with the relevant provisions of the Outer Space Law of Principles can be subjects of the Outer Space Law of Principles.
4. Objects of Space Activities and Outer Space Law. Objects of space activities. Under the object of any activity is usually understood the passive and initiated aspect of such activity concerning which the subject's activity is directed [15, p. 39].
Accordingly, objects of space activity can be all objects and goals of space activity claimed by subjects of space activity [11, p. 577].
However, regarding objects of space activities declared in international documents during 1958-1963, first of all, it is necessary to pay attention to “an object launched into outer space''”, since under the provisions of Paragraph 7 of the Declaration of Legal Principles, it is these objects to which there were proposed to extend the jurisdiction of States beyond Earth [18].
At the same time, the extension of such jurisdiction was conventional and formal, whereas, at the end of 1963, there was no precise definition of the concept “an object launched into outer space”” in the Outer Space Law. Additional confusion was also created by the fact that during this period other names for such objects were repeatedly mentioned in United Nations documents: “satellite” (the UN GA Resolution 1721), “rocket launching facilities” (the UN GA Resolution 1802 ), “space vehicle” (the UN GA Resolution 1802) [11, p. 577]. Thus, the term “spacecraft” gradually be-came common in scientific literature. Further, the mentioned term began to be used in Outer Space Law [6, p. 7].
However, at this point, there was no specific and generally accepted definition and description for any of the above objects. By the way, at that time, there was an urgent need for a legal and/or technical description of such “the space objects”. Over the long period of development of Outer Space Law, various names and descriptions were proposed for such objects. As a result of lengthy debates, some experts proposed to create a classification of “the space objects” according to technical and legal criteria for their definition and identification in terms of the extension of state jurisdiction [6, pp. 11-12].
Other experts concluded that the main criterion for determining “the space object” shall be its purpose, including one related to the exploration and use of outer space, involving celestial bodies. It was proposed to use this description principle for all similar “space objects”: “launcher vehicle”, “separate stages of the carrier rocket”, “the spent space objects”, “spacecraft”, “artificial satellites of the earth, the moon or other celestial bodies”, “equipment on the moon and other celestial bodies”, “interplanetary stations and laboratories”, “orbiting space platforms”, “stations”, “installations”, “separate debris of spacecraft that disintegrated”, and “space probes as well as detached parties of space objects”. At the same time, this list that “the space object” cannot include “Land stations (rocket launching sites, tracking and control stations, transmitting and receiving stations)". Subsequently, there was a question concerning the possibility of regarding such objects as “spacecraft” (before and after its launch), and if so, the way to describe it. In the end, most experts agreed that “the criterion ought to be the 'capability' of spacecraft to move under said physical laws, [physical laws of astronautical flight] or any more appropriate definition of the forces or mechanics of its evolution” [6, p. 12].
As a result, the following alternative definitions have been proposed for both “spacecraft” and generally for “the space objects” that are launched from the Earth (although none of them have ever been admitted as a model):
- “'Spacecraft' means any objects designed to move in outer space, not needing support from the reactions of air” [6, p. 13];
- “All artificial bodies (manufactured by man) shall be space objects which are launched from the earth, with or without crew, with the purpose of orbiting around the earth, moon or the sun by making use of the laws of Keppler (celestial mechanics) or of reaching from the earth another celestial body whether or not with the objective to stay at the place of destination”” [6, p. 13];
- “The definition of space object should [also] cover any object or its component part launched with the view of performing flight in outer space for exploration and use of space including the moon and other celestial bodies, till the moment of its scientific dismantling or demolition”” [6, p. 13];
- “On entend par engin spatial tout appareil susceptible de se deplacer dans l'espace extra-atmospherique (et destine soit a s'y desintegrer, soit a s'y maintenir conformement aux lois de la physique astronomiquef” [6, p. 13];
- “Space device means any object launched toward (in the direction of) space. (Appareil spatial signifie tout objet lance en direction de (vers) I'espacef” [6, p. 14];
- “Space device means any object intended for launching into space. (Appareil spatial signi/ie tout objet destine it. etre lance vers I' espace) ” [6, p. 14].
The essence of all these proposals was to develop one unique name for all “space objects” that could be subject to State jurisdiction and provide a generalized and at the same time precise definition applying a technical description.
