United Nations



United Nations COPUOS/LEGAL/T.704

Committee on the Peaceful Unedited transcript

Uses of Outer Space

Legal Subcommittee

704th Meeting

Monday, 5 April 2004, 3 p.m.

Vienna

Chairman: Mr. S. Marchisio (Italy)

The meeting was called to order at 1.13 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon distinguished delegates, I now declare open the 704th meeting of the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

This afternoon, we will continue consideration of agenda item 10, Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets, conclude agenda item 11, Contributions by the Legal Subcommittee to the Committee Report on the Recommendations of UNISPACE III, and agenda item 12, Practice in Registering Space Objects. We will also begin consideration of agenda item 13, Proposals to the Committee on New Agenda Items.

Following the Subcommittee plenary, the Working Group on Agenda Item 10, Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets, will hold its second meeting. In order to allow the Working Group established by the Committee to prepare a report on the implementation of the recommendations of UNISPACE III for submission to the General Assembly sufficient time to hold informal consultations, the Working Group on Item 10 will be adjourned, if necessary, at 5.15 p.m. for those informal consultations to continue.

Draft protocol on matters specific to space assets (agenda item 10)

Distinguished delegates, I would now like to continue consideration of item 10, Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets.

The first speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of The Netherlands. Netherlands, you have the floor Sir.

Mr. J. VRIEND (Netherlands): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, dear colleagues, The Netherlands believes that the UNIDROIT Space Assets Protocol will facilitate the development of commercial activities in outer space. This will particularly benefit the development of such activities in developing countries and economies in transition. The Netherlands is, therefore, committed to the swift resolution of outstanding matters related to the Space Assets Protocol and hopes that the work in the Legal Subcommittee of COPUOS will contribute to that.

As for the first issue under this agenda item, The Netherlands is of the opinion that the primary responsibility of the United Nations for outer space affairs compels it to seriously consider the assumption of the function of Supervisory Authority under the Space Assets Protocol. In our view, the assumption of this function will only enhance this primary responsibility of the United Nations for outer space affairs. Yet, it is clear to all of us that there are practical and legal difficulties that need to be resolved before the United Nations can assume such a function. However, in our view, there is no difficulty that cannot be overcome. How to proceed? First, we are attracted by the suggestion not to name the United Nations as the Supervisory Authority in the Space Assets Protocol itself, but for it to be invited to assume such function by the Diplomatic Conference that will adopt the Protocol as reflected in Article 17, paragraph 1, of the Space Assets Protocol, contained in document A/AC.105/C.2/2004/CRP.5, or even by the time of the first meeting of States Parties after its entry into force. It will give the United Nations more time to do its homework and to make the necessary arrangements, but we should commence with this work soon to complete it in time.

And that brings us to our second point. If it is agreed that the United Nations assumes the function of Supervisory Authority, we would like to note that the Legal Subcommittee should start work on a General Assembly resolution to accept an invitation to that effect and to arrange for the division of responsibilities within the United Nations. In this respect, The Netherlands is of the opinion that most of these responsibilities, if not all, should be entrusted to the United Nations Secretary-General.

As for the second issue under this agenda item, The Netherlands essentially considers this to be a matter that needs to be resolved in the framework of the negotiations on the Space Assets Protocol. We, nevertheless, believe that a discussion in the Legal Subcommittee of COPUOS may contribute to the resolution of this issue in those negotiations. At this juncture, we would like to share with you our view that this issue is governed by the law of treaties, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It is a basic rule of the law of treaties that there is no hierarchy between treaties. Accordingly, States subscribing to different treaties are required to abide by all of them. In this case, that could be the five United Nations treaties relating to outer space and the Space Assets Protocol. There are two exceptions to the basic rule. One is the status of the United Nations Charter that prevails over other treaties according to its Article 103. The other exception relates to treaties dealing with the same subject matter. According to Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a more recent treaty that deals with the same subject matter as an earlier treaty prevails in the case of conflict, but only as between parties to the more recent treaty.

And this brings us to our position in this issue. According to our assessment of the draft Space Assets Protocol, there is no conflict between any of the five United Nations treaties relating to outer space and the draft Space Assets Protocol. The Netherlands is also not aware of any reason that could lead to amendments of the draft Space Assets Protocol that would produce a different result. Assuming that the five United Nations treaties relating to outer space and the final Space Assets Protocol will be compatible, The Netherlands is of the opinion that there is no legal reason to address the relationship between these instruments in the Space Assets Protocol. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished delegate of The Netherlands.

