Outer Space and The Rule of Law

'Outer space and the Rule of Law’ A critical examination of the international laws which govern activities in outer space, and the effectiveness of the enforcement mechanisms in place. Student Number: Supervisor: Academic Session: Word Count: 2031297c Professor Christian Tams 2017/2018 10,029 HONOURS DISSERTATION DECLARATION FORM This form must be completed and signed and submitted with all assignments. Please complete the information below (using BLOCK CAPITALS). Student Number: 2031297c Student Name: Dissertation Supervisor: Professor Christian Tams Word Count (including footnotes and appendices): 10,136 An extract from the University’s Statement on Plagiarism is provided overleaf. Please read carefully THEN read and sign the declaration below. I confirm that this dissertation is my own work and that I have: Read and understood the guidance on plagiarism in the Undergraduate Handbook, including the University of Glasgow Statement on Plagiarism Clearly referenced, in both the text and the bibliography or references, all sources used in the work Fully referenced (including page numbers) and used inverted commas for all text quoted from books, journals, web etc. Provided the sources for all tables, figures, data etc. that are not my own work Not made use of the work of any other student(s) past or present without acknowledgement Not sought or used the services of any professional agencies to produce this work In addition, I understand that any false claim in respect of this work will result in disciplinary action in accordance with University regulations ⬜ ⬜ ⬜ ⬜ ⬜ ⬜ ⬜ DECLARATION: I am aware of and understand the University’s policy on plagiarism and I certify that this dissertation is my own work, except where indicated by referencing, and that I have followed the good academic practices noted above Signed...........................................................................Submission Date:......................... 1 University of Glasgow Plagiarism Statement The following is an extract from the University of Glasgow's Plagiarism Statement. The full statement can be found in the University Calendar at: http://senate.gla.ac.uk/calendar/current/02-feesandgeneral.pdf#page=53. 31.1 The University's degrees and other academic awards are given in recognition of a student's personal achievement. All work submitted by students for assessment is accepted on the understanding that it is the student's own effort. 31.2 Plagiarism is defined as the submission or presentation of work, in any form, which is not one's own, without acknowledgement of the sources. Special cases of plagiarism can also arise from one student copying another student's work or from inappropriate collaboration. 31.3 The incorporation of material without formal and proper acknowledgement (even with no deliberate intent to cheat) can constitute plagiarism. Work may be considered to be plagiarised if it consists of: • a direct quotation; • a close paraphrase; • an unacknowledged summary of a source; • direct copying or transcription. With regard to essays, reports and dissertations, the rule is: if information or ideas are obtained from any source, that source must be acknowledged according to the appropriate convention in that discipline; and any direct quotation must be placed in quotation marks and the source cited immediately. Any failure to acknowledge adequately or to cite properly other sources in submitted work is plagiarism. Under examination conditions, material learnt by rote or close paraphrase will be expected to follow the usual rules of reference citation otherwise it will be considered as plagiarism. Departments should provide guidance on other appropriate use of references in examination conditions. 31.4 Plagiarism is considered to be an act of fraudulence and an offence against University discipline. Alleged plagiarism, at whatever stage of a student's studies, whether before or after graduation, will be investigated and dealt with appropriately by the University. 31.5 The University reserves the right to use plagiarism detection systems, which may be externally based, in the interests of improving academic standards when assessing student work. 2 Table of Contents: Background Chapter 1: Property Rights 1.1 Defining Boundaries & The Concept of “ Res ” in Space 2.2 Fair Competition During the “New Gold Rush” 1.3 Conclusion Chapter 2: Liability 2.1 Obligations of Space Law - Recovery of Objects and Persons: 2.2 Remedies via International Space Law - Damage 2.3 The Space Debris Issue - Limitations of Fault-based liability 2.4 Conclusion Chapter 3: Governance 3.1 Existing ISL Enforcement Mechanisms 3.2 Theory: Jus Cogens of Space Law Conclusion Bibliography 4 6 7 10 12 14 14 17 22 28 30 30 32 36 38 3 “We are at a point in history where a proper attention to space, and especially near space, may be absolutely crucial in bringing the world together”. - Margaret Mead Background Corpus juris spatialis : (“Space law”) is the body of law applicable to, and which governs space related activities. It is most often associated with the rules, principles and standards of international law that appear within the five international treaties and five sets of principles governing outer space which have been developed under the auspices of the United Nations . 