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 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out that the current outer space treaty regime, which focuses on the use of outer space by states, is to a large extent outdated and that it cannot adequately deal with the unique legal challenges presented by the rapidly developing space tourism industry.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 eventual creation of a consolidated and binding legal instrument on all aspects relating to the use and exploration of outer space.

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.