Are there any other delegations wishing to take the floor on this agenda item at this session?

India? India, you have the floor Sir.

Mr. N. SINGH (India): Thank you Mr. Chairman. The Indian delegation had the opportunity to examine the proposed Space Protocol in detail and participate in the Committee of the Governmental Experts held in Rome in December 2003. These have helped enhance our understanding of the proposal and with your kind permission, I would like to share our thoughts with this Committee.

I shall confine my intervention to the relationship between the terms of the preliminary draft Protocol and the rights and obligations of States under the legal regime applicable to outer space.

Most countries, including the Republic of India, believe that the United Nations space treaties are the cornerstones of international space law. This is amply manifested in the number of ratifications and signatures that these treaties have succeeded in securing. The primary intent of this intervention is to reiterate the confidence these space treaties enjoy among the States and their prominence in the body of international space law. This being the case, the Legal Subcommittee of the United Nations COPUOS must take upon itself to ensure that nothing is said or done in this Protocol which upsets the situation.

The Indian delegation is of the firm opinion that mere mention of our mindfulness or even respect in the preambular section is not adequate. The primacy of the United Nations space treaties deserves to be asserted more forcefully in the operative section. It appears appropriate to my delegation that the operative section of the Protocol must assert that in case of any conflict with the United Nations space treaties, namely the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Rescue Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1972, the Registration Convention of 1975 and the Moon Treaty of 1979, the provisions of the space treaties shall prevail.

The Indian delegation opposes the notion that silence about these treaties in the Space Assets Protocol, as is the case at present, except a brief mention in the preambular section, would be the best way to deal with the space treaties and to ensure avoidance on conflicts. On the contrary, we believe that this matter is of great importance and should be addressed to, appropriately through careful analysis and discussions.

The proposed draft Space Assets Protocol formulates in great detail the rights and interests of the financier in the case of any default on the part of the debtor. It appears only appropriate that obligations of the creditor, or to be more specific, those of the State to which the financier belongs, be appropriately pronounced which, unfortunately, has not received adequate attention in the Space Protocol.

Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 states that “State Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities as carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities as carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty”. This certainly brings some certain obligations to be fulfilled by the State to which the creditor belongs.

Moreover, Article VII of the same Treaty, namely the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, pronounces that “each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical person by such object or its component parts on the Earth in air space or in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies”. This article shall come into force when, according to the provisions of the Convention, the ___________ (inaudible) and control of a space asset which includes any separately identifiable asset that is in space or that is intended to be launched in space which transferred to the chargee and to protect his financial interest, he gets the space asset launched from the State to which he belongs or from the territory of the State to which the debtor belongs or any other State, irrespective of the territory from where the space asset is launched, the State, to which the chargee belongs, it is the status of the launching State, since the launch is procured by the chargee according to Article I.C.1 of the Liability Convention.

According to Article II of the Registration Convention of 1975, when a space object is launched into the Earth orbit or beyond, the launching State shall register the space object where means of an entry in an appropriate registry which it shall maintain. Each launching State shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the establishment of such a registry. This clause puts additional obligations on the State to which the chargee belongs. These obligations, which arise due to the provisions of the proposed Protocol, need to be stated clearly and precisely in the Space Assets Protocol in order to avoid any possible conflict against the provisions of the space treaties.

Mr. Chairman, having established, one, the need for bringing in harmony with the space treaties, and two, that the ___________ (inaudible) situation where in the State to which a chargee belongs, shall have to bear certain obligations in accordance with the Liability Convention and the Registration Convention.

The Indian delegation intends to move on to other aspects of the proposed Space Protocol which may put national interests in jeopardy, if not, appropriately address to.

For many nations, especially the developing countries, the satellites carry very vital services such as communication, national television, tele-medicine, tele-education, etc. In the case of default, the financier may take control and replace these services by more financially attractive options, thus, crippling the vital national interests. Safeguards against such possibilities should be incorporated into the proposed Protocol.

Transfer of ownership of some satellites, say __________ (inaudible) satellite, may lead to issues related to national security. This needs appropriate attention by the prospective State signatories of the Protocol.