1 In addition to these international instruments, many States have national legislation governing space-related activities. International Space Law (ISL) has an incredibly broad scope, addressing matters such as: the preservation of the space and Earth environment; liability for damages caused by space objects; settlement of disputes; protection of national interests; the rescue of astronauts; information sharing about potential danger; the appropriation of celestial resources; the responsible use of space-related technologies; and international cooperation. The existing global space governance system serves as a solid foundation, yet there is much still be to be clarified. Due to the ever-expanding range of space activities and an increase in the number of stakeholders with diverse interests and priorities, the existing legal order has begun to show its inadequacies. 1 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) Our Work: Space Law (2018) unoosa.org 4 ISL really is an area where new technological possibilities have forced international lawyers to re-engage with questions that, for some time, seemed dormant. Chapter 1 will begin with a brief overview of the issues relating to the property rights of “celestial bodies”, as new technologies allow us to mine resources from asteroids. Close attention will be paid to the strengths and weaknesses of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, with an aim to understand how we can achieve a fair, equitable, and practical balance between governmental oversight and private commercial space ventures. Chapter 2 will aim to explore the issues relating to liabilities and obligations afforded to the States participating, focusing specifically on the increasingly dangerous debris issue. Chapter 3 will conclude this dissertation with analysis concerning proposals to strengthen regulatory certainty, an imperative task for both the private sector and the international community. Finally, I will explores the effectiveness of the enforcement mechanisms in place, and how to command universal obedience and strict compliance; an important question as a weak and inadequate global space governance could give rise to conflicts and possibly anarchy, both on Earth and in outer space. Perhaps the existing authoritative bodies could benefit from enhanced jurisdiction to cope within the modern era of space commercialisation and off-world industries, yet, could this realistically be achieved? Chapter 1: Property rights 5 Prior to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (“OST”), the status of celestial bodies, including the 2 moon, was unclear. It w,as the position of authoritative voices which considered them to be territorium nullius (nobody’s territory), and therefore subject to acquisition of territory under the rules of general international law . During this period, the ‘Space Race’ between the 3 Soviet Union and U.S. was intensifying, and the legal uncertainty of celestial proprietary rights suggested a successful ownership claim could have been made. This international tension led to the “non-appropriation” principle of Article II. Both States (and all other parties to the treaty) agreed to consider outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies as a res communis omnium , (an area open for free exploration and use by all States) an area which is not subject to national appropriation. This general rule was first declared in the UN General Assembly Resolutions 1721 and 1962 and formally established in Article II of 4 5 the OST. This chapter will consider the “non-appropriation” provision of the 1967 Treaty specifically the interpretation of the agreement and the recent developments which have tested the scope of the article. It is expressed in the article that “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” The OST is one of the finest international instruments embodying new jurisprudence (non-appropriation principle, access to space for all states, even non-members), some principles of jus naturale (Common Heritage of Mankind and 5 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 1962 (XVIII). Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space 4 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 1721 (XVI). International co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space 3 F. Tronchetti, Note 8, P.44 2 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies; the Outer Space Treaty 1967 6 Sharing of Scientific Information and International Cooperation) and some established tenets of International Law (state responsibility and liability concept). Since its inception, the 6 treaty has provided guidance and direction for all activities in the space beyond Earth’s atmosphere. As of January 2018, 105 countries are parties to the treaty and 16 are in the process of completing ratification . 