Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
On 4th October, 1957, a man-made machine forche first time overrode the age old law proclaiming that everything that goes up must come down. Fifteen months later a means was developed of circumventing the earth's attraction. In September, 1959, the moon was reached and on 12th April, 1961, Major Gagarin orbited the Earth in a space capsule. In the short period of four years man's advance in space has been more rapid than the most sanguine forecaster has dared to predict, and it is now realized that a new phase in the history of mankind of exploration and development has begun in some ways comparable to, but vastly exceeding these in scope, the conquest of the sea and the air. Nobody can visualize the impact the conquest of space is going to have on life on this planet, but it becomes clearer every day that a process of change has started more profound and more sweeping than any which has overtaken the world since the foundation of the modern world.
1. Webb, James, Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in a speech on 16th 03, 1961.Google Scholar
2. See U.N. Document A/RES/1721 (XVI)
3. “Demonstratum est nec populo nec privato cuipiam ius aliquod proprium in ipsum mare (nam diverticulum excipimus) competere posse, cum occupationem nec natura, nec usus publici ratio permittat.”
4. De Jure Belli ac Pacts 1625 Lib. II Cap. III § VIII-§ XIII.
5. Telders, B. M., “De Oorsprong van het Leerstuk der Territoriale Zee,” Verzamelde Geschriften, II p. 121.Google Scholar
6. Cf. The writer's “The Air Sovereignty Concept and United States influence on the Future Development” Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol. 22 Spring, 1955, no. 2.Google Scholar
7. Cf. The writer's Report for the Dubrovnik Conference 1950 of the International Law Association on “The Limitation of Air Sovereignty”, Report of the 47th Conferenue of the International Law Association, p. 163et seq.Google Scholar
8. See Report of the 48th Conference of the International Law Association New York 1958 p. 246et seq.Google Scholar
9. Writers who share the opinion of the writer of this article that airspace, in the meaning of international Conventions and national laws, is synonymous with atmospheric space, include Meyer, A., “Address to the Third International Astronautical Congress”, 09 1952Google Scholar; Prince, W. H. of Hanover, Air Law and Space, Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Law and Political Science of Göttingen University 1953Google Scholar; Aaronson, M., “Space Law”, International Relations, vol. I, no. 9, 04 1958, p. 420Google Scholar; Roy, P. K., Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1958, p. 97Google Scholar; Jenks, C. W., “The Common Law of Mankind”, London 1958, p. 390Google Scholar; Pépin, E., Space PenetrationGoogle Scholar, Address given April 1958 at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law; Milde, M., “Considerations on Legal Problems of Space above National Territory” Review of Contempory Law, Brussels, 06 1958 Vol. 5 no. 1 p. 5et seq.Google Scholar; Korovin, Y., “International Status of Cosmic Space”, International Affairs, Moscow, 01 1959, p. 53Google Scholar; Sztucki, J., “Security of Nations and Outer Space”, Warsaw, 1959, published in the Symposium of the US Senate Legal Problems of Space Exploration, Washington, 1961, p. 1178Google Scholar; Cheng, B., “From Air Law to Space Law”, Current Legal Problems, 1960, p. 229.Google Scholar
10. Cf. Feldman, G. J., “An American View of Jurisdiction in Outer Space”, First Colloquium on The Law of Outer Space, The Hague 1958 p. 46.Google Scholar
11. See f.i. Lipson, and de B.-Katzenbach, N., “Report to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration”, American Bar Foundation, 07, 1961, p. 15Google Scholar, and further Note 41 page 133
12. Cf. Sztucki, J., “Security of Nations and Cosmic Space”, Warsaw 1959, published in the Symposium of the U.S. Senate Legal Problems of Space Exploration, Washington 1961, p. 1174Google Scholar; See also van Panhuys, H. F., “Recht in de Ruimte”, De Gids. File 124, no. 5/7 p. 404.Google Scholar
13. SirHildred, William and SirTymms, Frederick, “The Case against National Sovereignty in Space”, The Aeroplane, London, 05 23, 1958.Google Scholar
14. Cheng, B., “From Air Law to Space Law”, 13 Current Legal Problems, 1960, p. 237CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Milde, M., “Considerations on Legal Problems of Space above National Territory”, published in the Symposium of the U.S. Senate Legal Problems of Space Exploration, Washington, 1961, p. 1108Google Scholar, Sztucki, J., “Security of Nations and Cosmic Space”, published in the same Symposium, p. 1174Google Scholar, also reject the drawing of conclusions regarding the height of sovereignty from a lack of protest.
