• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.153-194
• /
• 2009

The resources of outer space are for the common exploitation of mankind, and it is a common responsibility of mankind to protect the outer space environment. With the rapid development of space science and technology, and especially with the busy space activities of some major space powers, environmental contamination or space debris is steadily increasing in quantity and has brought grave potential threats and actual damage to the outer space environment and human activities in space. Especially We must mitigate and seek out a solution to remove space debris which poses a threat directly to man's exploitation and use of outer space activities in the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in the Geostationary Orbit (GEO), through international cooperation and agreement in the fields of space science, economics, politics and law, in order to safeguard the life and property of mankind and protect the earth's environment. While the issue of space debris has been the subject of scientific study and discussion for some time now, it has yet to be fully addressed within the context of an international legal framework. During the earlier stages of the space age, which began in the late 1950s, the focus of international lawmakers and diplomats was the establishment of basic rules which sought to define the legal nature of outer space and set out the parameters for space activities and the nature and scope of activities carried out in outer space were quite limited. Consequently, environmental issues and the risks that might arise from the generation of space debris did not receive priority attention within the context of the development international space law. In recent years, however, the world has seen dramatic advances in technology and increases in the type and number of space-related activities which are being carried out. In addition, the number of actors in this field has exploded from two highly developed States to a vast array of different States, intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, including private industry. Therefore, the number of artificial objects in the near-Earth space is continually increasing. As has been previously mentioned, COPUOS was the entity that created the existing five treaties, and five sets of legal Principles, which form the core of space law, and COPUOS is clearly the most appropriate entity to oversee the creation of this regulatory body for the outer space environmental problem. This idea has been proposed by various States and also at the ILA Conference in Buenos Aires. The ILA Conference in Buenos Aires produced an extensive proposal for such a regulatory regime, dealing with space debris issues in legal terms This article seeks to discuss the status of international law as it relates to outer space environmental problem and space debris and indicate a course of action which might be taken by the international community to develop a legal framework which can adequately cope with the complexity of issues that have recently been recognized. In Section Ⅱ,Ⅲ and IV of this article discuss the current status of international space law, and the extent to which some of the issues raised by earth and space environment are accounted for within the existing United Nations multilateral treaties. Section V and VI discuss the scope and nature of space debris issues as they emerged from the recent multi-year study carried out by the ILA, Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, Legal Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space ("COPUOS") as a prelude to the matters that will require the attention of international lawmakers in the future. Finally, analyzes the difficulties inherent in the future regulation and control of space debris and the activities to protect the earth's environment. and indicates a possible course of action which could well provide, at the least, a partial solution to this complex challenge.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.183-221
• /
• 2013

While in the early stages of space activities only a few states engaged in the use of outer space, as is well known, commercial space activities have grown dramatically in recent years. Both states, state institutions, and international governmental organizations as well as many private enterprises are engaged in such commercial use of outer space by now. This development is not reflected in the present state of space law. The existing international instruments of space law were developed and finalized before this development and thus only provide very few and sometimes unfitting provisions for the commercial use of outer space and particularly the use by private enterprises. Law formulated in an era when the word "privatization" had not even been coined cannot contain potential problems caused by the increasing commercialization of outer space. For the promotion and further development of such commercial use of outer space it is necessary to clarify and establish the legal framework for such use, because participants will need this information for their future investments in this field. The purpose of this paper is to research and make an analysis of the contents and international regulation of international space commerce, which is rapidly proliferating and to review the process of improvement on national legislations relating to the commercialization of outer space in a few main space advanced countries to make the sustainable progress of commercial space activities project in international society. The legal implications of matters such as international commercial launch services, the liability aspects of such services, intellectual property rights, insurance, product liability insurance and materials processing could one day will be subject to regulated by international space law as well as domestic law. In fact, the question of commercialization is linked to the question of sharing benefits of space activities, and this currently is an agenda item in the Legal Subcommittee of UN COPUOS. Most of developed countries have enacted the national legislation for commercial space activities relating to the development of our space as follows : The National Aeronautic and Space Act of 1958 and the Commercial Space Act of 1998 in the United States, Outer Space Act of 1986 in England, Establishment Act of National Space Center of 1961 in France, Canadian Space Agency Act of 1990 in Canada, Space Basic Act of 2008 in Japan, and Law on Space Activity of 1993 in Russia. Becides there are currently three national legislations relating to space development and commercial space activities in Korea as follows : Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Act of 1987, Outer Space Development Promotion Act of 2005, Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008. Commercial space great promise for the utilization and expansion of human outer space activities but aspring commercial actors must recognize that foreign policy, as well as obligations to the international community as a whole, ensure that commercial space activities will not operate in a legal and regulatory vacuum. As commercial space matures the law and accompanying regulation will most certainly evolve and choose to become participants in the inevitable evolution of law and regulation.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• no.spc
• /
• pp.225-246
• /
• 2007

