The purpose of this article is to analyse the literature concerning legal framework for outer space activities by states. Review was conducted on the elements of national space law, including literature critiquing particular strengths or weaknesses of existing laws and literature, on the obligations placed on States under international law and on why writers make particular recommendations as to the content of legislation. The article will summarise the key elements one would anticipate finding in the outer space regulatory framework and which will form the structure of the analytical framework when considering how States implement international space law in practice.
There are many writers who have written on the subject of space law. Whilst most writers focus their writings around the general issues of space law, which include the historical perspective of the evolution of space law and the international policy and law governing space-related activities, very few writers specifically comparatively analyse or discuss the national space legislation of any particular State.
The first monograph on space law was published in Germany in 1932 by Vladimir Mandl, widely known as the ‘Father of Space Law’
In 1963, Andrew Haley discussed the issues pertaining to the relationship between the space law and the conduct of States in his
limits of national sovereignty over the celestial bodies, and most importantly, he maintained that
Starting from the 1980s, writers have significantly developed the interpretation of the international treaties on outer space law. A particularly significant contribution was made by Carl Christol when he wrote
Apart from the general works that have been written on outer space law, some writers have concentrated on the outer space activities of a particular State or group of States. However, they do not specifically discuss the national space legislation of those States. For example, in 1992, Bourley wrote
Treatments of national space legislation have nevertheless been written by some writers. There are four writers that can be identified as having contributed in this field. The first was Nathan Goldman who in 1996 discussed the relationship between the international space treaties and national space legislation in
From the nature of the works that have been written, it can be deduced that book writings referring to particular States starts late in 1980s and resumes again after the mid 1990s, and the writings about national space legislation starts to pick up after the year 2000. This shows that writers have become increasingly aware of the need to have a national space legislation to conduct space-related activities.
In addition to books, there have been journal articles on outer space law written by many writers. In the early years, however, most article writers written on the general legal aspects of outer space. Thus, in 1958, Pitman wrote ‘International law of outer space’ for the
Starting from the 1980s, article writers have significantly developed the interpretation of the international treaties on outer space law. A particularly significant contribution was made by Christol when he wrote ‘International liability for damage caused by space objects’ in the
In addition to the above articles, there are also journal articles that are written specifically on space-related issues concerning particular State. However, they did not analyse the national legislation of these States when discussing the relevant legal issues relating to their activities in outer space. Thus, in 1989, Saito wrote ‘Japan's space policy background and outlook’ for
He described the space activities in Australia, in particular the launching industry and argued that Australia could developed itself further in this area if all parties concerned are aware about its benefit and make more effort in establishing Australia’s reputation as a launching State
Treatments of national space legislation have nevertheless been written by some writers. There are eight writers that can be identified as having contributed in this field. In 1981, Vereshchetin wrote ‘International space law and domestic law: problems of interrelations’ for
As for the literature about outer space law written by Malaysian authors, only two articles have been written on outer space law. However, although these articles have been written from the Malaysian perspective, they are merely discussions of the relationship between Malaysia and the law of outer space, and the law of outer space
As a conclusion, from the review of relevant literature about how national law should implement international space law, we can conclude that there are certain key elements that one would anticipate finding in an outer space regulatory framework. They can be referred to as ‘compulsory elements’, and they are:
Regulations on the authorisation and supervision of space activities,
Regulations on the registration of space objects and
Indemnification provisions.
It is also apparent that implementation of space law should give rise to national space legislation which has certain desirable characteristics. Thus national space legislation should:
Be comprehensive in scope and comprise the regulation of all space activities,
Clearly identify space policy objectives which conform to international obligations,
and
Provide straightforward licensing regime.
However, although one of the key international obligations for States as provided by the outer space treaties is for them to cooperate internationally with others when participating in their space-related activities, on the other hand, from the literature review conducted in this article, we can see that without giving any reason the experts in space law did not make a recommendation as to the incorporation of the provision on the encouragement of international cooperation.
