University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications Law, College of 2007 Hosting Galileo Ground Stations 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. 359 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. 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