Orbital slots and frequencies spectrum are granted to States according to well-accepted texts by the International Telecommunication Union. In the case of a default, when a financier takes control of the space asset, is it possible for him to make use of the space asset since the orbital slot and the frequencies are the property of the State to which the defaulter belongs?

Mr. Chairman, the issues raised here are complex but very important and need to be addressed to the satisfaction of our concern.

My delegation believes that a lot more work needs to be done before the question of relationship between the terms of the preliminary draft Protocol and the rights and obligations of the State under the legal regime applicable to outer space could be satisfactorily answered. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much India for your comprehensive statement.

And I ask other delegations. I see the delegation of South Africa. South Africa, you have the floor.

Mr. L. S. MKUMATELA (South Africa): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chairperson, we appreciate the complex nature of the Protocol. It is very complex, Chairperson. We may even submit that it was expected to be like this as compared as to the Cape Town Convention because it is addressing an real practical issues.

Chairperson, the point that we would like to make, taking into account what was just indicated, that the Protocol is very complex, is the need to engage at this very early stage, members of the Committee and other interested States, especially the developing world.

We learned with satisfaction this morning that UNIDROIT is anticipating convening a workshop for the countries in Asia. That is a welcome development. We hope that very soon that process will reach the African continent and, of course, Latin America. It will be _________ (inaudible) occasion if we expect results in all of those regions but a process that will enable interested parties, non-governmental and governmental interest, to be addressed at that level.

This will help us, Chairperson, to avoid a situation where when the Protocol is drafted and adopted, after a number of years we will have to ___________ (inaudible) what we have doing this week and last week, trying to enlist the benefits of the Protocol simply because States are not acceding to it. The earlier we do this work the better.

Chairperson, South Africa supports the notion of working together, a mechanism which is very much lateral. That approach will be(?) (not clear) also extended to this Protocol.

We appreciate, Chairperson, that UNIDROIT has extended an invitation to organizations like the International Telecommunication Union and, of course, even the Committee, the Office for Outer Space Affairs is also expected to consider what role, if any, it could play in the implementation of the Protocol.

We would like to associate ourselves with those members that have indicated that, again, they welcome the role by the United Nations, whatever nature that would be, it is this body and any other forum even, let us say, within UNIDROIT to decide exactly what that role would be of the United Nations. It is again natural, Chairperson, in this organization or in this forum for States not to accept with ease responsibilities like liability funding for such an organization. That is not really ___________ (inaudible) that. South Africa is a developing country and we also run(?) (inaudible) into clear accordance what contribution follows our contribution we expected in case of the United Nations or any other organization such as the United Nations is given the task of Supervisory.

And lastly, Chairperson, again we would like to associate ourselves with those that have indicated the role that is supposed to be played by the international space law which we arguably indicated as customary or treaty law.

In the model letter which we have drafted, the Legal Subcommittee has drafted, that letter is appealing to States to accede to these main treaties, five main treaties. One is assuming, therefore, that in the ____________ (inaudible), gives recognition to the role to be played and that has been played by these instruments.

Therefore, I would like to submit that the Protocol, complex as it is, because it anticipates a situation where non-governmental organizations would play a significant role, should be based on the established norms of international space law. Any deviation from that situation may lead us, that complex environment of private international law.

It has been argued that when a norm is drafted, there is always a notion that it would benefit developing nations. We tried to read again the indicated list of benefits, rights and obligations of Parties, the United Nations who added the draft letter. We tried to check whether to see if that could be benefited by the developing countries. Again, when we are drafting this Protocol, the same question is always raised and we are raising that question, what is the benefit of this Protocol? The terms that we benefit of this Protocol to the needs of the developing nations. Maybe then the colloquia or the workshops to be organized will assist the developing world to grow and establish that benefit. We thank you Chairperson.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished delegate of South Africa for your statement. I hope that your recommendation concerning the African continent and the organization of a similar colloquium, also in the African continent, will be taken into account by UNIDROIT sooner or later.

Are there any other delegations wishing to speak on this agenda item at this afternoon’s session?

I see none.

We will, therefore, continue with our consideration of agenda item 10, Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets, tomorrow morning.

Contributions by the Legal Subcommittee to the Committee Report on the recommendations of UNISPACE III (agenda item 11)

Distinguished delegates, I would now like to continue and conclude consideration of agenda item 11, Contributions by the Legal Subcommittee to the Committee Report on the Recommendations of UNISPACE III.

Are there any delegations wishing to speak on this agenda item this afternoon?

