Hosting Galileo Ground Stations

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications Law, College of

2007

Frans G. von der Dunk University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/spacelaw

Part of the Air and Space Law Commons von der Dunk, Frans G., "Hosting Galileo Ground Stations" (2007). Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications. 27. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/spacelaw/27

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. von der Dunk in Proceedings of the Fiftieth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (2007). IAC-07-E6.4.06. Copyright 2007, Frans von der Dunk. Used by permission. IAC-07-E6.4.06

HOSTING GALILEO GROUND STATIONS Liability and Responsibility Issues under Space Law

Frans G. von der Dunk International Institute ofAir and Space Law, Leiden - The Netherlands [email protected]

Abstract 1. Update on Galileo

At this moment, the European GNSS Few people in the world of space will Supervisory Authority, the public have failed to notice that Galileo, the agency-half of the Public-Private European satellite navigation-system Partnership principally in charge ofthe to-be, has landed in rough weather. Or, Galileo system, is built up, and the first as the latest official Communication full-fledged operations on a global from the European Commission on the scale are currently envisaged by 201a issue, of 16 May 2007, clearly indicates or shortly thereafter. Thus, one set of already by its title: Galileo is at a cross legal questions which now becomes of road. 1 Not so much in terms of actual interest concerns those surrounding the development (although further delays possibility for third countries to host have occurred also in that area), but Galileo ground stations. primarily in terms of the institutional The present paper seeks to analyse structure envisaged for Galileo. these issues from the perspective of Ever since the Commission announced space law, in particular as regards its plans to develop European satellites issues of international responsibility for positioning, navigation and timing and liability under the Outer Space in conjunction with the European Space Treaty and the Liability Convention, Agency (ESA) and the member states and how they would or might impact in 1998,2 the main idea was to create a upon the specific context of operating Public-Private Partnership (PPP) with a ground stations for the Galileo satellite private consortium as co-financier and system. operator of the system on a concession In doing so, it will include a brief basis. That approach has been reiterated update as to the institutional structure throughout the series of official being developed for Galileo, as well as documents which followed in later a summary comparison with existing years to further develop what was first precedents of third states hosting termed GNSS-2, then Galileo. 3 ground stations for a satellite system The Communication of 16 May, principally operating outside of their however, reflects the continuing control, such as the Land Earth Station problems with contracting a Operator Agreements in the context of concessionaire to build and operate the INMARSAT/Inmarsat and the bilateral system as such on a commercial basis, agreements between the United States and it is clear that the ideas on and third countries on the hosting of establishing a.private Galileo Operating ground stations for the LANDSAT Company (GOC)4 currently are no system. longer presumed to apply. The Council in a Resolution of 8 June 2007 unequivocally concludes in this regard Copyright©2007 by Frans G. von der Dunk. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.

358 Copyright © 2008 by Frans von der Dunk. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. von der Dunk in Proceedings of the Fiftieth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (2007). IAC-07-E6.4.06. Copyright 2007, Frans von der Dunk. Used by permission. "that the current concession cases other states will have to be negotiations have failed and should be approached. ended". 5 The same Resolution also Of course, this applies to GPS and states that the deployment ofthe system GLONASS as well, but in those cases should now be feasible by 2012. 6 of single-state-systems the situation is Let there be no mistake, however: fairly straightforward. National Galileo is a major success already prior authorities can negotiate the deals to its proper deployment from many required, and these can remain simple other perspectives, such as the geo as neither the United States nor Russia political one. Ever since the People's accept legal obligations for their own Republic of China (PRC) became the activities and operations beyond the first non-European partner to join the bare minimum resulting from general project at the highest level, 7 many such tort law-principles, good states have expressed their interest in neighbourliness and suchlike. doing so and some have already Galileo is crucially different on two concluded similar agreements. 8 counts. Firstly, it does intend to Also the Resolution of 8 June 2007, as fundamentally accept certain liabilities, well as ensuing political discussions in order to entice potential customers within Europe at the highest level, to pay for certain of its services. leave little doubt that the European Secondly, in this case at least two stakeholders are determined to 'make international organisations (the EU and Galileo happen', and to replace the ESA) and at least twentrc-nine private investments which are now no European states are involved. 0 On longer expected with public their behalf, EGSA as the main investments one way or another. 9 This representative ofGalileo here would be also means, likely, that the European the demanding party, being interested GNSS Supervisory Authority (EGSA) in establishing ground stations for will either 'supervise' another, public Galileo across the world as necessary or hybrid entity operating the system or to operate the system and provide the end up operating the system itself. services. This will unavoidably involve Thus, while Galileo may not happen as some territories not under the originally envisaged in terms of a PPP, sovereignty of a member state of the it will happen somehow, and that makes European Union or ESA, although the questions posed in the Abstract perhaps third state-accessions to EGSA above regarding the hosting of Galileo could allow for sufficient global ground stations from the perspective of coverage in that sense. In view of international space law responsibility security concerns however, even with and liability still worthy ofattention. such states elaborate agreements would be required to ensure proper implementation. As of yet it is both 2. Galileo and ground stations possible that in some cases EGSA may end up owning and/or operating such a The global scope of Galileo operations ground station, and that the host state will require a number of ground itselfmight be interested in doing so. stations for tracking and control as well In any case, such operations will entail as for other purposes around the world. questions of state responsibility and Whilst to some extent the existence of liability under space law - which is overseas dependencies of European what this paper will then in particular states could help out, in a number of focus on.