15. See on the general problem of transit over or across a State's territory, in particular Lauterpacht, E. “Freedom of Transit in International Law”, Transactions of the Grotius Society, 1958, Vol. 44, p. 313et seq.Google Scholar
16. Contra: J. F. Mc Mahon, in an article shortly to be published “Some Considerations on Reconnaissance Satellites and International Law.”
17. It should be noted, however, that Prof. Koretski, the present Russian judge in the International Court of Justice, at the 49th Conference of the International Law Association declared the use of reconnaissance satellites as contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and that the East German radio, on the occasion of the launching of the American Discoverer I, accused the U.S. of spying and of taking advantage of the lack of regulations covering what satellites may or may not do in orbit.
18. Korovin, Y., “International Status of Cosmic Space”, International Affairs, Moscow, 01 1959.Google Scholar
19. In the same sense Cheng, “United Nations and Outer Space”, Current Legal Problems, 1961.Google Scholar
20. See Beresford, S. M., “Surveillance Aircraft and Satellites: A Problem of International Law”, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol. 27, Spring, 1960, no. 2, p. 111.Google Scholar
21. Korovin, Y., “Aerial Espionage and International Law”, International Affairs, Moscow, 06 1960.Google Scholar
22. Wright, Quincey, “Legal Aspects of the U-2 incident”, American Journal of International Law, 10 1960.Google Scholar
23. Oppenheim, L., International Law, Vol. II, 7th Edition, p. 408.Google Scholar
24. Korovin, Y., “Aerial Espionage and International Law”, International Affairs, Moscow, 06 1960.Google Scholar
25. Cf. Lissitzyn, O. J., “Some Legal Implications of the U-2 and RB-47 Incidents”, American Journal of International Law, 01 1962, p. 140Google Scholar; Cheng, B., “The United Nations and Outer Space”, Current Legal Problems, 1961, p. 271.Google Scholar
26. Cooper, J. C., “Self Defence in Outer Space and the United Nations”, Air Force Space Digest, 02 1962.Google Scholar
27. In the same sense McDougal, M. S. and Lipson, L., “Perspectives for a Law of outer Space”, American Journal of International Law, 07 1958, p. 407Google Scholar et seq.: “Space is distinguished by features, many of them still insufficiently known that render many of its legal problems unique”. See also Korovin, Y., “International Status of Cosmic Space”, International Affairs, Moscow, 01 1959.Google Scholar
28. Report to the N.A.S.A. on the Law of Outer Space, July 1961, p. 26.
29. Quigg, Ph. W., “Open Skies and Open Space”, Foreign Affairs, 10 1958, p. 106.Google Scholar
30. Astronautics and Space Exploration, Hearings before the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, 85th Congress, 2nd Session.
31. Jessup, Ph. C. and Taubenfeld, H. J., Controls for Outer Space, New York, 1959.Google Scholar
32. See Kittrie, N., “Agressive uses of spacevehicles”, Fourth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, XII International Astronautical Congress, Washington, 10 1961.Google Scholar
33. See f.i. Zhukov, G., “Space Espionage Plans and International Law”, International Affairs, Moscow, 10 1960, p. 53Google Scholar: “The Soviet Union has everything necessary to paralyze U.S. reconnaissance both in the air and outer space, and Soviet rockets ensure a counterblow at the aggression in any case”.
34. White, , “Air and Space are indivisible”, Air Force Magazine, 03 1958, p. 40.Google Scholar
35. Bowett, D. W., Self Defence in International Law, Manchester 1958, p. 188.Google Scholar
36. McDougal, M. S. and Feliciano, F. P., “Legal Regulation of Resort to International Coercion, Aggression and Self-Defence in Policy Perspective”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 68 no. 6, 05 1959, p. 1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar; in the same sense Cooper, J. C., “Self Defence in Outer Space and the United Nations”, Air Force Space Digest, 02 1962Google Scholar. A different opinion was expressed by Kittrie, N., “Agressive Uses of Space Vehicles”, Paper given before the Fourth Colloquium of the Law of Outer Space, XII International Astronautical Congress, Washington, 10 3, 1961Google Scholar: “The Charter provisions clearly lead to the conclusion that while military action is fully justified in the case of self-defence to an actual attack, it is not justifiable when used as a preventive means to an attack that may be forthcoming”.