I see none.

We have, therefore, concluded our consideration of agenda item 11, Contributions by the Legal Subcommittee to the Committee Report on the Recommendations of UNISPACE III.

Practice in registering space objects (agenda item 12)

Distinguished delegates, I would now like to continue consideration of item 12, Practice in Registering Space Objects.

The first speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of France. France, you have the floor.

Mr. J.-Y. TREBAOL (France) (interpretation from French): Mr. Chairman, in response to the action plan for the work of the Subcommittee and for the purpose of pursuing our work, the French delegation would like to present a summary report on the practices of France with regard to registry.

The French delegation would like to underscore the importance of taking this issue on board within the Subcommittee and we are going to be attaching particular attention to the work of the Working Group which will be set up in 2005 to that end.

Pursuant to the Convention on the Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space of 1974, France is a launching State because we conduct or allow for the launch of space objects each time that a satellite belonging to a national public organization or private French law entity is launched, either from French territory or from foreign territory.

We are also a launching State within the meaning of the Convention when our territory is used for the launching of a space object.

The second case concerns commercial launching activities operated by Arianespace, that launching operator from French territory for a foreign client.

In application of Article II of the Convention of 1975, the determination of the State of registry is done on the basis of an agreement among the launching States. The present position of France on this matter is to register French satellites, whether they belong to governmental organizations or private entities or whatever the territory from which they have been launched may be.

We would like to underscore, Mr. Chairman, the fact that EUTELSAT and France have agreed that France is registering EUTELSAT satellites on a temporary basis, pending the conditions for EUTELSAT’s registry of the satellites on its own to be noted. This registration also applies for EUTELSAT’s satellites launched from a territory with a foreign launcher.

France also registers commercial launching elements from our territory which are placed on a terrestrial orbit or beyond, whether these launchers are produced by a French law society or whether they are designed and commercialized by a foreign company. As soon as it is aware of constitutive elements, France also registers a launch in case there is fragmentation in outer space.

In France, it is the National Centre of Space Studies, CNES, which is the centralizing body for all of the information allowing for the registration of space objects. CNES has a catalogue which has been set up, which is a compendium of all of this information which is constantly updated.

After internal verification within CNES, the information is registered in the CNES catalogue, then transmitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which updates a national registry. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs then informs the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the elements on this registry.

The detail of the modalities as to the registration of national satellites on the national registry as well as the registration of launchers and launching elements are explained in the document presented by the French delegation. This also contains information having to do with the way in which launching operators updated the registry. Thank you very much for your attention.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you distinguished delegate of France for your declaration with regard to the practices with regard to registration of space objects on the part of France.

I would now like to call upon the Chinese delegation.

Ms. X. LIU (China) (interpretation from Chinese): Thank you Mr. Chairman. You know that we support the work of the Legal Subcommittee with regard to the registration of space objects by countries. The Chinese delegation would like to make a brief introduction on the work carried out by China in registration of space objects.

Since 1998 when the Chinese Government carried out structural reform, the China National Space Administration, together with other government institutions, organized space experts in the study on China’s space law legislation. For the purpose of establishing a micro-regulatory system and a sound legal regime compatible with the Socialist market economy of China to guide commercial space activities in China on to the track of the system of law.

In accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the legislative law of the People’s Republic of China, China has a unified and multi-layered legislative system which is divided into the following. The first tier consists of laws which are drawn up by the organ with the supreme power in China, namely the National People’s Congress and the Standing Committee. Tier two refers to administrative statutes which are formulated by the highest executive organ of China, that is the State Council in accordance with the Constitution and laws. The third tier are institutional rules and regulations which are worked out by government institutions in accordance with the laws and administrative statutes as well as other institutions under the State Council in accordance with the administrative statutes, decisions, directives of the State Council within their own respective competence.

The above cited notes of law-making all follow the same four-stepped legislation procedure, namely proposals, submission, examination, adoption and ____________ (inaudible). By comparison, the third procedure is a simple and fast procedure which is suitable for solving urgent problems which arise in social economic development.

Following this line of reasoning, the China National Space Administration adopted the simple and fast administrative procedure and selected the regulation of space objects registration as the first project for China’s space law-making.

In accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Registration Convention and in connection with a real situation in China, the China National Space Administration accomplished the preparation of methods for regulating space objects registration by the end of 2001 and enacted for implementation in the same year. This regulation method is the first institutional regulation connected with the Outer Space Treaty. There are all together 15 articles which define and clarify the purposes and principles of the legislation, space objects, related concepts, registration, obligations and persons under obligation to register, elements and the requirements of registration, the establishment and maintenance of national registry and implementing agencies and procedures of national and international registration.

Since the regulation methods came into force, the China National Space Administration already registered with the Office for Outer Space Affairs through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, 23 objects launched by China.

Currently, the China National Space Administration is identifying and verifying space objects which are launched by China but remain unregistered against the list provided by the Office for Outer Space Affairs on projects launched. This verification work will be accomplished in the second half of 2004. By then, we will also finish data input for China’s domestic space objects registration databank.

The China National Space Administration is planning to revise the registration methods against problems arising in the course of implementation over the past few years so as to make it perfect. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished delegate of China.

Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ukraine. Ukraine, you have the floor.

Ms. N. MALYSHEVA (Ukraine) (interpretation from Russian): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, our delegation in turn would like to inform the Legal Subcommittee about the practice of registration of space objects in Ukraine.

We would like to start off by pointing out that we do not have our own cosmodromes and for that reason we use the launching capability of outer space objects only launched by other States’ space centres within the framework of joint projects. Up until recently, such launches have been taking place exclusively from the Russian Federation Space Centres and Kazhakstan’s or else from the Pacific Ocean’s Sea Start project. And usually in those cases they were registered by other States.

We are Party to the Convention on Registration and our order for national registration fully is aligned on Article II of the Convention on the Registration of Space Objects and international practice as it has developed.

Pursuant to Article 13 of Ukrainian law having to do with space activity objects which are launched into outer space and which are under the jurisdiction or control of Ukraine are registered on the National Register of Outer Space objects of Ukraine. This register is something which is insured and updated by the National Space Agency of Ukraine which is specially authorized as a government entity to act within the sphere and sector of space activities. At the same time, when Ukrainian entities conduct joint projects and when there is a launch of space objects which are under the jurisdiction of the control of other States, then it is those States which register the space objects on the basis of international agreements or contracts.

There is a certificate of registration which is issued by the Ukrainian Registry upon registration of a space object. After an object is put on the National Registry or prior files in other registries are not recognized by Ukraine because they are superseded. Ukraine also does not recognize space objects on the national register of another State or international organization if that object has not yet been taken off of our National Registry of Space Objects. National legislation in Ukraine regulates the way in which objects are taken off of the National Registry of Ukraine. This order and procedure is followed by the National Space Agency of Ukraine in the next cases. This takes place when a given space object is decommissioned, when it is physical destroyed or when its property is transferred to another State or international or foreign enterprise or organization on the basis of an agreement. This is the way that the national registration process takes place.

I would like to also, in closing, thank you for your attention.

The CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much distinguished representative of Ukraine.

And now I give the floor to the representative of the Republic of Korea. Korea, you have the floor.

Mr. K.-Y. CHUNG (Republic of Korea): Thank you Mr. Chairman. My delegation is pleased that the forty-third COPUOS Legal Subcommittee meeting begins to review its new four-year agenda item, Practice of States and International Organizations in Registering Space Objects. As my delegation mentioned in the general statement of views, the discussions on this item will help to enhance the implementation of the Registration Convention.

Mr. Chairman, the Republic of Korea has registered all eight outer space objects with the United Nations in accordance with the Registration Convention to which it became party in 1981. In complying with the Convention, the Government tried to notify the United Nations of all basic data provided for in Article IV of the Convention, as soon as possible after each object was launched.

As the Republic of Korea has a relatively short history of its outer space activities, those activities have been conducted and regulated mainly by government or public entities without any separate national implementation law.

However, in view of the expected expansion of private outer space activities and for the preparation for the construction of the Korea Space Centre, the Government is now drafting the national act on outer space activities. Following the enactment, national practices of registration will materialize and be more institutionalized.

In this regard, the Government of the Republic of Korea will closely examine the practices in registering space objects to be reported and discussed in the COPUOS Legal Subcommittee. And the Government will also endeavour to incorporate appropriate common practices in its drafting of the national act on outer space or in its other institutional arrangements.