3. Possible precedents: INMARSAT From this perspective it is interesting and LANDSAT to note that also after privatisation, that is the take-over of actual operation of For international agreements between the space system as well as marketing an entity running a satellite system and and sales of its services by the new a state requested to host ground private entity Inmarsat, for some time stations interesting precedents exist. the LESO Agreements took care of the Many such systems, whether belonging resulting complications. Under them, to a state or to its entities, require Inmarsat continued to act as a ground stations situated in territories wholesaler to the LES Operators of not subject to the sovereignty of the satellite capacity, who could in turn operating state(s). As an example, the provide the relevant services to users case ofthe US LANDSAT system may so interested. These agreements be relevant and helpful. consequently limited Inmarsat's ability While such cases simply required the to do business itself to a certain extent, states concerned to negotiate relevant but provided the company in return arrangements in the form of with a well-rooted distribution agreements between legal equals, the network. Most LES Operators, it may issue equally arose in the more be noted, were signatories to the 'old' complicated context concerning INMARSAT Operating Agreement, in intergovernmental organisations. Both most cases still public national telecom INTELSAT 11 and INMARSAT 12, operators - as mentioned, a possible prior to their being privatised in the construction with respect to ground late 90's, had to conclude such stations in the case of Galileo would agreements also with states not being also be for the host state itself to own members of the organisations and operate those. themselves. Whilst now the LESO Agreements Starting with the latter case and taking have been replaced by a Common INMARSAT as an example thereof, Framework Agreement, this basically operating a communication satellite achieved a unified approach; it does system in orbit to serve users all across not do away with the need to deal with the globe required that organisation to all the problems of a satellite operator maintain a dedicated set of ground requiring ground stations in foreign stations spread around the world. For states. Hence it might usefully serve as that purpose, a number of Land Earth a precedent once these issues start to Station Operator Agreements (LESO be dealt with in the Galileo context. Agreements) had been concluded. The LANDSAT example is illustrative Those LESO Agreements prominently especially from the perspective of included also rights of access of the substance. This US national remote LES Operators to the INMARSAT sensing satellite system, developed segment; evidently a mutual benefit from the early 70's onwards, from its was seen to arise from any such inception required ground stations Agreement. 13 It remains to be seen, of strategically situated around the world course, to what extent that would be to ensure telemetry, tracking and true also for Galileo ground stations control with respect to the satellite (the outside of Europe, but at any rate a technical/operational part) as well as, further study of these agreements in the absence of data relay satellites, might be enlightening. direct caption of remote sensin§ data on the ground (the content part). 1