7 1.1 Defining Boundaries & The Concept of “ Res ” in Space While general law employs terms as "goods" and "real estate" as species of "things", corpus juris spatialis uses special categories that have very ambiguous legal definitions ("space objects") or no legal definitions at all ("celestial bodies") . The OST ultimately fails to define 8 the precise object and scope of its application. This silence has prompted two disputes: the legal definition of outer space, and the legal definition of a celestial body. With regards to the first dispute, there are no obvious or physical boundary divisions between Earth's atmosphere and “space”. There are however standardised boundary designations recognised in International law. The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) established the Kármán line at an altitude of 100 km as a working definition for the boundary between aeronautics and astronautics . This boundary was named after Theodore von Kármán, who 9 calculated that the atmosphere around this altitude becomes too thin to support aeronautical 9 S. Sanz Fernández de Córdoba. 100km Altitude Boundary for Astronautics. Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. Fai.org 8 See Chapter 2 7 United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Database: "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies" 6 G.S. Sachdeva. Select Tenets of Space Law as Jus Cogen (2017) Springer Nature Singapore 7 flight . Historically, the United States Department of Defense awarded astronaut badges to 10 military and civilian pilots who flew aircraft higher than 80 km , although this has since been 11 revised to 100km . Notably, NASA also recognises the boundary at 100km . As such, it is 12 13 now widely accepted that the limit of outer space begins at the Kármán line . 14 Regarding the second dispute, the scope of “any other celestial body” remains in dispute and continues to invoke uncertainty . The need to define the notion ‘celestial body’ is most often 15 raised specifically during attempts to clarify the scope of application of the principle of non-appropriation . Several attempts to define this scope have been made since the signing 16 of the treaty, such as the ‘Spatialist’ approach, the ‘Control’ approach, the ‘Functionalist’ approach to name but a few . Each interpretation is unique, with its own strengths and 17 limitations. One method, for example, suggested the scope of celestial body should consist only of specific categories, such as stars, planets and their satellites . On the other hand, such 18 a strict scientific approach to classification has the undesirable effect of constant revision and re-classification . Another possible approach to this issue may be to focus instead on the 19 physical attributes of the ‘ thing’ in question, where celestial bodies are limited to all material 19 See for example the August 2006 decision by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to downgrade Pluto to a dwarf planet 18 G.P Zhukov “The Problem of the definition of outer space”, 10 IISL Proceedings 1967, 273: G. GAL, Space Law, Leiden, Sijthoff (1969) Page 186-187 17 Pop, Virgiliu. “A Celestial body is a celestial body is a celestial body...” (2001) American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 16 I. Csabafi & S. Rani, supra note 24, 213 15 De Man, P. (2010) The Exploitation of Outer Space and Celestial Bodies - A Functional Solution to the Natural Resource Challenge. Working Paper No. 54 14 O'Leary, Beth Laura (2009). Ann Garrison Darrin. Handbook of space engineering, archaeology, and heritage. Advances in engineering. p. 84 13 NASA: "A long-overdue tribute". NASA. (2005) 12 ibid 11 NASA "Astronaut". World Book at NASA. NASA. Archived from the original on May 4, 2009; Seedhouse E. Astronauts for Hire: The Emergence of a Commercial Astronaut Corps (2012) Springer Publishing 10 O'Leary, Beth Laura. Ann Garrison Darrin. (2009) Handbook of space engineering, archaeology, and heritage. Advances in engineering. CRC Press. Page 84 8 objects that can be transported through space . This, however, has the unfortunate result of 20 rendering immovables as subject to appropriation, and only complicates matters further. The Moon Agreement of 1979 intended to establish a regime for the use of the Moon and 21 other celestial bodies similar to the one established for the seafloor in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although the agreement is technically considered a ‘failed treaty’ due to its lack of signatories , it does, however, contain a reasonable limit to the 22 celestial body issue: its provisions applying "... to other celestial bodies within the solar system, other than the Earth" . It is submitted for the purposes of this analysis that the legal 23 notion of celestial body be limited to the natural bodies of matter within the solar system. This definition would include: planets, asteroids, comets, meteors, etc. However, beyond the limit of our solar system there would be legally, nothing