Mr. Chairman, my delegation examined all replies received from the Member States and international organizations. I would like to express my gratitude to them for their contributions to our discussions. However, my delegation would like to point out that each reply has different contents and different form due to the lack of detailed instruction on the item. In this situation it might be difficult for the Legal Subcommittee to find out as many common practices as expected. Therefore, if the Office for Outer Space Affairs or this Subcommittee prepares and distributes the detailed instruction or a kind of questionnaire on practices on registration to the Member States and international organizations, it might be helpful for the Subcommittee to effectively draw common practices from the replies in our future work.

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea. Your suggestion will be duly considered.

And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the European Space Agency. ESA, you have the floor.

Mr. G. LAFFERRANDERIE (European Space Agency) (interpretation from French): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having given me this opportunity to present the practices of the ESA as regards the registration of space objects. I believe that this presentation is all the more interesting since the Agency was the first of the intergovernmental space agencies which declared that there would be a Declaration of Acceptance and we were thus the first to put the issues of the importance of registration and we underscore the importance for an international organization to ensure the implementation of this Convention. But I would like to develop some personal memories and share them with you if I might.

The draft Convention started being considered and debated towards the end of the 1960s, beginning 1970s. At the time, in the Legal Subcommittee we had two drafts, one tabled by Canada and one by France, and it was a matter of pleasure for me to be able to merge these two drafts into one single draft. This joint draft was then used for cases that were considered within the general context of this Convention. I would never have been able to believe at the time, I would never have conceived that now we would be actually talking about the implementation of this Convention. At the time, the Convention was held to be something that was necessary because in Article VIII, registration is referred to in the Treaty, and some States seemed attached to this idea of registration and the Convention but no one was particularly excited or enthralled with this idea. We thought that this would certainly be a very long time in the birthing.

In the interim period, actually, the Convention developed fairly impressively and demonstrated that it was able to forestall the trend of developments in this field, commercial activity in particular, and this on the part, not only of States but also international organizations and private entities as well. This Convention at present, Mr. Chairman, actually responds to the practical desiderata of all of the parties to this Convention even though they did not all participate in its actual drafting.

In my personal capacity, I would like to call upon delegations to, of course, re-read the Convention and its preamble in particular. It is certainly interesting to do that. But I think it would be interesting for them to cast their minds back to the preparatory work building up to that Convention, what was done, what was not done, what was omitted, what was eluded. Sometimes it is very instructive to engage in that sort of historical archiving.

As you know, the European Space Agency was the first to deposit our Declaration of Acceptance of this Convention but we did this all the while putting various questions. We wanted to better understand some provisions of this Convention, especially how it applied to an international organization, what a Declaration of Acceptance actually entailed. And there was no standard, no indication in the Convention on Registration that actually dictated what a Declaration of Acceptance would entail. We decided, indeed, to prepare this Declaration of Acceptance nonetheless.

Another problem that we had, and here I remember that we turned to the Legal Advisor of the United Nations to ask how an international organization could, indeed, actually deposit a Declaration of Acceptance. Could it have its own register of space objects? It is not something that is obvious if you peruse the Convention on Registration. We were well guided by the Legal Advisor of the United Nations who allowed us to pursue the process of preparing the Declaration which was prepared by the Council of ESRO, ESRO was the entity at the time which developed into ESA, and then that Declaration was deposited with the United Nations. Various questions arose at that juncture. We did adopt the Declaration at the end of the day and we applied it.

Now I would like to get back to the document that presents application, that is A/AC.105/C.2/L.250/Add.1, and here you will see how we applied this after we settled all of the preliminary questions that I have been referring to. And the first thing that was necessary was to have a register for ESA and then we had to have certain elements of information that had to be taken from this register and transmitted to the United Nations Secretariat. If you are to notify the United Nations the points within Article IV in your national register, you are bound to do that, but nothing forbids you from setting the threshold somewhat higher and sending more information, and this, I think, is interesting when we think about in terms of guidelines for implementation purposes.

The work on this register was given to the Director-General of the Agency and was the same section that is in charge of notifying frequencies because it was felt that this was a related effort. The collection of information was done by those services and then transmission to the Office for Outer Space Affairs was handled by the Legal Advisor of the Agency who has since then been replaced by the responsible agency’s Office of Space Affairs. So this Registry, in our current practice, is not open to the public but it is possible for agencies delegations to be familiar with the contents of it and discuss it.