360 von der Dunk in Proceedings of the Fiftieth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (2007). IAC-07-E6.4.06. Copyright 2007, Frans von der Dunk. Used by permission. In the case of Galileo ground stations, and on reasonable cost terms" also apart from the apparent need to results in an obligation upon a ground continuously track and control the station host state limiting the satellites, the need to arrange (direct) commercial options. 15 capture of data has more to do with the And yet, with LANDSAT host states relevance of the area where those data were sufficiently interested in being are needed (obviously, one needs part ofthe system to pay annual fees in positioning and navigation information the range of 600,000 to 1,000,000 US$ especially in the geographical area for access to such data, in addition to where one is positioned or navigating) 'contributing' a ground station. A final than with a need for relay satellites verdict on whether Galileo will be able (Galileo itself crucially maintaining to incite a similar level of commercial inter-satellite communications for excitement in potential host states will relaying any relevant information), but likely only be possible once the system the effects would largely be the same. is close to full operational capability, It would thus be quite helpful for the but the interests of states like the PRe Galileo stakeholders also to investigate and India in investing hundreds of the precedent ofLANDSAT to analyse millions of US$ in Galileo signify that the legal and institutional problems to this is at least feasible. be solved and to indicate possible At the same time, the intention is for solutions to them. Such issues are, the Galileo operator to undertake all amongst others: the distribution of the commercial activities involved in responsibilities for maintaining and marketing and selling Galileo services: operating the ground station to the how would that square with any host extent that the host state is interested state itself entering the business? How in, or insisting on, being involved to deal with product and service therein; concerns as to the security of liability, intellectual rights and data the facilities both legally and factually; protection, and the need for dispute intellectual property rights and data resolution mechanisms, in cases where protection issues both in accordance a host state (or any domestic private with European law-norms and in company) would be keen on conformity with domestic laws and conducting commercial Galileo regulations; and the possibilities for the business with a ground station? Solid ground station host state to itself take agreements would be requisite here. part in the commercial use and/or It may be noted finally, that for a dissemination of Galileo services in its considerable period of LANDSAT own territory, read market. This last operations a private US company point was crucial in the case of EOSAT was at the heart of the LANDSAT as a remote sensing dissemination structure, somewhat system, but may also turn out to be of comparable to the envisaged role ofthe interest as a negotiating and bargaining Galileo concessionaire; marketing and tool for Galileo to induce third states to selling data generated by the host ground stations. LANDSAT systems. As we all know, It may be added for comparison's sake, EOSAT failed after a few years of that the international customary operations: the market for full-fledged obligation (reflected moreover in the commercial earth observations US acts applicable to LANDSAT) to operations turned out to have been provide at least raw data to a "sensed immature, to say the least - yet, this did state" "on a non-discriminatory basis not prevent LANDSAT as such from

continuing to be rather fruitful and their jurisdiction do not violate the beneficial for US interests. rights of other states. 17 Operating a ground station for Galileo, or even allowing it to be operated by EGSA or 4. International responsibility and another Galileo operator, does not take liability issues away such obligations, and any agreement might have to include Not to look too far ahead, at this point guarantees that such operations will there would be a few aspects as regards not be conducted in such a way that the Galileo and its ground stations worthy host state's international responsibility of discussing under international law. might be invoked by another state. One concerns the powers necessary or In addition to state responsibility as it desirable to conclude relevant treaties arises under general international law, with third countries envisaged to host Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty ground stations. Here, EGSA would has caused a specific version thereof to seem to be the most appropriate body be applicable to space activities. 18 to conclude such agreements, but "Space activities", or more precisely currently does not seem to have any "activities in outer space" (the term such competence. 16 Article VI uses), as such have not been The main difference between Galileo defined. The operation of a ground and existing satellite navigation station controlling (part of) a satellite systems, as already indicated, concerns system or its operations however the need in the present case for the would generally be considered to fall European stakeholders to make within the scope ofthat term. participation by third states in the It remains to be seen to what extent Galileo system through the hosting of EGSA, alternatively the Commission, ground stations attractive enough to could provide guarantees that ground overcome any possibly present station operations would be conducted hesitation or disinterest on the part of in such a manner as to exclude the such third states. possibility of a host state's This is where the aspects of responsibility being invoked by a third responsibility and liability will play a state. Regulation 1321/2004 provides rather important role. Perhaps a host that EGSA should "manage the public state which is a formal partner of interests" and act as "regulatory Galileo, operating ground stations as authority" for Galileo, at best part of its active involvement in suggesting this should encompass Galileo operations for its own well ensuring the legality of its own defmed benefit, would be open to activities or any conducted under its accepting attendant responsibility and sway under international law. 19 liability. Without any higher-level Also the specific version of involvement, however, a state might accountability triggered by the only be convinced to come to an incurrence of damage, that of liability, agreement on hosting ground stations addresses states. The causation of ifit can incur no more than a minimum direct physical damage caused by ofresponsibility and liability. space activities is ruled by Article VII As for the general form ofinternational of the Outer Space Treaty as further accountability, states are responsible in elaborated by .the 1972 Liability broad terms for ensuring that activities Convention. 20 This regime provides conducted on their territory or within for liability for damage caused by a