This article is dedicated to my colleague and friend Professor Soon-Kil Hong, Ph.D, who is the famous President of the Korean Association of Air and Space Law and distinguished teacher at the prestigious Hankuk Aviation University. I had the honour and pleasure to teach there a few years ago - upon his gracious invitation. Professor Soon-Kil Hong has made a long, outstanding and impressive career in aviation and space activities, both from a practitioners and academic perspective. That is why I have tried to find a subject which addresses these facets of his personality although this humble article cannot do justice to the great merits of Professor Soon-Kil Hong. This article discusses the liability aspects for damages and injuries to passengers on suborbital flights, by examining: 1. Recent developments regarding space tourism 2. Suborbital flights in relation to the Chicago Convention 3. The application of space law treaties to space tourism 4. Potential candidates for liability regimes applying to space tourism 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Liability under international space law 4.2.1 The Outer Space Treaty (1969) 4.2.2 The Liability Convention (1972) 4.2.3 Conclusions 4.3 Liability under international private air law 4.3.1 Introduction 4.3.2 The Warsaw Convention (1929), as variously amended 4.3.3 The Montreal Agreement (1999) 4.3.4 Conclusions 5. Final observations

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.2
• /
• pp.31-67
• /
• 1990

One of the first issues which arose in the evolution of air law was the determination of the vertical limits of airspace over private property. In 1959 the UN in its Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, started to give attention to the question of the meaning of the term "outer space". Discussions in the United Nations regarding the delimitation issue were often divided between those in favour of a functional approach ("functionalists"), and those seeking the delineation of a boundary ("spatialists"). The functionalists, backed initially by both major space powers, which viewed any boundary as possibly restricting their access to space(Whether for peaceful or military purposes), won the first rounds, starting with the 1959 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space which did not consider that the topic called for priority consideration. In 1966, however, the spatialists, were able to place the issue on the agenda of the Outer Sapce Committee pursuant to Resolution 2222 (xxx1). However, the spatialists were not able to present a common position since there existed a variety of propositions for delineation of a boundary. Over the years, the funtionalists have seemed to be losing ground. 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 is therefore to be welcomed that there is clear evidence of a growing recognition of the defect inherent to such an approach and that a spatial approach to the problem is gaining support both by a growing number of States as well as by publicists. The search for a solution of the problem of demarcating the two different legal regimes governing the space above the Earth has undoubtedly been facilitated, and a number of countries, among them Argentina, Belgium, France, Italy and Mexico have already advocated the acceptance of the lower boundary of outer space at a height of 100km. The adoption of the principle of sovereignty at that height does not mean that States would not be allowed to take protective measures against space activities above that height which constitute a threat to their security. A parallel can be drawn with the defence of the State's security on the high seas. Measures taken by States in their own protection on the high seas outside the territorial waters-provided that they are proportionate to the danger-are not considered to infringe the principle of international law. The most important issue in this context relates to the problem of a right of passage for space craft through foreign air space in order to reach outer space. In the reports to former ILA Conferences an explanation was given of the reasons why no customary rule of freedom of passage for aircraft through foreign territorial air space could as yet be said to exist. It was suggested, however, that though the essential elements for the creation of a rule of customary international law allowing such passage were still lacking, developments apperaed to point to a steady growth of a feeling of necessity for such a rule. A definite treaty solution of the demarcation problem would require further study which should be carried out by the UN Outer Space Committee in close co-operation with other interested international organizations, including ICAO. If a limit between air space and outer space were established, air space would automatically come under the regime of the Chicago Convention alone. The use of the word "recognize" in Art. I of chicago convention is an acknowledgement of sovereignty over airspace existing as a general principle of law, the binding force of which exists independently of the Convention. Further it is important to note that the Aricle recognizes this sovereignty, as existing for every state, holding it immaterial whether the state is or is not a contracting state. The functional criteria having been created by reference to either the nature of activity or the nature of the space object, the next hurdle would be to provide methods of verification. With regard to the question of international verification the establishment of an International Satelite Monitoring Agency is required. The path towards the successful delimitation of outer space from territorial space is doubtless narrow and stony but the establishment of a precise legal framework, consonant with the basic principles of international law, for the future activities of states in outer space will, it is still believed, remove a source of potentially dangerous conflicts between states, and furthermore afford some safeguard of the rights and interests of non-space powers which otherwise are likely to be eroded by incipient customs based on at present almost complete freedom of action of the space powers.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.203-237
• /
• 2011