and another inevitable debate for future space lawyers. The issue of defining celestial bodies is remarkably intricate and unfortunately there is no absolute answer to be given. While it is possible to present the existing theories and contemporary approaches, only practice will decide the scope. Despite academic and legal efforts to illuminate the issue of property rights in outer space, there exists little interpretation of the relevant space law provisions which would provide global uniformity. Nevertheless, the symbiotic rise of human technical capacity and the private sector influence has recently tested the scope of Article II. 23 Ibid Article 1(1) 22 As of January 2018, it had been ratified by 18 states; Status of Treaty: Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs 21 Resolution 34/68. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies 20 E. Fasan. Weltraumrecht (Space Law), Mainz, Krausskopf (1965) Page 113 9 1.2 Fair Competition During the “New Gold Rush” Following the rationale that the non-appropriation principle applies to natural bodies of matter within our solar system, the next question a lawyer must ask is the flexibility of the prohibition of appropriation ‘by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means’. During the last 50 years, social, economic, and technological conditions of mankind have changed dramatically. The modern reality of dwindling resources and a growing population means that innovative space industries are potentially vital to the survival of future human life. Emerging commercial developments such as asteroid mining could, potentially, alleviate these issues. Companies such as Deep Space Industries and Planetary Resources plan to pilot robotic spacecrafts to begin harvesting resources from asteroids such as water, carbon, sulphur, nitrogen, and phosphorus. In order to promote these commercial developments there have been legal proposals arguing the need for amending or abolishing the long-held principle . 24 “New Space” is a term increasingly used to describe radical, new commercial space initiatives : “We are at a turning point in the history of space exploration and development, 25 the cusp of a revolution, new industries are being born that use space in many different ways [...] Increased competition and new capabilities will change the marketplace forever” 26 Organisations such as Planetary Resources have lobbied intensely for new legislative agendas that permit an approach to space commercialisation. The results of their legislative initiative 26 Martin, G. NewSpace: The “Emerging” Commercial Space Industry (2016) NASA.gov 25 Pelton, J. The New Gold Rush The Riches of Space Beckon! (2017) 24 Baca,K. Property Rights in Outer Space, 59 J. Air L & Com. 1041 (1993); 10 have been successful, with recent U.S. and European legislation clarifying the ambiguity of the celestial body issue and permitting the mining of asteroids. The 2015 U.S. law known as the ‘Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 27 (CSLCA) entitles citizens and commercial entities the explicit right to own resources extracted from space. The Act requires the U.S. administration to facilitate commercial exploration and the recovery of space resources. Interestingly, the legislation seeks to ensure compliance with the existing treaty, explicitly acknowledging the continuing validity and importance of Article II. Under Title IV, U.S. citizens have the right to retain the extracted material from asteroids and celestial bodies but not the right to own or keep the entire asteroid or body. The analogy provided is that of fishing trawlers going to sea, the fishermen have the right to keep the fish that they catch, but have no ownership rights to the sea itself. Although controversial, this interpretation has been accepted by others in the international community. Soon after the passage of Title IV CSLCA, the International Institute of Space Law (IISL) submitted that the “use” of space resources is permitted , provided there is no 28 claim of ownership of the celestial bodies. Luxembourg has also recently followed this precedent, the first European nation to do so . Article 1 of the Luxembourgian act reads: 29 “Space resources are capable of being appropriated”. Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister of the Economy, Étienne Schneider, recently stated: “Luxembourg is the first adopter in Europe of a legal and regulatory framework recognizing that space resources are capable of being 29 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Law of 20 July 2017 on the exploration and use of space resources. Number 674 28 International Institute of Space Law. Position Paper on Space Resource Mining (20 December, 2015) 27 H.R.1508 - Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015, Title IV of the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act. 11 owned by private companies. [...] The legal framework is part of the expertise ecosystem and the business friendly, innovation-nurturing environment that Luxembourg is offering to