space object resting upon the be dealt with in that context as well. 23 "launching State(s)" of that space Clearly, operations of a ground station object; the concept of "launching using radio signals to control State" being defined in a fourfold navigation satellites would fall under fashion. 21 these requirements. In particular the criterion of Similar conclusions might be drawn in "procuring" a launch is subject to respect ofsome ofthe other states with uncertainties relevant here. Arguably an operative national space law. In the the hosting of a ground station, the case of Sweden, member state of both activity of which causes a satellite to ESA and the European Union and become involved in a major accident hence of importance for any official causing damage, could be seen as 'European' interpretation and making the host state a liable state definition of "procurement", a license under space law for such damage. is required for "all measures to At the level of the international space manoeuvre or in any other way affect treaties or UN resolutions, it has not objects launched into outer space", if been possible so far to arrive at any conducted from Swedish soil and!or by generally agreed interpretation or a Swedish national or national definition ofthe term "procurement". In company, and licensees "shall the absence thereof it becomes of reimburse the State what has been interest to see how individual states in disbursed on account of the above their national efforts at relevant mentioned undertakings, unless special legislation have tried to deal with this reasons tell against this". 24 Linking the issue, as this may lead to an licensing obligation to one to authoritative interpretation based on reimburse the government for any customary law-principles. This also international liability claims is also applies, incidentally, to any common in the other national space interpretation ofthe key term of Article laws ofWestern-European states. VI of the Outer Space Treaty, "national The United Kingdom, the second ESA activities in outer space", as relevant and EU member state so far having a for international responsibility. full-fledged national framework law on space activities in outer space, whilst limiting its licensing obligation to UK 5. Some national examples nationals and national companies, does also explicitly include in the scope of Some national space laws its licensing regime anything causing a implementing the international space activity "to occur" or being responsibility and liability provisions "responsible for its continuing". 25 A at a domestic level indeed explicitly or licensed activity automatically includes implicitly require a license also for the obligation to indemnify the UK .I 26 ground station operations including government III re evant cases. arrangements on reimbursement of any The next EU- and ESA-member state to state liability incurred. enact a proper national space law, For example, in the United States a Belgium, defines the "operator", as the license is required to "use or operate person on whom the obligation rests to any apparatus for the transmission of obtain an authorisation to conduct energy or communications or signals space activities, as "the person that by radio" from anywhere in the United carries out or undertakes to carry out States. 22 The attendant liability has to the activities referred to in this law, by

363 von der Dunk in Proceedings of the Fiftieth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (2007). IAC-07-E6.4.06. Copyright 2007, Frans von der Dunk. Used by permission. ensuring, alone or jointly, the effective their respective territories the intended control of the space object".27 The host states would want to shift the consequence is inter alia the right of burden of any such liability onto the the Belgian government to address a shoulders of Galileo, that is EGSA counterclaim to the licensee for any and/or any (other) Galileo operator. international liability claim that it has to This is, however, not the whole story honour. 28 when it comes to liability for Galileo Belgium's neighbour, the Netherlands, operations. The international space law similarly includes the operation of regime for liability mentioned above, ground stations at least to a substantial and its national ramifications and extent in the licensing obligation under implementation are, in view of the its new 2007 law: "space activities", as scope ofthat international regime, only the activities triggering the application relevant for physical damages caused of the law and its licensing obligation, by a Galileo satellite to another space is defined as including "the guidance of object or on earth - arguably even space objects in outer space".29 Also restricted to such damage caused by the Dutch law consequently provides physical impact, that is a crash. for reimbursement of liability claims In the case of Galileo, while the above addressed to the Netherlands. 30 is by no means a negligible issue, at For comparison's sake furthermore, the least equal attention needs to be paid to Russian space law includes in its scope the possible damage caused by the user "the use of navigation (...) systems" of Galileo for example when that user, and "other kinds ofactivities performed wrongfully trusting the signals and with the aid of space technologies" by services provided to him, navigates anyone falling under Russian incorrectly - into a wayside tree, a jurisdiction, calling for reimbursement harbour facility, or a mountainside in principle of the Russian government adjacent to an aircraft landing strip. of liability claims paid by the latter This type of indirect damage results in under international space law. 31 triggering other liability regimes A final example concerns South Africa, applicable - for road accidents, where "space activities" as leading to a maritime accidents or aviation license requirement under the relevant accidents - normally making such user Act are defmed as "activities directly (and not Galileo itself) liable for the contributing to the launching of damage. 33 spacecraft and the operation of such But where it is Galileo's intention to craft in outer space", which activities attract (commercial) transport users to require a license if conducted from some of its services and make them South Africa, which may in turn five pay for it, there is a clear interest for rise to a reimbursement obligation. 3 EGSA and any operator to somehow allow derogation of such liability claims in case it can be proven the 6. Concluding remarks cause ofthe damage was a wrongful or absent Galileo signal. Whatever the level ofnational detail in As of yet this is far from established implementing the relevant international however. Regulation 132112004 itself obligations pertaining to responsibility does not go further than accepting non and (especially) liability, it is obvious contractual liability to the extent "in that in the arrangements allowing accordance with the general principles Galileo ground stations to operate on common to the laws of the Member