Since USSR successfully launched its satellite "Sputnik"in 1957, many countries including US and USSR began military use of space, and engaged in arms race in space, which is against spirit and ideals of peaceful use of space as common heritage of mankind stipulated in many treaties such as Outer Space Treaty. With worsening Cold War between East and Western Bloc, this military use of space and arms race in space has been intensifying. Regarding the ideals of peaceful use of space, it is interpreted that military use of space is possible unless it does not have the purpose of aggression. The military use of space may have diverse forms such as attacking satellites in space, or attacking from satellites, making use of present and future technologies available which should include the use of nuclear and kinetic/hyper-speed weapons, laser, particle beams, near explosion, disturbance weapons in different directions (i.e., surface to space, space to space, and space to surface). Arms control is being implemented by the efforts of many countries in different formalities including legislature of international treaties under the auspices of UNCOPUOS and prohibition of weapons of mass destruction. Taking outstanding examples aiming at arms control by international community, there are confidence building measures (CBM), strengthening implementation of existing treaties, partial ban of nuclear tests, countryand regional approach, comprehensive approach and measures having legally binding force. While U.S. has surpassed other countries concerned in the area of military useof space, it withdrew from OST in early 2000s, thereby raising concern of international community. It requires concerted efforts of cooperationand implementation by international society to make sure peace of mankind and environmental conservation through arms control in space. Observing de facto possession of nuclear weapons by North Korea following series of nuclear tests and launching satellites, and efforts of launching rockets by South Korea, it is strongly needed for both countries to take part in arms control efforts by international community.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.419-442
• /
• 2018

Space Treaty Article 2 stipuates non-appropriation by sovereignty, and in any other means. Interpretative controversies has continued as regards the meaning of any other means. It is not clear whether appropriation by private entity is also prohibited or not. Furthermore, the controverse around the binding force of Article 1 has made worse the controversy regarding such appropriation. U.S. Congress has enacted the law regarding the space resouce mining in 2015. Its main purpose is to alleviate legal unstability which U.S, private companies have faced, and it provides some provisions regarding private rights about space resources. Original bill, H.R. 1508 included the property right. Amendment to the bill is to ensure that an "asteroid resource utilization activity" is inter-preted as on a single asteroid and not on any asteroid. The use of the word "in situ" in defining space resources simply means resources in place in outer space; but any such resource within or on an asteroid would need to be "obtained" in order to confer a property right. The use of the word "in situ" in merely defining a space resource in the bill is not equivalent to claiming sovereignty or control over celestial bodies or portions of space. Further, there is clear Congressional direction in the bill that the President is only to encourage space resources exploration and utilization, including lowering barriers to such activity, "consistent with" and "in accordance with" US international obligations. Federal courts are granted original jurisdiction over entities defined in ${\S}$ 51301(4) and in-situ asteroid resources that have been removed from an asteroid by such entities. Federal courts are not granted jurisdiction over outer space, the Moon, other celestial bodies, or the asteroid from which the in-situ natural resource was removed. It is said that the Space Resource Utilization Exploration Act of 2015, talked about the rights of private players to own-kind of a "finders keepers" law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.35-59
• /
• 2018

