Suchergebnisse

The current space arena has changed significantly since the 1950s, when outer space activities commenced. At the time of the adoption of the Outer Space Treaty (and the related General Assembly Resolutions), the outer space arena was largely dominated by the political interests of the two major space powers, the USA and the (then) USSR. Although states have remained the primary actors in regulating the use of outer space, the extent to which private companies would become involved in the exploration and use of space was not envisaged at the time of the conclusion of the space treaties. It is particularly the involvement of private space actors that complicates the traditional understanding of the prohibition on territorial sovereignty in outer space. With specific reference to the outer space boundary, the principle of the common heritage of humankind and property rights in outer space, this contribution aims to highlight some of the challenges to the prohibition of sovereignty in view of current developments in the arena of outer space. This analysis suggests that the blanket prohibition on sovereignty in outer space should be re-evaluated in order to keep up with the fast developing technological advancements in space exploration, and that clear legal rules be developed to provide legal certainty for all role players.

Since the end of the Second World War the potential use of outer space for military purposes persisted to be intrinsically linked to the development of space technology and space flight. The launch of the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, by the USSR in 1957 made Western states realise that a surprise attack from space was a real possibility, resulting in the so-called "space-race" between the USA and the USSR. During the Cold War space activities were intrinsically linked to the political objectives, priorities and national security concerns of the USA and the Soviet Union. After the Cold War the political relevance and benefits of space continued to be recognised by states. In view of the recent emergence of new major space powers such as China, the focus has again shifted to the military use of outer space and the potential that a state with advanced space technology may use it for military purposes in order to dominate other states. Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty prohibits the installation of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in outer space and determines that the moon and other celestial bodies shall be used for peaceful purposes only. Due to the dual-use character of many space assets, the distinction between military and non-military uses of outer space is becoming increasingly blurred. This article discusses a number of legal challenges presented by article IV of the Outer Space Treaty, relating specifically to the term peaceful, the distinction between the terms militarisation and weaponisation and the nature of a space weapon. It is concluded that article IV is in many respects outdated and that it cannot address the current legal issues relating to the military use of outer space. The legal vacuum in this area may have grave consequences not only for maintaining peace and security in outer space, but also on earth. Consequently, an international dialogue on the military uses of outer space should be facilitated under the auspices of the UNCOPUOS to address these uncertainties as a matter of urgency. Although it is agreed with the proponents of a hard law approach that a legally binding instrument should be adopted to regulate the military use of outer space, it is submitted that, as an interim measure, soft law guidelines should be developed to provide a framework for the eventual creation of a consolidated and binding legal instrument on all aspects relating to the use of outer space.

Since the launch of the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957, the outer space arena has evolved to include non-state entities, which are becoming serious participants in outer space activities themselves, including venturing into the space tourism market. Although space tourism is still in its infancy, it is estimated that the number of space tourists will substantially increase within the next few years. As space tourist activities increase, accidents will inevitably occur, which will give rise to legal questions relating to the duty of states to rescue space tourists in distress, and the liability for damages. This contribution points out that the current outer space treaty regime, which focuses on the use of outer space by states, is to a large extent outdated and that it cannot adequately deal with the unique legal challenges presented by the rapidly developing space tourism industry. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that the outer space legal framework is very fragmented – consisting of treaties, UN principles and guidelines, regional regulations and intergovernmental agreements, as well as national guidelines and legislation. In order to ensure that space tourism is indeed to the benefit of all mankind, it is imperative that clear international legal rules relating to space tourism be formulated, where standards are set for the authorisation and supervision of commercial space activities and the interests of states, passengers and private actors are balanced as far as possible. In view of the urgent need to address these legal questions and the consequent lack of time to negotiate a binding legal instrument, it is submitted that, as an interim measure, soft law guidelines should be developed in relation to space tourism in order to provide a framework for the 2 eventual creation of a consolidated and binding legal instrument on all aspects relating to the use and exploration of outer space.

The military and commercial exploitation of outer space has received increasing international attention since the United States of America announced its intention to establish an outer space military force to protect its interests in outer space. Simultaneously, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and private enterprises such as Blue Origin and SpaceX declared plans to colonise the Moon and/or Mars in the near future. While technology is advancing rapidly to make these objectives a reality, the international legal rules related to these developments are completely uncertain, and in some instances non-existent. It is evident that these developments may have a direct impact on the internationally protected human rights of individuals, taking into account the extremely adverse conditions in outer space and the dangers involved in creating sustainable human living conditions in outer space. International discussion of and action on these legal issues are needed urgently. As a starting point, this contribution discusses the question of whether existing international human rights instruments enjoy extra-territorial application in outer space, given the current status of outer space law. In answering the question, a broad overview is presented of some human rights issues that may be relevant to living in outer space, and the role that the doctrine of effective control may play in this regard is analysed.

Monism and dualism represent two different approaches towards the relationship between public international law and municipal law. While the former views public international law and municipal law as a single legal system, the latter regards these two areas of law as separate and distinct legal systems that exist alongside each other. However, not all legal systems are clearly either monist or dualist. The dichotomy between monism and dualism no longer only concerns the relationship between public international law and municipal law, but also increasingly affects the relationship between public international law and regional law. This contribution discusses the application of the monist and dualist approaches by the South African Constitutional Court in the Glenister case and the European Court of Justice in the Kadi and Hungary cases in order to illustrate the practical application of the dichotomy between monism and dualism in a municipal system and on a regional level.

Outer Space Law: Legal Policy and Practice is aimed at readers looking for a single title to understand the key issues relevant to the space sector, with an emphasis on the practical application of those issues. The book will be specifically relevant to legal practitioners, academics and state departments primarily working in the space arena, as well as to those in other related sectors such as IT and media, insurance and political science. Edited by Yanal Abul Failat and Professor Anél Ferreira-Snyman, the book includes contributions by leading experts from space agencies, space venturers, --

The military and commercial exploitation of outer space has received increasing international attention since the United States of America announced its intention to establish an outer space military force to protect its interests in outer space. Simultaneously, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and private enterprises such as Blue Origin and SpaceX declared plans to colonise the Moon and/or Mars in the near future. While technology is advancing rapidly to make these objectives a reality, the international legal rules related to these developments are completely uncertain, and in some instances non-existent. It is evident that these developments may have a direct impact on the internationally protected human rights of individuals, taking into account the extremely adverse conditions in outer space and the dangers involved in creating sustainable human living conditions in outer space. International discussion of and action on these legal issues are needed urgently. As a starting point, this contribution discusses the question of whether existing international human rights instruments enjoy extra-territorial application in outer space, given the current status of outer space law. In answering the question, a broad overview is presented of some human rights issues that may be relevant to living in outer space, and the role that the doctrine of effective control may play in this regard is analysed.