364 von der Dunk in Proceedings of the Fiftieth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (2007). IAC-07-E6.4.06. Copyright 2007, Frans von der Dunk. Used by permission. States" and thus to "make good any damage caused by its departments or European Strategy for Global by its servants in the performance of Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), their duties". 34 It would be difficult, to COM(1998) 29 fmal, of 21 January say the least, to read this as including 1998. the operations of the system by a distinct operator - certainly not a 3. See, e.g., Council Resolution on the "department" or "servant" in the involvement of Europe in a new normal sense of the word - especially generation of satellite navigation ifoccurring in non-member states. services - Galileo-Definition phase, of To the extent that such a system for 19 July 1999; OJ C 221101 (1999); derogation of liability to Galileo would Council Regulation setting up the arise, agreements between EGSA or the Galileo Joint Undertaking, No. Commission and host states would also 876/2002IEC, of 21 May 2002; OJ L have to deal with this aspect ofliability, 138/1 (2002); Communication from arranging for procedures and rules once the Commission to the European the question arises whether an activity Parliament and the Council conducted at the relevant ground station Integration of the EGNOS programme might have been partially or wholly in the Galileo programme, COM(2003) responsible for a Galileo failure causing 123 fmal, of 19 March 2003; relevant damage. Communication from the Commission In sum: regardless of the precise to the European Parliament and the institutional version under which Council - Progress report on the Galileo would finally see the light of GALILEO research programme as, at day, issues of international (space) law the beginning of 2004, COM(2004) responsibility and liability will have to 112 fmal, of 18 February 2004; be properly approached and solved if Council Regulation on the Galileo is to become the major establishment of structures for the contribution to "the benefit and (...) management of the European satellite interests of all countries,,35 which it is radio-navigation programmes, No. destined to become. 132112004/EC, of 12 July 2004 (hereafter Regulation 132112004); OJ L 246/1 (2004); and Green Paper on Satellite Navigation Applications, COM(2006) 769 fmal, of 8 December Endnotes 2006.

1. Communication from the 4. On the 'original' institutional set-up Commission to the European for Galileo, see e.g. the author's Quis Parliament and the Council - Galileo at vadit cum vobis, Galileo? a Cross-Road: The Implementation of Institutional Aspects OfEurope's Own the European GNSS Programmes, Satellite Navigation System, in COM(2007) 261 fmal, of 16 May 2007. Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Colloquium on the Law ofOuter Space 2. See Communication from the (2004), 360-70; and Towards Commission to the Council and the Monitoring Galileo: the European European Parliament - Towards a GNSS Supervisory Authority in statu Trans-European Positioning and nascendi, 55 Zeitschrift fiir Luft- und Navigation Network: including A Weltraumrecht (2006), 100-17.