Also with regard to registering, this is an international registry not a national one, and then pursuant to Article IV of the Convention on Registration. And just here I would like to briefly recall a historical discussion that had us embroiled in it for some time which was around the subject of what is meant by registry. For some of our projects, questions arose, especially with regard to Europe’s contribution to the Apollo programme of the United States, that is the Space Lab. Thus, the Space Lab to be considered a space object that should be registered by ESA or is it considered a non-object following the registry of a lab which in other words would mean it was not to be registered, it could not be registered. I will not go into the details of this discussion but at the time it was viewed by the United States as a space object and subject to registry.

We came back to that issue when we contributed to the International Space Station and here I will refer you to Article V of the Jacques(?) Accord(?) which, indeed, speaks of jurisdiction and control and the partner who has jurisdiction control over the space object is responsible for registering it. And, thus, it must be considered a space object. So the manipulating arm supplied by Canada is considered a space object. So there is a very strong interest in defining what a space object is. It continues to be a definition that awaits content which you can see here that by way of the subject of registration you end up touching upon the very important subject of what is a space object. Based on that, we viewed space objects as being listed and then an annex to the Agreement on the Space Station and those objects are those that we register, the ___________ (inaudible) and the Automatic Transfer Vehicle, to mention a few examples.

Now on that subject, I should say that, as you all know, many of the Agency’s programmes are international cooperative efforts and so it means that in the definition of and definition of cooperation agreements, we have to have a definition of the object and decide who is to register what. And in many cooperative agreements we have a specific article dedicated to declaring that a given object will be registered by the European Space Agency, for example.

Another important issue is, and we should not forget this, that the European Space Agency is a research and development entity. We do not conduct commercial activity, though the Agency’s space activities, that is those of research and development, can be divided into two categories, compulsory and optional programmes. The compulsory programmes are basically the science programmes. The optional programmes can cover a whole series of programmes, ranging from telecommunications programmes, meteorological programmes to the Space Station I referenced earlier, the Ariane programme, just to mention a few, I do not want to give you an exhaustive list, but that gives you a vague idea.

The Agency develops and launches itself, for its own activity, space objects. And to do this, very often the Agency employs its own launch means, or launch pads, in French Guiana, and these are sites governed by agreements concluded between the ESA and the French Government, to whom we must also report and it is a very complex process for those that are not used to juggle a whole series of text but once you get used to it, it is rather simple and easily done.

This Registry reflects all the information referenced in Article IV but it may also include more information than that required by Article IV and in addition to the Registry, the Agency has a catalogue of objects which are in space after launching. And the catalogue, of course, basically lists space debris as well because space debris is not considered a space object. A space object includes various elements but by definition it is usually intended to rather quickly become part of space debris but I do not think that space debris meets the qualifications of what space objects are.

With regard to registration, there is also the issue, we always come back to the issue of jurisdiction and control that I mentioned earlier and in terms of the list of information contained in our National Registry of Space Objects that I mentioned earlier, there are a number of areas and one is called “Jurisdiction and Control”. And in our own registry, that section has been left blank because right now ESA is not a State thus it has no jurisdiction and control, only the State can have jurisdiction and control. At least that is the current state of affairs of international law in that regard with regard to jurisdiction and control.

The information contained in the ESA Registry are improved along the way, practically speaking. For instance, we try to add more information to flush out the information with regard to describing the function of the space object. And the notifications are usually very concise. They simply describe the mission of the space object but perhaps we need to be a bit clearer and a bit more complete in describing the mission.

Another case that came to our attention recently also was the frequency used by the space object in question. We used to just put a minimum number of frequencies and now in our Registry we broaden that and include all of the frequencies used by the space object because very often these frequencies are already reflected in the International Telecommunication Union’s Registry so why not also reflect them in the registration if we want to give the United Nations as much information as possible so we can find quickly as much useful information as the user might need, have quick access to that in a centralized location.

All that information, Mr. Chairman, can be found in the series of documents published by the Office for Outer Space Affairs and I must truly underscore the Office for Outer Space Affairs’ work. It is truly remarkable what they have done and it is of great usefulness for our work.

Mr. Chairman, there you have it. I am sorry it was a bit long-winded. I could have been even more long-winded though, you know that. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you to the distinguished representative of the European Space Agency for your statement which ultimately was not that long and it was very interesting.

(Continued in English) Are there any other delegations wishing to take the floor. Yes, I see South Africa. South Africa, you have the floor.