space industry companies.” It appears this approach may soon become the European norm. The 30 European Space Agency (ESA), an international organisation with 22 Member States, has deemed the strategy appropriate within its influential ‘Space 4.0’ initiative 31 1.3 Conclusion The non-appropriation principle represents the basic doctrine of space law. Its importance is highlighted by its role in providing the conditions for the peaceful and orderly management and development of space activities. It has been suggested that abrogation of the principle could evolve into a situation of chaos . Without its presence, conflicting claims among States 32 would likely arise. Thus, due to the lack of clarity surrounding the scope of a celestial body it would seem wise for an agreed International definition that incorporates the IISL and U.S exemption for ‘resources’. The imperative issues facing lawmakers today is whether it is possible to create a process to police and enforce the fair, equitable and sustainable efforts associated with the New Space commerce. As these technologies advance, it will be increasingly difficult to police the movement of people, manufacturing, processing and living habitats beyond the grasp of Earth’s Kármán line. 32 Sters, Tenen, Preliminary jurisprudential observation concerning property rights on the moon and other celestial bodies in the commercial space age, Proceedings of the colloquium on the law of outer space, 50 (1996) 31 European Space Agency. Ministerial Council 2016. What is Space 4.0? Accessed 10th Jan 2017 30 The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Minister of the Economy. “Luxembourg is the first European nation to offer a legal framework for space resources utilization”. (July 13, 2017) Press Release. 12 Although the interpretation of the OST has been scrutinised for decades by economists and legal theorists, it has only very recently conceded to market forces. The current interpretation of Article II is that no nation may claim any body of matter in the area between the Karman Line and the edge of the solar system. By creating rights for the ‘use’ of resources, without claiming ownership of the body from which those resources were extracted, legislatures have arguably taken advantage of the flexibility of Article II to gain a competitive head start. International state unity is a fundamental aspect in the field of ISL and it therefore may prove imperative for a collective revision of the principle, perhaps in the form of an amendment to the 1967 Treaty. The paramount intention of the encompassing field of ISL is that of avoiding conflict, maintaining international peace and security . The contemporary issue at heart with 33 Article II is that there is no clear definition of “celestial bodies”, and more importantly, the ‘resources’ contained within. Specific legislation may also be necessary to define the limits of this appropriation before one or two space faring nations develop a monopoly on space resources. The position of the IISL and the Grand Duchy may indeed be indicative that the U.S. precedent has demonstrated a practical compromise. One can only imagine how much capital could have been invested into this field if this compromise had been made a decade earlier. Ultimately, in order to preserve the fundamental intention of unity, this arrangement should be applied equally to all parties. 33 Article III, Outer Space Treaty 1967 13 Chapter 2: Liability The complications associated with participation in space programmes have caused difficulties in resolving current situations with the legal criteria specified in the vintage ISL documents. There exists a vast quantity of legal uncertainty surrounding international laws determining liability. Though ISL has certainly developed in the half decade since the Treaties were signed, there are still many issues that warrant investigation. This chapter will focus on the inadequacies of the OST, the Rescue Agreement (RA) and the Space Liability Convention (SLC), as well as how modern space agencies are working to amend this ambiguity. 2.1 Obligations of International Space Law - Recovery of Objects and Persons: The RA was considered by the UN Legal Subcommittee from 1962-67. Consensus 34 agreement was reached in the General Assembly in 1967, and entered into force in December 1968. The Agreement, elaborating Articles 5 and 8 of the OST, provides that States shall take all possible steps in the rescue of astronauts in distress and swiftly return them to the launching State. Further, signatories shall, upon request, provide assistance to the launching States in recovering space objects that return to Earth outside the territory of the Launching State . As of January 2017, 95 States have ratified the Rescue Agreement, 24 have signed, 35 and two international intergovernmental organisations (the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites) have 35 UNOOSA. About us: Rescue Agreement. www.unoosa.org 34 Resolution 2345 (XXII) Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1967) 14 declared their acceptance of the rights and obligations conferred by the agreement . The 36 ratification of the RA marked the pinnacle of almost a decade’s efforts in securing international agreement on procedures guaranteeing the rescue of astronauts in distress, their return, and the return of space objects . In the event that space objects land in the territory of 37 another state party, the state where the object lands is required (upon the request of the launching authority) to recover the space object and return it to the launching authority. The RA provides that the launching state must then compensate the other state for the costs incurred in recovering and returning the space object . 