also member states of ESA; in 5. Item 2, Council Resolution on addition, non-EU member states GALILEO, 2805th Transport, Norway and Switzerland are involved Telecommunications and Energy as ESA member states. Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 6-8 June 2007. 11. The 'old' INTELSAT was established by means ofthe Agreement 6. See item 5, Council Resolution on Relating to the International GALILEO, 2805th Transport, Telecommunications Satellite Telecommunications and Energy Organization (INTELSAT), Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 6-8 Washington, done 20 August 1971, June 2007. entered into force 12 February 1973; 1220 UNTS 21; TIAS 7532; 23 UST 7. By becoming a member of the 3813; UKTS 1973 No. 80; Cmnd. Galileo Joint Undertaking (GJU), the 4799; ATS 1973 No.6; 10 ILM 909 precursor to EGSA; see Cooperation (1971); and the Operating Agreement Agreement on a Civil Global Relating to the International Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Telecommunications Satellite Galileo between the European Organization (INTELSAT), Community and its Member States and Washington, done 20 August 1971, the People's Republic of China, of 30 entered into force 12 February 1973; October 2003; Doc. Council of the 1220 UNTS 149; TIAS 7532; 23 UST European Union, 13324/03. 4091; UKTS 1973 No. 80; Cmnd. 4799; ATS 1973 No.6; 10 ILM 946 8. E.g., Israel; see Cooperation (1971). Agreement on a Civil Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) 12. The 'old' INMARSAT was between the European Community and established by means of the its Member States and the State of Convention on the International Israel, of2 June 2005; Doc. Council of Maritime Satellite Organization the European Union, 9482/04. (INMARSAT), London, done 3 September 1976, entered into force 16 9. Cf. items 4-7, Council Resolution on July 1979; 1143 UNTS 105; TIAS GALILEO, 2805th Transport, 9605; 31 UST 1; UKTS 1979 No. 94; Telecommunications and Energy Cmnd. 6822; ATS 1979 No. 10; 15 Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 6-8 ILM 1052 (1976); and the Operating June 2007. Agreement on the International Maritime Satellite Organization 10. The European Union now counts (INMARSAT), London, done 3 27 member states: Austria, Belgium, September 1976, entered into force 16 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, July 1979; 1143 UNTS 213; TIAS Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 9605; 31 UST 1; UKTS 1979 No. 94; Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Cmnd. 6822; ATS 1979 No. 10; 15 Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, ILM 233, 1075 (1976). Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, 13. See e.g. D. Sagar, The Privatisation Sweden and United Kingdom. Amongst of Regulated Industries: Lessons those, the ones indicated in italics are Learned from the Telecommunications

366 von der Dunk in Proceedings of the Fiftieth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (2007). IAC-07-E6.4.06. Copyright 2007, Frans von der Dunk. Used by permission. and Satellite Sectors, 7-1 Newsletter Private Enterprise and Public Interest Outer Space (2005), 6-10. in the European 'Spacescape ' (1998), pp. 17-22, and literature referred to. 14. See e.g. P.A. Salin, LANDSAT Contracts Signed by US Agencies with 18. See Art. VI, Treaty on Principles Foreign Ground-Stations: Commercial Governing the Activities of States in Remote Sensing from NASA Scientific the Exploration and Use of Outer Experiments to EOSAT Private Space, including the Moon and Other Endeavours, 41 Zeitschrift fur Luft Celestial Bodies (hereafter Outer und Weltraumrecht (1992), pp. 165-75. Space Treaty), London/Moscow/ Washington, done 27 January 1967, 15. Princ. XII, Principles Relating to entered into force 10 October 1967; Remote Sensing of the Earth from 610 UNTS 205; TIAS 6347; 18 UST Outer Space, UNGA Res. 41/65, of 3 2410; UKTS 1968 No. 10; Cmnd. December 1986; UN Doc. 3198; ATS 1967 No. 24; 6 ILM 386 A/AC.l05/572/Rev.l, at 43; 25 ILM (1967). 1334 (1986); cf. further Sec. 202(a)(3), Land Remote Sensing 19. Art. 1, Regulation 1321/2004. Commercialization Act, Public Law 98-365, 98th Congress, H.R. 5155, 17 20. Convention on International July 1984; 98 Stat. 451; Space Law Liability for Damage Caused by Space Basic Legal Documents, EJII.4; Sec. Objects (hereafter Liability 5615(a)(1), Land Remote Sensing Convention), London/Moscow/ Policy Act, Public Law 102-555, Washington, done 29 March 1972, 102nd Congress, H.R. 6133, 28 entered into force 1 September 1972; October 1992; 15 U.S.C. 5601; 106 961 UNTS 187; TIAS 7762; 24 UST Stat. 4163. 2389; UKTS 1974 No. 16; Cmnd. 5068; ATS 1975 No.5; 10 ILM 965 16. E.g., in Art. 2, Regulation (1971). 1321/2004, rather exhaustively listing the Tasks of EGSA, no reference to 21. Art. I(c), Liability Convention, such a competence can be found; and reads: "The term "launching State" the legal personality of EGSA as means: (i) a state which launches or established under Art. 4 is far removed procures the launching of a space from full-fledged international legal object; (ii) a State from whose territory personality. Even the Commission or facility a space object is launched." itself requires explicit mandates from the Council to negotiate international 22. Sec. 301, Communications Act, 19 agreements on GNSS and Galileo June 1934; 47 U.S.C. 151 (1988); 48 issues; cf. e.g. Council ofthe European Stat. 106. Union, 2589th Council Meeting, Transport, Telecommunications and 23. See Sec. 206, Communications Energy, Luxembourg, 10-11 June Act. 2004, 9865/04 (Presse 176), 19. 24. Secc. 1, 2, 6, Act on Space 17. See for a general abstract treatise Activities, 1982: 963, 18 November of state responsibility in the context of 1982; National Space Legislation of space activities already the author's the World, Vol. I (2001), at 398; Space