However, this was precisely the main drawback of all these proposals. They proceeded from the technical descript- tion of the object, and not from the essence of the issue that they needed to solve.
I.e. to resolve the issue of jurisdiction regarding “the space objects” in outer space, there was no need for their detailed description. It was enough to simply indicate that this jurisdiction could extend to the corresponding “artificial object in outer space or on a celestial body”” (Outer space artificial object or Cosmic artificial object). At the same time, for jurisdictional issues, it also does not matter what this object is called, what purpose this object had before it was launched into outer space, or before it was assembled in outer space.
Taking into account all of the above, as of the end of 1963 the following objects in outer space or on celestial bodies could be classified as Cosmic artificial objects (artificial objects in Cosmos): satellites, objects launched into outer space, space vehicles, spacecraft, rocket launching facilities, equipment that used in space activities and other similar objects [6, p. 577].
As for the description of “the space objects” located on the Earth or in its airspace, the answer can also be quite simple.
Take as an example “a motorized bicycle”. At the moment when a driver pedals it, this vehicle is a bicycle, while at the moment when the engine is used, it functions as a moped. I.e., if a given device is intended to be both a bicycle and a moped, then it is called, respectively, a bicycle or a moped at the time of its use, depending on the way it is used. In turn, if we take a tank, it becomes clear that it can be used to transport passengers. However, everyone understands that the only purpose of this technical equipment is to be used as a tank, i.e., a military weapon.
Taking into account the above, we can conclude that if the corresponding object is intended only for flights into outer space, then it can be conditionally called “spacecraft” and it would include all the equipment and its components, which are planned to be launched.
Provided such an artificial object is intended for flights both in outer space and in the airspace of the Earth, then during targeted flights in the airspace of the Earth it will have the status of “aircraft”, and during a targeted flight into outer space or back it may have “spacecraft” status.
I.e., we can conditionally say that a “spacecraft” is an artificial object the purpose of which is to fly into outer space and/or back, and which includes all the equipment and all its components that are planned to be launched.
At the same time, the place of such a launch can be either the Earth or the place of its assembly in outer space or on a celestial body.
In addition, it shall be taken into account that when such “spacecraft” moves into outer space beyond Earth, the mentioned “spacecraft” and all its parts and equipment would retain their names, but from a legal point of view, they turn into Cosmic artificial object (i.e., artificial objects in outer space or on a celestial body).
However, before leaving the Earth's airspace, such “spacecraft” would have the legal status of a “Pre-Space Artificial Object” (or “Pre-Cosmic artificial object”). As for other objects of space activity, it is also necessary to underline the appearance during this period of such objects as “satellite communication”, which can conditionally be attributed to technical phenomena [6, p. 577].
Additionally, the UN Resolutions have repeatedly drawn attention to studies of any changes occurring on planet Earth as well as any phenomena in the Universe outside the Earth, which can be conditionally classified as natural phenol- mena [6, p. 577].
At the same time, the main objects of space activity have always been such objects as outer space and celestial bodies, which can be classified as Space natural objects (or Cosmic natural objects). However, it is necessary to remember that these objects could have an additional status. Thus, outer space can be characterized as a separate all-encompassing spatial-territorial unit that does not fall under the jurisdiction of any State on Earth. Therewithal, the celestial body can be characterized as a separate large spatial- territorial unit, which also does not fall under the jurisdiction of any State on Earth (except for the territories of the States on Earth, considering Earth is classified as a celestial body) [6, p. 577].
Thus, summing up the study of objects of space activity, it may be concluded that such objects can be conditionally divided into several types: natural space objects, prespace artificial objects, artificial space objects, technical phenol- mena, and natural phenomena [6, p. 577].
The Objects of Outer Space Law. In turn, the object of law is only legal relations between or among subjects of law (including their behavior within the framework of these legal relations), which are the subject matter of regulation or require regulation [1, pp. 200, 401].
In this regard, the object of Outer Space Law can be considered legal relations (or space legal relations) between or among the subjects of Outer Space Law (including their behavior within the framework of these legal relations) in outer space and on celestial bodies, which are subject matter to regulation by the corresponding legal system of Outer Space Law within a particular society or community.
E.g., for the United Nations (as a separate community), the object of Outer Space Public Law can be considered international space legal relations between or among States within the UN. However, the object of Outer Space Public Law can also be space legal relations within other unions of States.