Mr. L. S. MKUMATELA (South Africa): Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, __________ (inaudible) mention, we are going to interpret the significance of this agenda item. Before we do that, we would like to thank the Secretariat for their informative presentation this morning.

The importance of this item, Chairperson, in our interpretation lies in the fact that it is also to be intended to advance the principle of implementing an agreement in good faith which is the principle that is very fundamental in international relations and treaty law.

And then there is the second aspect in __________ (inaudible) linked with this principle. The idea to have agreements accepted or declared to by as many States as possible, the concept of universality of agreements or treaties.

Maybe, Chairperson, if parties were implementing first the resolution of the United Nations accordingly and then if the States involved in space activities were implementing the terms of the agreement, the Convention so to say, accordingly. We will be discussing what we are discussing today instead maybe we would be saying “how do we make the practice uniform?”. This takes us back again to the issue of implementing agreements in good faith. If one checks the list of parties to the recent Convention among the 45 States, they are clear leading States in space activities. And then there is another category of States which have made it possible for this Registration Convention to be relatively universal, a quick development.

If one then checks one point made in the presentation this morning, the conclusion in the presentation, a call was made to the launching States or to the States involved in space activities to try and organize the work of the registration that is expected at least to conform to a set norm or level of acceptance.

The point we are making, Chairperson, is that in space activities whilst we embrace the notion of universality of agreements, there should be a clear understanding that today, at least, there are space-faring nations or there are States that are engaged in space activities which would be expected to take full responsibility of the development of international space law, international practice in outer space, simply because those parties are actively involved in space activities. ____________ (inaudible) then expects other States like South Africa which launched once “launch”.

But I tell you South Africa is prepared to, as we have indicated, in our own to promote the concept of the universality of agreements but the current development of South Africa does not allow South Africa to be a faring State today but at least we are interested in ____________ (inaudible) in outer space.

Therefore then, Chairperson, the question of uniformity of registration may be accordingly promoted by the States that are actually, or those who are considered as active in space activities.

The next item is the notion of a generic function. That is an important item. It should not be that difficult for those that have space activities to advance this requirement, generic function, of what is being launched, of the generic function of an object in outer space. We need to really address the item, based on the function.

The last point that I would like to address, Chairperson, is in the area of telecommunications. Even those States that are today not very active in outer space activities, there are still a number of these accepting about taking rights in objects which have already been launched. Then there is a process, then there is a question of the transfer of ownership and the consequences of that activity. It is an object already launched but then transfer or whatever other _________ (inaudible) is realized by a State which is not necessarily a space-faring nation. That is one issue that we are going to see a lot of it. Thank you Chairperson.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished delegate of South Africa.

Are there any other delegations wishing to take the floor on this agenda item at this afternoon’s session?

I see none.

We will, therefore, continue with our consideration of this agenda item, agenda item 12, Practice in Registering Space Objects, tomorrow morning.

Proposals to the Committee on new agenda items (agenda item 13)

Distinguished delegates, I would now like to begin consideration of item 13, Proposals to the Committee on New Agenda Items.

Are there any delegations wishing to speak on this agenda item this afternoon?

I see none.

We will, therefore, continue with our consideration of agenda item 13, Proposals to the Committee on New Agenda Items, tomorrow morning.

Distinguished delegates, I will now adjourn this meeting of the Subcommittee for the second meeting of the Working Group on Agenda Item 10, Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets, following which the Working Group established by the Committee to prepare a report on the implementation of the recommendations of UNISPACE III for submission to the General Assembly will continue with informal consultations at 5.15 p.m. or earlier if the Working Group on Item 10 adjourns before this time.

Before adjourning, I would like to inform delegates of our schedule of work tomorrow morning. We will reconvene here at 10.00 a.m. At that time we will continue consideration of agenda item 10, Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets, agenda item 12, Practice in Registering Space Objects, and agenda item 13, Proposals to the Committee on New Agenda Items.

Following the Subcommittee plenary, the Working Group on Agenda Item 10, Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets, will hold its third meeting, and the Working Group established by the Committee to prepare a report on the implementation of the recommendations of UNISPACE III for submission to the General Assembly will continue with informal consultations.

Are there any questions or comments?

I see none.

It is so decided.

I am now pleased to give the floor to the Chairman of the Working Group on Agenda Item 10, Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets, for the Working Group’s second meeting.

This meeting is now adjourned until 10.00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The meeting closed at 4.27 p.m.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download