Preview

BRICS Law Journal

Advanced search

International Space Law

https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2017-4-2-11-20

Full Text:

Abstract

It is well known that the modern day technologies that drive our global society are highly dependent on the use of outer space. For example, daily activities such as sending emails, making phone calls and carrying out bank transactions cannot be done unless satellite technologies are involved. When you catch a plane, the air traffic control is dependent on GPS. Even natural disaster management is dependent on satellite imaging. Taking into account the importance of this, it becomes increasingly necessary to be knowledgeable in the field of international law as it is the only sphere of law that reaches beyond the physical boundaries of the Earth, goes deep into space and provides protection for today’s society. With new steps being taken to exploit further the potentials of outer space, and with increasing talk of new space missions and new discoveries, current international space law is being placed under scrutiny, for it should be remembered that the major international legal documents in this field were adopted in the middle of the 20th century, and thus there are fears that the law may have become obsolete, irrelevant in the face of new challenges in the use of outer space. This paper delivers an analysis of existing international space law and attempts to raise several crucial issues pertinent in the area.

About the Authors

M. Lits
Tyumen State University
Russian Federation
Assistant Professor, Department of Theory and History of State and Law


S. Stepanov
Tyumen State University
Russian Federation
PhD Student, Department of Theory and History of State and Law


A. Tikhomirova
Tyumen State University
Russian Federation
Master’s Student


References

1. Baslar K. The Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind in International Law (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1998).

2. Diederiks-Verschoor I.H.Ph. & Kopal V. An Introduction to Space Law (3rd ed., Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2008).

3. Fasan E. The Meaning of the Term “Mankind” in Space Legal Language, 2 Journal of Space Law (1974).

4. Gouldner A.W. The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement, 25(2) American Sociological Review (1960).

5. Harn N. Commercial Mining of Celestial Bodies: A Legal Roadmap, 27 Georgetown Environmental Law Review (2014).

6. Hertzfeld H.R. A Roadmap for a Sustainable Space Legal Regime (Apr. 9, 2017), available at https://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/Hertzfeld-IISL%20PaperRevision%2011-30-2012.pdf.

7. Jakhu R. Iridium-Cosmos Collision and Its Implications for Space Operations in Yearbook on Space Policy: 2008/2009 (K.-U. Schrogl et al. (eds.), Wien and New York: Springer, 2010).

8. Jakhu R. Legal Issues Relating to the Global Public Interest in Outer Space, 32 Journal of Space Law (2006).

9. Lachs M. The Law of Outer Space (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1972).

10. Lee R. Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012).

11. Lysén G. State Responsibility and International Liability of States for Lawful Acts: A Discussion of Principles (Gothenburg, Sweden: Iustus Förlag, 1997).

12. Manikowski P. Examples of Space Damages in the Light of International Space Law, 1(1) The Poznań University of Economics Review (2006) (Apr. 4, 2017), also available at http://www.ebr.edu.pl/pub/2006_1_54.pdf.

13. McCarthy D.R. & Fluck M. The Concept of Transparency in International Relations: Towards a Critical Approach, 23(2) European Journal of International Relations (2017).

14. Mejia-Kaiser M. Collision Course: 2009 Iridium Cosmos Crash, Published in the Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (2009).

15. Meyer Z. Private Commercialization of Space in an International Regime: AProposal for a Space District, 30 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business (2010).

16. Ng N. Fences in Outer Space: Recognising Property Rights in Celestial Bodies and Natural Resources, 7 The Western Australian Jurist (2016).

17. Paris F. & Ghei N. The Role of Reciprocity in International Law, 36(1) Cornell International Law Journal (2003).

18. Pocar F. An Introduction to the PCA’s Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Outer Space Activities, 38 Journal of Space Law (2012) (Apr. 5, 2017), also available at http://www.spacelaw.olemiss.edu/jsl/pdfs/supplements/pocar.pdf.

19. Porras D.A. Comment the “Common Heritage” of Outer Space: Equal Benefits for Most of Mankind, 37(1) California Western International Law Journal (2006).

20. Robinson J. & Silhan V. Securing Outer Space: A Major Global Challenge, 4 Science for Population Protection (2012).

21. Tan D. Towards a New Regime for the Protection of Outer Space as the “Province of All Mankind,” 25(1) Yale Journal of International Law (2000).

22. Vlasic I.A. The Space Treaty: A Preliminary Evaluation, 55(2) California Law Review (1967).

23. von der Dunk F.G. Liability Versus Responsibility in Space Law: Misconception or Misconstruction?, Published in the Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (1992).

24. Wallace J. & Wild S.E. Webster’s New World Law Dictionary (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010).

25. Welly N.D. Enlightened State-Interest– ALegal Framework for Protecting the “Common Interest of All Mankind” from Hardinian Tragedy, 36 Journal of Space Law (2010).

26. Zedalis R. & Wade C. Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, 8 California Western International Law Journal (1978).


For citation:


Lits M., Stepanov S., Tikhomirova A. International Space Law. BRICS Law Journal. 2017;4(2):135-155. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2017-4-2-11-20

Views: 1107


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2409-9058 (Print)
ISSN 2412-2343 (Online)