Law - Basic Legal Documents, E.II.I; August 1993, effective 6 October 36 ZL W (1987), at 11. 1993; National Space Legislation of the World, Vol. I (2001), at 101. 25. Sec. 13(2), cf. further Secc. 1,2, 3, Outer Space Act, 18 July 1986, 1986 32. Sec. 1, see further Secc. 11, 14, Chapter 38; National Space Legislation Space Affairs Act, 6 September 1993, of the World, Vol. I (2001), at 293; assented to on 23 June 1993, No. 84 of Space Law - Basic Legal Documents, 1993; Statutes ofthe Republic ofSouth E.I; 36 ZLW (1987), at 12. Africa - Trade and Industry, Issue No. 27, 21-44; National Space Legislation 26. See Sec. 10(1), Outer Space Act. ofthe World, Vol. I (2001), at 413.

27. Artt. 3(2),4, Law on the Activities 33. Cf. e.g. for aviation the of Launching, Flight Operations or international contractual liability Guidance of Space Objects. Art. 3(3) system developed ever since the furthermore defines "effective control" Convention for the Unification of for the purpose of § 1 as including Certain Rules Relating to International "remote control", as "necessary for the Transportation by Air, Warsaw, done implementation of the activities of 12 October 1929, entered into force 13 launching, the flight operations and February 1933; 137 LNTS 11; USTS guidance of one or more space 876; UKTS 1933 No. 11; ATS 1963 objects". No. 18; and culminating in the Convention for the Unification of 28. See Art. 15(1), Law on the Certain Rilles for International Carriage Activities of Launching, Flight by Air, Montreal, done 28 May 1999, Operations or Guidance of Space entered into force 4 November 2003; Objects. ICAO Doc. 9740; 48 ZLW 326 (1999); and the third-party liability conventions 29. Sec. l(b), Law Incorporating Rules of 1933 and 1952: International Concerning Space Activities and the Convention for the Unification of Establishment of a Registry of Space Certain Rules Relating to Damage Objects; 80 Staatsblad (2007), at 1. Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties on The English translation used for the the Surface, Rome, done 29 May 1933, purposes ofthis article, which is on file entered into force 11 November 1942; with the author, is as yet an unofficial 5 JAL 312 (1937), respectively Rome one; an official translation into English Convention on Damage Caused by is expected later in the course of 2007. Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Sec. 2 of the Rules establish the Surface, Rome, done 7 October 1952, licensing obligation. entered into force 4 February 1958; 310 UNTS 181; ATS 1959 No.1; 30. See Sec. 12(1), Law Incorporating ICAO Doc. 7364. Rules Concerning Space Activities and the Establishment of a Registry of 34. Art. 17(2), Regulation 1321/2004. Space Objects. 35. Art. I, Outer Space Treaty. 31. Art. 2(1), see further Artt. 1, 25, 30, Law of the Russian Federation on Space Activities, No. 5663-1, 20

368