„Soft Law“ in Outer Space, 2 April 2011, University of ViennaThe launching State and Registration Resolutions as „kick off“, Kai-Uwe Schrogl
page 2
1. Context
- No legal instrument/document since 1996 (if you regard the Space Benefits Declaration as a rather “political” document, then since 1992, NPS Principles)
- UNISPACE III 1999 with various links:- decision for conference and adoption of the Space
Benefits Declaration, both in 1996- right before the conference, new working methods and
agenda structure established following initiatives by groups of States, led by Germany (multi-year workplans with working groups and single issue items for only one year) together with setting the “launching State” issues as first such workplan agenda item (2000 to 2002)
„Soft Law“ in Outer Space, 2 April 2011, University of ViennaThe launching State and Registration Resolutions as „kick off“, Kai-Uwe Schrogl
page 3
2. Content
- Application of the concept of the “launching State” (UNGA Res. 59/115 of 10 December 2004):
- Identification of a problem: private use of outer space and the issue of responsibility/liability and the unambiguous identification of at least one “launching State”
- Identification of a possible tool to manage the problem: national space legislation (non-binding call for implementing national space legislation)
- Raising the need for harmonized development of national space laws (“threat of “flags of convenience”)- Addressing transfer of ownership of space objects while in orbit
„Soft Law“ in Outer Space, 2 April 2011, University of ViennaThe launching State and Registration Resolutions as „kick off“, Kai-Uwe Schrogl
page 4
- Recommendations on enhancing the practice of Statesand international intergovernmental organizationsin registering space objects (UNGA Res. 62/101 of 17 December 2007):
- Identification of a problem: need to enhance the practice of registration (by States and even more so by
international organizations and commercial actors)- Introducing additional elements of information, furthering transparency- Proposal to deal with IGOs (general backup solution)- Proposal to deal with unclear situation to determine the “launching State”- Proposal for clarification in cases of joint launches- Addressing the case of change of supervision over a
„Soft Law“ in Outer Space, 2 April 2011, University of ViennaThe launching State and Registration Resolutions as „kick off“, Kai-Uwe Schrogl
page 5
3. Perspectives
- The two resolutions provided no “solutions” but at least led to the formal agreement amongst the States that specific issues/problems exist (this may characterize the current period of identifying and “filing” problems for future binding resolutions; others are e.g. the delimitation of air space and outer space or the definition of “space object”)
- The two resolutions “rescued” LSC from complete inactivity and gave new impetus and confidence to its work
- The format of workplans with working groups became well accepted
„Soft Law“ in Outer Space, 2 April 2011, University of ViennaThe launching State and Registration Resolutions as „kick off“, Kai-Uwe Schrogl
page 6
- The substantive work of the working groups was of high quality (as the documentation shows; e.g. presentations/written inputs by delegations and observers)
- The Secretariat became a trusted and indispensable partner in the conduct of the workplans (through analyses etc.)
- The continuation with the workplan/working group on national space legislation shows the benefit of the approach
„Soft Law“ in Outer Space, 2 April 2011, University of ViennaThe launching State and Registration Resolutions as „kick off“, Kai-Uwe Schrogl
page 7
- What are the next topics?-> Space debris mitigation might be a good candidate-> But can we solve the “real” problems/issues with this working method? (peaceful uses; the global space economy; sustainable use of outer space; space exploration, private human spaceflight)
- Are such “weak” outputs enough?-> Do we need new binding instruments?-> Is it enough to build mutual understanding/trust/better implementation of existing law through such resolutions?
- Is it only work therapy to get LSC going?-> But what is the alternative?
„Soft Law“ in Outer Space, 2 April 2011, University of ViennaThe launching State and Registration Resolutions as „kick off“, Kai-Uwe Schrogl
page 8
4. The future of UNCOPUOS
- Is UNCOPUOS still the central body to develop a coherent space law? (e.g. role of the ITU in space law making through Art. 44 of its Constitution)
- What are UNCOPUOS’s arguments that it should be preferred to approaches like the Hague CoC and the European CoC? (the adherence to the Hague CoC is considerably higher than the number of ratifications for the Registration Convention)
- How can private actors get involved in the work and the decision-making process of UNCOPUOS (further than in delegations or as the current type of IGO/NGO observers)? (like e.g. in ITU: WSIS)
„Soft Law“ in Outer Space, 2 April 2011, University of ViennaThe launching State and Registration Resolutions as „kick off“, Kai-Uwe Schrogl
page 9
- Three potential future functions of UNCOPUOS:- supervisory function for space applications in the UN
system- lead regulatory function- platform for exchange of information involving
governments and private actors
- Instead of Subcommittees: Integrated working groups dealing with specific issues from technical as well as legal perspective, presenting draft instruments to the UNCOPUOS Main Committee for adoption
- With more responsive (and therefore numerous) space activities, the issue of Space Traffic Management will arise as a completely new and different systemic approach to deal with space activities; this might require an “UNCLOS for Space”, leading to a new comprehensive space law instrument and a different governance (possibly through ICAO)