37. Lauterpacht, H., The Function of Law in the International Community, Oxford 1933, p. 180.Google Scholar
38. In the same sense, McMahon, J. F., “Some Considerations on Reconnaissance Satellites and International Law”Google Scholar shortly to be published.
39. Contra: J. A. Johnson, The General Counsel of the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration, who at the 55th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law held at Washington in April 1961, declared that he saw no reason for postponing a systematic effort to explore and reach agreement on the question of delimiting the upward reach of territorial sovereignty. It was not the kind of question, in his opinion, that would be answered by the accumulation of scientific knowledge or by further experience in space technology; Verplaetse, J. G. in his book “International Law in Vertical Space” 1960, p. 154Google Scholar, refers to the writers who wish, for the time being, to avoid efforts to come to an agreement on the exact height of sovereignty.
40. See i.a. Glaser, S., ““Agression spatiale” à la lumière du droit international pénal”, Revue pénale suisse, 77 Année 1961, Fasc. 2. p. 153.Google Scholar
41. Some members of the U.N. Ad Hoc Committee suggested the possibility of using functional rather than spatial criteria to regulate and control activities in space. See also Chaumont, Ch., Le droit de l'espace, Paris, 1960, p. 50.Google Scholar
42. See Sztucki, J., “Security of Nations and Cosmic Space” published in the Symposium of the U.S. Senate Legal Problems of Space Exploration Washington, 1961, p. 1179.Google Scholar
43. A graphic description was made by Tammes, A. J. P. in “Regime van de Wereldruimte”, Socialisme en Democratie 1959, p. 591Google Scholar, who compared a projection of sovereign sectors from the fast revolving earth into infinity with the beams of light of a lighthouse sweeping round in the legal darkness of the universe.
44. Cf. Cheng, B., “From Air Law to Space Law”, Current Legal Problems, 1960, p. 232.Google Scholar
44a. “Les Etats seront préparés à élaborer ou accepter telle ou telle règle selon qu'ils seront ou non assurés contre l'utilisation militaire de l'espace. Il est probable en particulier que, si cette assurance n'existe pas sous la forme d'une distinction d'activités licites et d'activités illicites, ces Etats essayeront (quelque illusoire que soit peut-être cette protection) d'étendre leur souveraineté territoriale sur l'espace, pour éviter que des activités dangereuses pour leur sécurité ne soient en mesure de se déployer au voisinage de leur territoire”, Chaumont, Charles, Le Droit de l'Espace, Paris 1960, p. 94.Google Scholar
45. It has been mentioned above that an approach which seems to be gaining some support is to limit the extent of sovereignty to a height lower than the perigee of past satellites (say a hundred miles). The Study Group on the Law of Outer Space established by the DAVID DAVIES Memorial Institute of International Studies, suggests in its Draft Code of Rules on the Exploration and Uses of Outer Space, as a definition of “Airspace”: the volume of space between the surface of the earth at sealevel and an altitude of 80.000 meters above it. Among the writers favouring a more or less analogous approach are the Russian writer G. P. Zhukov, who gave this opinion during an exchange of views in the editorial office of the Russian paper International Affairs on 5th October 1959; the discussion has been published in the November 1959 issue of that paper; the American writer Professor J. C. Cooper, in a lecture presented at Leyden University on 10th October 1960 “Fundamental Questions of Outer Space Law” suggested that the boundaries of outer space be fixed and that the lower boundary should be at a point above the surface of the earth where it is possible to put a satellite in orbit at least once round the earth.
The writer of this article, on the basis of the considerations given above, believes that under present circumstances efforts to reach agreement on the exact limit are bound to fail (videi.a. the opinion of the British Government). In the same sense Schick, F. B., “Space Law and Space Politics”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 10 1961, p. 691.Google Scholar
46. The satellites used in joint ventures might f.i. have a destructive charge on board enabling parties participating in the venture to neutralize the satellites in times of emergency.
47. See on the “possible” technical developments Golovine, M. N., Conflict in Space, London, 1962.Google Scholar