Moreover, if the object of law is legal relations, then the object of the legal relations is their subject matter - i.e., what these legal relations are aimed at. According to the canonical concept of law, the subject matter of legal relations usually includes the rights, duties, and responsibilities of subjects of law as well as tangible and intangible benefits obtained as a result of such legal relations [1, pp. 262, 288, 382, 401].
However, if this list of objects of legal relations is relatively acceptable for legal relations on Earth, then for Outer Space legal relations would be significantly different.
For instance, under the Outer Space Public Law, outer space and celestial bodies can be objects of legal relations, but not as material goods, since they do not fall under the jurisdiction of States and are not subject to appropriation.
At the same time, the results of research and non-dest- ructive use of outer space and celestial bodies (such as “satellite communication” and the like) are highly likely to be the objects of such legal relations. Also, it is unlikely (although theoretically possible) that someday the liability of legal subjects would become the object of legal relations in Outer Space Public Law. Thus, the objects of legal relations in Outer Space Public Law may include only rights and obligations of States established as a result of such legal relations as well as tangible and intangible benefits (except for outer space and celestial bodies) obtained as a result of space activities without the destruction of outer space and celestial bodies.
In turn, under the Outer Space Law of Principles, the object of legal relations could be any benefits that do not contradict accepted principles. However, at the same time, the rights, obligations, and responsibilities of subjects of law cannot be the object of such legal relations, since in this legal system they are replaced by cosmic principles. Thus, the objects of legal relations under the Outer Space Law of Principles can include only the principles of relationships as well as tangible and intangible benefits that do not contradict the mentioned principles.
It seemed to suggest that the objects of Cosmic legal relations in most circumstances cannot be several objects familiar to legal relations on Earth, and therefore, for each legal system of Outer Space Law there would be its distinct objects of legal relations.
However, it is possible that such features would not exist in Outer Space Private Law, since there is a strong probability that legal relations in this legal system would be built on the same principles on which classical legal systems on Earth are based with a similar list of objects of legal relations.
In this regard, with a high probability, the objects of legal relations under Outer Space Private Law would include the rights, obligations, and responsibilities of legal subjects as well as tangible and intangible benefits obtained as a result of such legal relations.
5. Jurisdictions in Outer Space Law. Principles of jurisdictions. Before making any conclusions on the ways, the situations, and those to regulate space activities, it is necessary to understand the principles of jurisdiction that could be applied in outer space and on celestial bodies.
According to the doctrine of international law, the universal basis for jurisdiction is nationality and territory as well as the right to their protection [6, pp. 49-50]. In this regard, the discussion is only about Public jurisdiction (jurisdiction of States), since individuals and their communities do not have the totality of these elements and therefore the regulation of relations concerning them is carried out on other grounds. It is generally accepted that Public jurisdiction always consists of two complementary regulatory elements: "juris- faction" (Prescriptive [legislative] jurisdiction - the power of the State making laws and the competence to apply them to certain persons) and "jurisaction” (Prerogative [en-force- ment] jurisdiction - administration of justice and en-force- ment of law in a certain territory) [6, pp. 34, 50].
In this regard, "the concept (doctrine) of State jurisdiction means the right of a State to regulate the rights of persons, to affect property, things, events and occurrences whether by legislative, executive or judicial measure'” [6, pp. 34, 49].
At the same time, according to the method and scope of exercise of jurisdiction, the following types are distinguished: "exclusive jurisdiction” (State has an exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction), "concurrent jurisdiction” (more than one State may simultaneously assume jurisdiction over persons, things or occurrences), "complementary jurisdiction” (State may under international space law assume jurisdiction supplementing the jurisdiction of a third State) [6, p. 34].
At the same time, it is necessary to understand that only "exclusive jurisdiction” is a full-fledged and autonomous jurisdiction, and all other jurisdiction options are simply derivative elements based on interstate agreements.
In addition, when describing the concept of Public jurisdiction, three different types of jurisdictions are often distinguished: territorial, quasi-territorial, and personal [6, p. 50]. However, only in the case of territorial jurisdiction, the State has exclusive jurisdiction within its own territorial domain over things, property, persons, and legal transactions done within it, including the extraterritorial activities of such persons [6, p. 51]. In other cases, the jurisdiction is not generally recognized and exclusive jurisdiction, but is only part of individual contractual interstate agreements (i.e., treaty jurisdiction).
