• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.199-236
• /
• 2014

This paper analyses from the perspective of distributive justice the legal mechanisms for international allocation of orbital slots, which are of co-owned nature and thereby limited natural resources in outer space. The allocative function is delegated to the International Telecommunication Union. The Radio Regulation, amongst such other legal instruments as the Constitution and Convention, by which the ITU and contracting States thereof abides, dictates how the orbital positions are distributed. Thus, the RR is thoroughly reviewed in the essay. The mechanisms are in a broad sense categorized into two systems: 'a posteriori system' where the 'first come, first served' principle prevails; and 'a priori system' designed to foster the utilisation of the slots by those who lack space resources and are, in especial, likely to be marginalised under the former system. The argument proceeds on the premise that a posteriori system places the under-resourced States in unfavourable positions in the securement of the slots. In contrast with this notion, seven factors were instantiated for an assertion that the degradation of the distributive justice derived from the 'first come, first served' rule, which lays the foundation for the system, could be either mitigated or counterbalanced by the alleged exceptions to the rule. However, the author of this essay argues for counterevidences against the factors and thereby demonstrating that the principle still remains as an overwhelming doctrine, posing a threat to the pursuit of fair allocation. The elements he set forth are as in the following: 1) that the 'first come, first served' principle only applies to assignments capable of causing harmful interferences; 2) the interoperability of the principle with the 'rule of conformity' with the all the ITU instruments; 3) the viability of alternative registrations, as an exception of the application of the principle, on the condition of provisional and informational purposes; 4) another reference that matters in deciding the priority: the types of services in the TFA; 5) the Rule of Procedure H40 proclaiming a ban on taking advantage of coming first to the Register; 6) the technical factors and equity-oriented norms under international and municipal laws along with; 7) the changes of 'basic characteristics' of registered assignments. The second half of this essay illustrates by examining the relevant Annexes to the Regulation that the planned allocation, i.e., a priori system, bear the structured flaws that hinder the fulfillment of the original purpose of the system. The Broadcasting and Fixed Satellite Systems are the reviewed Plans in which the 'first come, first served' principle re-emerges in the end as a determining factor to grant the 'right to international recognition' to administrations including those who has not the allotted portions in the Plan.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.427-468
• /
• 2015

To date, we have considered the theoretical views, the standpoint of states and the discourse within the international community such as the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space(COPUOS) regarding the Air/Outer Space Boundary Question which is one of the first issues of UN COPUOS established in line with marking the starting point of Outer Space Area. As above mentioned, discussions in the United Nations and among scholars of within each state regarding the delimitation issue often saw a division between those in favor of a functional approach (the functionalists) and those seeking the delineation of a boundary (the spatialists). The spatialists emphasize that the boundary between air and outer space should be delimited because the status of outer space is a type of public domain from which sovereign jurisdiction is excluded, as stated in Article 2 of Outer Space Treaty. On the contrary art. I of Chicago Convention is evidence of the acknowledgement of sovereignty over airspace existing as an international customary law, has the binding force of which exists independently of the Convention. The functionalists, backed initially by the major space powers, which viewed any boundary demarcation as possibly restricting their access to space, whether for peaceful or non-military purposes, considered it insufficient or inadequate to delimit a boundary of outer space without obvious scientific and technological evidences. Last more than 50 years there were large development in the exploration and use of outer space. But a large number states including those taking the view of a functionalist have taken on a negative attitude. As the element of location is a decisive factor for the choice of the legal regime to be applied, a purely functional approach to the regulation of activities in the space above the Earth does not offer a solution. It seems therefore to welcome the arrival of clear evidence of a growing recognition of and national practices concerning a spatial approach to the problem is gaining support both by a large number of States as well as by publicists. The search for a solution to the problem of demarcating the two different legal regimes governing the space above Earth has undoubtedly been facilitated and a number of countries including Russia have already advocated the acceptance of the lowest perigee boundary of outer space at a height of 100km. As a matter of fact the lowest perigee where space objects are still able to continue in their orbiting around the earth has already been imposed as a natural criterion for the delimitation of outer space. This delimitation of outer space has also been evidenced by the constant practice of a large number of States and their tacit consent to space activities accomplished so far at this distance and beyond it. Of course there are still numerous opposing views on the delineation of a outer space boundary by space powers like U.S.A., England, France and so on. Therefore, first of all to solve the legal issues faced by the international community in outer space activities like delimitation problem, there needs a positive and peaceful will of international cooperation. From this viewpoint, President John F. Kennedy once described the rationale behind the outer space activities in his famous "Moon speech" given at Rice University in 1962. He called upon Americans and all mankind to strive for peaceful cooperation and coexistence in our future outer space activities. And Kennedy explained, "There is no strife, ${\ldots}$ nor any international conflict in outer space as yet. But its hazards are hostile to us all: Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again." This speech seems to even present us in the contemporary era with ample suggestions for further peaceful cooperation in outer space activities including the delimitation of outer space.