Professor Bin Cheng said that outer space was res extra commercium, while the moon and the other celestial bodies were res nullius before the 1967 Outer Space Treaty(OST). However, Article 2 of the OST made the moon and other celestial bodies have the legal status as res extra commmercium, not appropriated by any country or private enterprises or individual person, but the resources there can be freely available, as those on the high seas. The non-appropriation principle was introduced to corpus juris spatialis internationalis. Whether or not the non-appropriation principle is binding for the non-parties of the OST, many scholars see this principle as an international customary law, even developing into jus cogens. Article 11(2) of the Moon Agreement(MA) reconfirms the nonappropriation principle of Article 2 of the OST, but it has much less effect than the OST because the MA binds only the 18 parties involved. The MA applies only to the moon and celestial bodies other than the Earth in the Solar System, the OST's application scope extends to the Galaxy because the OST has no such substantive enactment. As referred to in the 2015 CSLCA of USA or Luxembourg's Law of Space Resources, allowing individuals and enterprises run by other countries to commercially explore and utilize the space resources, the question may arise whether this violates the non-appropriation principle under Article 2 of the OST and Article 11 of the MA. In the case of the CSLCA, the law explicitly specifies that sovereignty, possessory rights, and judiciary rights to a specific celestial body cannot be claimed, let alone ownership. This author believes that this law respects the legal status of outer space and the celestial bodies as res extra commmercium. As long as any countries or private enterprises or individuals respect the non-appropriation principle of outer space and the celestial bodies, they could use, exploit it. Another question might be raised in the difference between res extra commercium on the high seas and res extra commercium in outer space and the celestial bodies. Collecting resources on the high seas and exploiting space resources should be interpreted differently. On the high seas, resources can be collected without any obstacles like fishing, whereas, in the case of the deep sea-bed area, the Common Heritage of Mankind principles under the UNCLOS should be operated by the International Seabed Authority as an international regime. The nature or form of the sea resources found on the high seas are thus different from that of space resources, which are fixed on the moon and the celestial bodies without water. Thus, if individuals or private enterprises collect these resources from outer space and the celestial bodies, they might secure a certain section and continue collecting or mining works without any limitation. If an American enterprise receives an approval from the U.S. government, secures the best location and collects resources on the moon, can other countries' enterprises access to this area? How large the exploiting place can be allotted on the moon? How long should such a exploiting activity be lasted? Under the current international space law, these matters might be handled according to the principle of "first come, first served." As a consequence, the international community should provide a guideline or a proposal for the settlement of any foreseeable disputes during the space activity to solve plausible space legal questions in the near future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.9
• /
• pp.445-488
• /
• 1997

In the forthcoming 21st century new technical and scientific developments in outer space demands new approaches towards the problems arising in several fields of the use and exploitation of outer space including practical applications. The main purposes of this study are to analyze the legal problems of geostationary orbital position, telecommunication, direct television broadcasting by uses of artificial satellites. Communication via artificial Earth satellites was one of the first applications of space technology and is now one of the most developed field. From the technical and economic standpoints the advantages of world-wide satellites communication system are too all obvious. However, as the practical uses of space technology become more freguent, the legal conflicts among nations have become more divisive. One of the problem grown in uses of artificial satellites is that of the increasing shortage of suitable orbital slot positions for satellites, especially in geostationary orbit. Legal status of geostationary orbit as a limited resourece have to be reviewed in consideration of the side effect of the "First use, first-served" principle. The geostationary orbit is to be used for the benifits of all mankind and to be guaranteed for each state institutionaly in order to have eguitable access to the use of the orbit. Rapid increase of satellites broadcasting system in not only developed countries but also in developing countries opened up new possibilities with one another's scientific and cultural achievements. But there is also a potential danger that this powerful new instrument of influencing public opinion will be abused. Such a danger incudes spill-over or harmful interference. This controversial issue brings about the question whether prior consent from the receiver nation is needed to broadcast across international boundaries. Some states have rejected prior consent because it interfere with the free flow of information. Many other countries have opposed that opinion as an invasion and violation of sovereignty and as a violation of the 1967 Treaty and the UN Charter. Since declaration of the First Year of Outer Space in 1985, our country have promoted the plan of launching communication and broadcasting satellites. With the Koreasat launched in 1995 as the start, a real satellite-telecommunication era was opened in korea. According to this new development of our country, there will also rise various legal problems related to satellite broadcasting and telecommunication such as the inflow of foreign programs, the permeation of culture and the infringement of program copyright. Consequently the effective reactions to these problems in satellite-communication era should be tried including international cooperation. It is therefore to take into careful consideration the legal issues which may arise in outer space activities and to formulate positive policy on international cooperation with surrounding or advanced countries and international organization concerned. For this purpose the United Nations also prepares the UNISPACE III in 1999, to enable the international community to meet a more promising 21st century.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.443-469
• /
• 2018

In the sixty year since the first launch of Sputnik 1, it has become impossible to consider economic, political, or scientific human life in the communication field without reference to outer space. But, there is a growing groundswell of public opinion aimed at preventing arms race in space. Therefore it is necessary to establish some institution or mechanism such a code of conduct, international law. But every nation has a different posture on the grounds of national interest, or different levels of space development, the conditions required for the successful negotiation of a comprehensive treaty are not yet ripe. It is hoped that by beginning with soft measures (TCBM, Code of Conduct) for which it is easier to secure voluntary participation it may be possible to build up to a comprehensive treaty. The participation of the Space powers (US, Russia, China) in a dialogue of mutual exchange and shared information would contribute to international peace and give a long term benefit to humankind. It is also necessary to promote partnership through regional and bilateral cooperation. We should guide and shape opinion so that more nations ratify and sign existing international legal covenants in order to contribute to the efficency of Space law. International law needs to enforce PAROS and Space Security.