For instance, personal jurisdiction is the totality of powers of a State with respect to own vehicles, natural and legal persons (objects of jurisdiction) bearing its nationality, enjoying its protection, or owing it allegiance wherever they may be [6, p. 68]. I.e., it is mainly about objects of jurisdiction located within the territory of a foreign State (i.e., outside the territory of the State of their registration). This means that when carrying out activities, these objects will not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of their State but will have to comply with the rules of a foreign State (in the way the foreign State allows). Accordingly, personal jurisdiction will not consist in the establishment by the State of registration of rules of conduct for such objects, but in establishing for them prohibitions on certain actions to the detriment of the State of their registration (provided that compliance with such prohibitions will not contradict joint agreements with a foreign State). Thus, we can say that personal jurisdiction is not exclusive jurisdiction but is only an element of an agreement between two States. Accordingly, personal jurisdiction also cannot be automatically applied on terra nullius (outside the territorial jurisdictions of States).
Wherein, quasi-territorial jurisdiction is the sum total of the powers of a State in respect of embassy, ships, aircraft, and spacecraft (to the extent to which they are also granted legal personality) having its nationality [6, p. 57]. I.e., quasiterritorial jurisdiction differs from personal jurisdiction in that it extends to all persons and things on board, including the activities of such persons, whether on board the craft or elsewhere [6, p. 57]. Accordingly, the theory of quasi-terri- torial jurisdiction considers the vehicle and embassy as the territory of the State of their registration located outside its internationally recognized territorial boundaries (within the territory of a foreign State or terra nullius). However, in this case, quasi-territorial jurisdiction is also not exclusive jurisdiction, but is only an element of an agreement between two States or within a group of States and can only apply to objects located on the territory of one contracting State, but which are the property of another contracting State. Thus, quasi-territorial jurisdiction also cannot automatically apply beyond the territorial jurisdictions of all States (terra nullius). I.e., it can be concluded that personal jurisdiction and quasi-territorial jurisdiction do not entail absolute competence for any State, but are only elements of agreements and concessions between two or more States - in other words, they regulate the relations between or among these States.
Only territorial jurisdiction provides the State with an absolute and independent right to regulate any activity (but only within its territory).
Boundaries of spatial-territorial jurisdictions of States. According to the existing doctrine of jurisdiction, the actual jurisdiction of each State is directly related to its territory. In turn, this is since "the notion ofjurisdiction finds its origin in the concept of territory, the principle of sovereign equality and non-interference with the domestic affairs of States” [6, p. 49].
Over a long period, States have protected their territorial integrity (i.e., access to natural, human, and tax resources within a certain territory), including by adopting and signing relevant legal acts and international treaties [11, p. 577]. Gradually, from the seventeenth century AD, the doctrine of jurisdiction began to emerge from the concepts of sovereignty and territoriality, which was finally established in the nineteenth century [6, p. 49]. This doctrine, on the one hand, asserted the rights of States in the territories they occupied, and on the other hand, limited their rights only to these territories.
Thus, States have established the principles of jurisdiction under which they have legal competence and can use resources only on their territory, and, accordingly, do not have the competence and right to use objects (resources) outside their territory [11, p. 577]. In turn, as of the end of 1963, the boundaries of State territories (exclusive jurisdiction boundaries), in most cases, had already been determined, both on land and in water. Within these borders, the State has exclusive jurisdiction, and beyond them (terra nullius or on the high seas) the exclusive jurisdiction of the State ends [4, p. 4].
Wherein, the provisions of Article 1(1) of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (7 December 1944) established as follows: "The contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory”. Thus, the spatial-territorial jurisdiction of States is not limited to the surface of the Earth but is directed up into space and down to the center of the Earth, somewhat reminiscent of the shape of an inverted cone with uneven sides that coincide in shape with the borders of States on the surface of the Earth [4, p. 4].
If the issue of the lower limit of State jurisdiction has not yet been raised, then the question of the need to determine the upper limit of the spatial-territorial jurisdiction of States has been discussed for a very long time. Moreover, there are many theories and proposals on this topic, classified by McDougal, Lasswell, and Vlasic: (1) proposals based upon prescriptions of the Air Conventions, (2) proposals based upon varying physical characteristics of space, (3) proposals based upon varying natures of flight instrumentalities, (4) proposals based upon the factors of effective control, (5) proposals based upon the earth's gravitational effects, and (6) proposals based upon arbitrarily chosen altitudes [11, p. 579].