Be that as it may, combining the key international obligations as established in the outer space treaties and the recommendations made by space law experts as established in this article as to the compulsory provisions that should be incorporated into national space legislation, they can provide as an analytical framework for evaluating whether national regulatory frameworks properly implement international space law. Thus, such a national regulatory framework should contain the following provisions:
Provisions that allow States to authorise and supervise the activities that those under States’ jurisdiction wish to undertake and to continue supervising the space activities that have been undertaken until they end. (
Provisions that require States’ entities to be responsible towards the consequence of their activities (
Provisions that require States to register their space objects within their national registry (
Provisions that require States to encourage international cooperation when States’ entities participate in space-related activities (
Kopal, V., ‘Vladimir Mandl – Founder of Space Law’, (1968) II Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 357, and Reintanz, G., ‘Vladimir Mandl – The Father of Space Law’, (1968) II Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 362, in Jasentuliyana, J.,
2Mandl, V.,
In Doyle, S.E., Origins
Haley, A. G.,
Haley, A. G.,
McDougall, M. S., Casswell H. D. and Vlasic I. A.,
Cohen, M.,
Vlasic, A. I., Explorations
Fawcett, J.E.S.,
Fawcett, J.E.S.,
White, I. L.,
White, I. L.,
Lay, S. H. and Howard, J. T.,
Lay, S. H. and Howard, J. T.,
Lach, M.,
Lach, M.,
Ogunbanwo, O. O.,
Ogunbanwo, O. O.,
Christol,C. Q.,
Christol,C. Q.,
Forkosch, M. D.,
Forkosch, M. D.,
Matte, N. M. (ed),
Fawcett, J. E. S.,
Fawcett, J. E. S.,
Gennadi, G.,
Gennadi, G.,
Hurwitz, B.,
Hurwitz, B.,
Wassenbergh, H. A.,
Wassenbergh, H. A.,
Wassenbergh, H. A.,
Gorove, S.,
Hurwitz, B.,
Masson-Zwaan, T., ‘An aerospace plane: an object at the cross-roads between air and space law’, in Masson-Zwaan, T. (ed),
Bloomley, N. K.,
Bloomley, N. K.,
Mosteshae, S.,
Cheng, B.,
Crowther, D.,
Crowther, D.,
Reynolds, G. H. and Merges, R. P.,
Bender, R.,
Diederiks-Verschoor, I. H. P.,
Diederiks-Verschoor, I. H. P.,
Metcalf N. K.,
Metcalf N. K.,
Jasentuliyana, N.,
Jasentuliyana, N.,
Kayser, V.,
Haanappel, P. P. C.,
General Assembly Resolution 1962 (XVIII) of 13 December 1963.
610 UNTS 205, adopted by the General Assembly in its
Haanappel, P. P. C.,
Peterson, M.J.,
Lyall, F. and Larsen, P. B.,
Goh, G. M.,
Jasentuliyana, N.,
Bourley, M., ‘Space Law and the European Space Agency’ in N. Jasentuliyana (ed.),
Bourley, M., ‘Space Law and the European Space Agency’ in N. Jasentuliyana (ed.),
Roger, M. B. and Vittorio, M.,
Madders, K.,
Madders, K.,
Steven, B., ‘
Steven, B., ‘
Goldman, N. C.,
Goldman, N. C.,
Hermida, J.,
Hermida, J.,
Hermida, J.,
Hermida, J.,
Hermida, J.,
Hermida, J.,
Gerhard M., ‘National Space Legislation’, in Marietta Benko and Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ed.),
Gerhard M., ‘National Space Legislation’, in Marietta Benko and Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ed.),
Gerhard M., ‘National Space Legislation’, in Marietta Benko and Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ed.),
Potter, P.B., ‘International law of outer space’, (1958) 52
Potter, P.B., ‘International law of outer space’, (1958) 52
Kartha, P. K., ‘Some legal problems concerning outer space’, (1963) 3
Hall, R. C., ‘Rescue and return of astronauts on earth and in outer space’, (1969)
Hall, R. C., ‘Rescue and return of astronauts on earth and in outer space’, (1969)
Gorove, S., ‘The geostationary orbit: Issues of law and policy’, (1979) 73 (3)
Also known as ‘Declaration of the First Meeting of Equatorial Countries’. Adopted by Colombia, Equador, Indonesia, Congo, Kenya, Uganda and Zaire on 3 December 1976.
Also known as ‘Declaration of the First Meeting of Equatorial Countries’. Adopted by Colombia, Equador, Indonesia, Congo, Kenya, Uganda and Zaire on 3 December 1976.