38 However, the RA has been criticised for being vague, specifically regarding the definitions of who is entitled to be rescued and what specific criteria constitutes a spacecraft and its component parts . Recent innovations in reusable launch vehicle technology have made 39 commercial human space flight accessible to the general public. SpaceX recently celebrated their 50th launch of the reusable rocket Falcon 9 . In addition, SpaceX announced in 2017 40 that it is planning to send two space tourists on a lunar free-return trajectory aboard its Dragon V2 spacecraft in 2018 . Ordinary members of the public will soon be able to travel 41 into space as costs of transportation decrease and reliability of human space flight improves. Work also continues towards developing suborbital space tourism vehicles by aerospace companies like Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic. Regrettably, as the emerging space tourism industry grows, it is inevitable that an accident may occur that results in damage to 41 "SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond the Moon Next Year". SpaceX.com (27th Feb 2017). 40 SpaceX: (March 5th 2018) Hispasat 30W-6 Mission. (SpaceX.com) 39 Anderson, R.W. The Cosmic Compendium: Space Law (2015) LULU Press 38 Rescue Agreement Article 5(5) 37 Dembling G, Arons M. The Treaty on Rescue and Return of Astronauts and Space Objects (1968) William and Mary Law Review 9 Pages 630-663 36 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs: Treaty Signatures. Status of International Agreements relating to Activities in Outer Space 15 individuals participating in commercial human space flight. Thus, it is necessary to explore the adequacy of the existing international liability regime to protect space tourists in the event of a space vehicle accident. Currently, there is no set of internationally binding rules specifically governing liability for damage to space tourists. The RA provides that the launching state must bear the costs for the recovery of a craft that crashes into another state's territory . The agreement, however, makes 42 no mention of the cost of the rescue of astronauts. Furthermore, the OST simply states that “astronauts” are to be rendered all possible assistance by state parties to the treaty. Interestingly, the OST does not provide a definition for the term ‘astronaut’, and as a result it is unclear whether this provision applies to a space tourist, a person who has not necessarily received the training of a professional astronaut. The RA adds some clarity to the issue by referring to the "personnel of a spacecraft" rather than "astronauts". However, this phrase again leaves uncertain whether someone simply along for the ride: i.e. a tourist on a Virgin Galactic flight, would be considered part of the ‘personnel of a spacecraft’? The dictionary definition of personnel is “a body of persons usually employed” , and as such it may be presumed that tourists would not qualify as 43 personnel and would therefore be outwith the scope of the RA. While the OST generally recognises liability for damage to natural persons of another state caused by the launching state, the SLC as a companion treaty operates to nullify the possibility of recovery of space tourists involved in space vehicle accidents through an exclusionary provision . This leads to 44 44 Space Liability Convention. supra note 38 at Article 7 43 Definition of personnel. Merriam-Webster Dictionary 42 Rescue Agreement. Article 5(5) 16 the conclusion that space tourists are ultimately left without any remedy under International Law . While it is unlikely that tourists would be left stranded in the event of an emergency as 45 a result of pedantic terminology, it would seem wise to act cautiously and encourage the relevant authorities to establish a domestic regulatory and licensing framework that ensures the safety of space tourists as they journey to Outer Space, or, at the very least, expand the scope of ‘personnel’ to include non-employed persons. 