Take as an example, that one of the most popular proposals on this topic is to limit the airspace of States to the upper limit at which the force of gravity influences. However, it is very difficult to implement this proposal, since it is difficult to determine an object of ideal shape, weight, and density on which such experiment can be carried out. Perhaps this experiment could be carried out with an international prototype kilogram made of a platinum-iridium alloy (90% platinum, 10% iridium) and stored at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (in the city of Sevres, France).
Also, there is a proposal to limit the airspace of States based on the geophysical meaning of the term “airspace”, i.e., airspace ends at the air's edge. However, it is necessary to remember that “air is a mixture of gases and is not a chemical compound”. At the same time, there is no clear boundary between airspace and space without air (filled with vacuum), since the content of gases in near-Earth space is observed from the surface of the Earth and further hundreds and thousands of kilometers upward. In this regard, some scientists proposed considering the upper limit of the airspace of States to be a height of 5.8 kilometers (approximately 3.6 miles) above sea level, below which is half of the air in the Earth's atmosphere [4, p. 5].
Ïîäîáíûå äîêóìåíòû
Regulation of International Trade under WTO rules: objectives, functions, principles, structure, decision-making procedure. Issues on market access: tariffs, safeguards, balance-of-payments provisions. Significance of liberalization of trade in services.
êóðñ ëåêöèé [149,5 K], äîáàâëåí 04.06.2011Legal regulation of the activities of foreign commercial banks. Features of the Russian financial market. The role and place of foreign banks in the credit and stock market. Services of foreign banks in the financial market on the example of Raiffeisen.
äèïëîìíàÿ ðàáîòà [2,5 M], äîáàâëåí 27.10.2015The causes and effects of the recent global financial crisis. Liquidity trap in Japan. Debt deflation theory. The financial fragility hypothesis. The principles of functioning of the financial system. Search for new approaches to solving debt crises.
ðåôåðàò [175,9 K], äîáàâëåí 02.09.2014Currency is any product that is able to carry cash as a means of exchange in the international market. The initiative on Euro, Dollar, Yuan Uncertainties is Scenarios on the Future of the World International Monetary System. The main world currency.
ðåôåðàò [798,3 K], äîáàâëåí 06.04.2015The essence of an environmental problem. Features of global problems. Family, poverty, war and peace problems. Culture and moral crisis. Global problems is invitation to the human mind. Moral and philosophical priorities in relationship with the nature.
ðåôåðàò [41,3 K], äîáàâëåí 25.04.2014Natural gas is one of the most important energy resources. His role in an international trade sector. The main obstacle for extending the global gas trading. The primary factors for its developing. The problem of "The curse of natural resources".
ýññå [11,4 K], äîáàâëåí 12.06.2012Presence of nominal rigidity as an important part of macroeconomic theory since. Definition of debt rigidity; its impact on crediting. The causes of the Japanese economic crisis; way out of it. Banking problems in United States and euro area countries.
ñòàòüÿ [87,9 K], äîáàâëåí 02.09.2014Organisation of the Islamic. Committee of Permanent Representatives. Conference International Islamic Court of Justice. Independent Permanent Commission on Human Rights. Cooperation with Islamic and other Organizations. Peaceful Settlement of Disputes.
ðåôåðàò [22,2 K], äîáàâëåí 21.03.2013Review the history of signing the treaty of Westphalia. Analysis of creating a system of European states with defined borders and political balance. Introduction to the concept of a peaceful community. Languages and symbols of the League of Nations.
ïðåçåíòàöèÿ [506,1 K], äîáàâëåí 13.04.2015Ñèíãàïóð êàê íàèìåíåå êîððóìïèðîâàííàÿ ñòðàíà Àçèè, àíàëèç ýôôåêòèâíîñòè ïîëèòèêè è ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ðåãóëèðîâàíèÿ. Îöåíêà èíäåêñà âîñïðèÿòèÿ êîððóïöèè â Ñèíãàïóðå è Ðîññèè ñîãëàñíî ðåéòèíãó Transparency International. Ïóòè óìåíüøåíèÿ ìîòèâîâ êîððóïöèè.
ïðåçåíòàöèÿ [127,3 K], äîáàâëåí 03.04.2017