Kopal, V., ‘The question of defining outer space’, (1980) 8 (2)
Kopal, V., ‘The question of defining outer space’, (1980) 8 (2)
Christol C Q, ‘International liability for damage caused by space objects’, (1980) 74
Christol C Q, ‘International liability for damage caused by space objects’, (1980) 74
Cheng, B., ‘The legal status of outer space and relevant issues: Delimitation of outer space and definition of peaceful use’, (1983) 11
Cheng, B., ‘The legal status of outer space and relevant issues: Delimitation of outer space and definition of peaceful use’, (1983) 11
Galloway, E., ‘International institutions to ensure peaceful uses of outer space’, (1984) IX
Galloway, E., ‘International institutions to ensure peaceful uses of outer space’, (1984) IX
Masson-Zwaan, T. L., ‘The Martin Marietta Case-On how to safeguard private commercial space activities’, (1993) XVIII (1)
Masson-Zwaan, T. L., ‘The Martin Marietta Case-On how to safeguard private commercial space activities’, (1993) XVIII (1)
Cheng, B., ‘International responsibility and liability for launch activities’, (1995) XX (6) Air
Cheng, B., ‘International responsibility and liability for launch activities’, (1995) XX (6) Air
Zhao, Y., ‘The 1972 Liability Convention: time for revision?’, (2004) 20 (2)
Zhao, Y., ‘The 1972 Liability Convention: time for revision?’, (2004) 20 (2)
Viikari, L, ‘Viewpoint: Time is of the essence: Making space law more effective’, (2005) 21
Viikari, L, ‘Viewpoint: Time is of the essence: Making space law more effective’, (2005) 21
Porras, D. A., ‘The “Common Heritage” of outer space: Equal benefits for most of mankind’, (2006) 37 (1)
Porras, D. A., ‘The “Common Heritage” of outer space: Equal benefits for most of mankind’, (2006) 37 (1)
Ma, X., ‘Statement on international co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space’, (2007) 6(2)
Ma, X., ‘Statement on international co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space’, (2007) 6(2)
Saito, S., ‘Japan's space policy background and outlook’, (1989) 5 (3)
Saito, S., ‘Japan's space policy background and outlook’, (1989) 5 (3)
Yoshida, H., ‘The meaning of Japan’s space commercialization efforts’, (1992) 8
Yoshida, H., ‘The meaning of Japan’s space commercialization efforts’, (1992) 8
Freeland, S., ‘When laws are not enough – The stalled development of an Australian space launch industry’, [2004]
Freeland, S., ‘When laws are not enough – The stalled development of an Australian space launch industry’, [2004]
Verheugen, G., ‘Europe’s space plans and opportunities for cooperation’, (2005) 21
Verheugen, G., ‘Europe’s space plans and opportunities for cooperation’, (2005) 21
Spall, N., ‘Creating a UK human spaceflight capability: A modest proposal’, (2007) 23
Spall, N., ‘Creating a UK human spaceflight capability: A modest proposal’, (2007) 23
Murthi, K. R. S., Gopalakrishnan, V. and Datta, P. S., ‘Legal environment for space activities, (2007) 93 (12)
Murthi, K. R. S., Gopalakrishnan, V. and Datta, P. S., ‘Legal environment for space activities, (2007) 93 (12)
Noichim, C., ‘Promoting ASEAN space cooperation’, (2008) 24 (1)
Noichim, C., ‘Promoting ASEAN space cooperation’, (2008) 24 (1)
Vereshchetin, V. S., ‘International space law and domestic law: problems of interrelations’, (1981) 9
Vereshchetin, V. S., ‘International space law and domestic law: problems of interrelations’, (1981) 9
Meredith, P., ‘A comparative analysis of United States domestic licensing regimes for private commercial space activities’, (1989) 32
Meredith, P., ‘A comparative analysis of United States domestic licensing regimes for private commercial space activities’, (1989) 32
Lyall, F., ‘UK Space Law’, (1992) 35
Lyall, F., ‘UK Space Law’, (1992) 35
Von der Dunk, F. G., and Negoda, S.A., ‘Ukranian national space law from an international perspective’, (2002) 18 (1)
Von der Dunk, F. G., and Negoda, S.A., ‘Ukrainian national space law from an international perspective’, (2002) 18 (1)
Reif, S. U., ‘Report, Shaping a legal framework for the commercial use of outer space: recommendations and conclusions from Project 2001’, (2002) 18
Reif, S. U., ‘Report: Shaping a legal framework for the commercial use of outer space: recommendations and conclusions from Project 2001’, (2002) 18
Reif, S. U., ‘Report: Shaping a legal framework for the commercial use of outer space: recommendations and conclusions from Project 2001’, (2002) 18
Reif, S. U., ‘Report: Shaping a legal framework for the commercial use of outer space: recommendations and conclusions from Project 2001’, (2002) 18
Hobe, S., and Neumann, J., Report on the Global and European challenges for space law at the edge of the 21st century, (2005) 21
Hobe, S., and Neumann, J., Report on the Global and European challenges for space law at the edge of the 21st century, (2005) 21
Tunku, I. M., ‘Malaysia and the law of outer space’, (2004) 2
Tunku, I. M., ‘Malaysia and the law of outer space’, (2004) 2
Munir, A. B., and Mohd Yasin, S.H., ‘Space debris: legal and policy implications’, (1996)
Munir, A. B., and Mohd Yasin, S.H., ‘Space debris: legal and policy implications’, (1996)