2.2 Remedies via International Space Law - Damage The SLC was considered within the subcommittee from 1963-72. An agreement was 46 reached in the General Assembly in 1971 and the Convention entered into force in September 1972. Developing on Article 7 of the OST, the SLC establishes that a ‘launching State’ shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space objects on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft. The SLC forms the basis of liability for damage caused by a space object and provides for procedural guidelines for the settlement of claims for damages . As of January 2017, 94 States have ratified the SLC, 20 have signed, and three 47 organisations have declared acceptance of the rights and obligations conferred by the agreement. The SLC is the only convention in ISL that constitutes provisions for the settlement of disputes . 48 48 Goh M. G., Dispute settlement in international space law, 2007, p. 23. 47 UNOOSA. About us: Liability Convention. www.unoosa.org 46 Resolution 2777 (XXVI) Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1971) 45 Andre G. DeBusschere, “Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects”, 3 J. Int’l L. & Prac. 97, 100 (1994), Los Banos, J. Commercial Human Space Flight: Adequacy of the International Liability Regime Governing Suborbital Space Tourists (2017) Springer, Singapore 17 Damage is defined as the “loss of life, personal injury or other impairment of health; or loss of or damage to property of States or of persons, natural or juridical, or property of international intergovernmental organizations” . This is a purposefully broad definition, as 49 the type of damage resulting from space activities can lead to unpredictable effects, including environmental damage caused by the re-entry of craft . Article I of the SLC defines the 50 “launching State” which launches or procures the launching of a space object; or the State from whose territory or facility a space object is launched. The definition of “launching state” has been addressed in the key documents that comprise the body of ISL, including the OST and SLC. Currently, there is no adequate and specific legal definition of what a space object is in any of the space law treaties, the prevailing legal opinion is it is just an object that is intended to be used in outer space. The term was first was utilised in the SLC, referring to that which “includes component parts of a space object as well as its launch vehicle and parts thereof.” 51 This definition has stimulated a great deal of academic debate due to the confusion that inevitably follows when a term is defined by itself: the definition, in essence, states that a space object is defined as a space object, its launch vehicle, and their parts. However, the modifier “its” in “its launch vehicle” clearly references the term “space object,” and as such we may presume that a space object must be an object that utilises a launch vehicle , such as 52 a satellite launched into orbit. Instances of the term ‘space object’ implemented into national law reveal that term arguably reaches the level of a customary norm of international law or 52 Kerr. S, Liability for space debris collisions and the Kessler Syndrome (2017) The Space Review 51 Space Liability Convention. Article I(d) 50 Elana Carpanelli and Brendan Cohen, Interpreting “Damage Caused by Space Objects” under the 1971 Liability Convention, International Institute of Space Law (2013). 49 Space Liability Convention. Article I(a). 18 possibly represents a general principle of law . It seems, therefore, prudent to review the 53 legal implications associated with the definition of space objects and consider practical solutions to cope with the legal hurdles which may be encountered as extraterrestrial commerce and settlement cease to be a fiction. The SLC was enacted to recognise the need for establishing effective international rules and procedures concerning liability for damage caused by space objects and to ensure prompt payment of a full and equitable measure of compensation to victims of such damage . There 54 are two possible scenarios in which damage could be caused by a space object. The first scenario contemplates a space object that causes damage to the surface of the Earth or an aircraft in flight, and the second scenario deals with an event where a space object causes damage in outer space, or to another celestial body. Each scenario of the SLC has a different standard of liability. The first scenario applies a strict liability standard whereby a state is considered strictly liable for any damage caused by a space object launched even in the face of circumstances that are outside of it’s control. The standard of liability applied under the second scenario is a more burdensome one as it applies a fault-based liability standard. Under these terms, a state will be considered liable only if it can be shown that the damage caused was due to the fault of the launching state. To date, there have been no instances where the second scenario of the SLC have been applied . 55 55 Listner, M. Revisiting the Liability Convention: reflections on ROSAT, orbital space debris, and the future of space law (2011) The Space Review 54 OST preamble supra note 37. 53 Hearsey, M. Comparative Study of the Definition Of Space Object in National Space Laws and its Legal Effect under International Law (2012) University of Mississippi 19