THE RESCUE AND RETURN AGREEMENT IN TIMES OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL SPACEFLIGHTS

Daria Zaremba
astrophysicist, former law student
International Space Station
INTRODUCTION

The future of the outer space is undoubtedly in commercialization – in particular, in private spaceflights. In some sources the concept of private spaceflight is equated with the "space tourism", which is, however, not legally precise (2). The term "space tourist" has been defined as "someone who tours or travels into, to or through space or to a celestial body for pleasure and/or recreation" (3). In turn, the term "private spaceflight" has a broader meaning since it covers not only touristic flights but the ones conducted for scientific or any other professional purposes as well.

Prof. Von der Dunk defines the private spaceflights as "flights of humans intended to enter outer space (a) at their own expense or that of another private person or entity, (b) conducted by private entities, or (c) both"(1). At the same time, not all acts of the space tourism are completely private – the well-known tourism to the ISS(*) has been conducted with the assistance of the States.

The subject matter of the following research is restricted exclusively to non-governmental spaceflights conducted by private entities, and including private space tourism.

As it was mentioned, these private spaceflights are the immediate prospect of the development of the space industry. Consequently, it is important to provide these emerging legal relations with the appropriate legal regulation. In particular, it is essential to establish the legal mechanism for the protection of the rights of entrepreneurs, participants of such flights and the safety of the latter. The Rescue Agreement, in this case, can be the most appropriate existing legal instrument.

Thus, this research will analyse the provisions of Rescue Agreement in the light of the defined above non-governmental spaceflights.




THE "LAUNCHING AUTHORITY" IN NON-GOVERNMENTAL SPACEFLIGHTS

One of the most important concepts of the Rescue Agreement is "launching authority". This subject of international law plays a significant role in the legal relations pertaining to the rescue of astronauts and recovery of space objects since it possesses a number of rights and obligations towards the rescuing State. The explicit identification of such an authority is essential for all the parties of the spaceflight and rescue operation.

At the same time, the definition of launching authority given in the Rescue Agreement is not clear enough when applied to private spaceflights. Art. 6 of the Rescue Agreement equates the "launching authority" to the subject of international law "responsible for launching" (4). As Prof. Mark Sundahl notes "the problem with this definition is that a State may not qualify as being "responsible for launching" a space object when the space venture is private in nature"(5). Besides, the Agreement does not explain what is exactly meant by the responsibility for launching. The only way to clarify this provision is to appeal to Art. VII of the Liability Convention which establishes that "the term "launching State" means a State:

1) which launches a space object;
2) which procures the launching;
3) from whose territory a space object is launched;
4) from whose facility a space object is launched" (6).

However, if Articles`s VII concept of the launching State is applicable to the Rescue Agreement`s notion of the "State responsible for launching", the launching of the space object can potentially involve at least four separate States each of which qualifies as a launching State/authority (7). It raises the additional problem since private spaceflights are mostly conducted through the international cooperation of different private entities.

As a solution of this issue, Dr. Bin Cheng suggests distinguishing between the notions of "launching authority" as used in the Rescue Agreement and "launching State" as used in the Liability and Registration Conventions. According to Dr. Bin Cheng, the "launching State" is in fact just a "State that launches" and its interest is limited just to ensuring that the space object is successfully launched. On the other hand, the launching authority has the "further interest" in the launched spacecraft" (8) (see illustr. 1). But what is the basis for such an interest in private spaceflights? In other words, which connecting factor should we establish between the launching authority and the private space object if the launching link is insufficient?
Delimitation of jurisdictions and, thus, interest in the spacecraft of the Launching State and Launching Authority // Irina Efremova ©
The majority of authors claim that the registration is such a factor. In this respect, Prof. Manfred Lachs notes that "the history of the provisions [of Art. V of the Outer Space Treaty and Art. 4 of the Rescue Agreement], the process that led to their adoption, indicate that a similar if not identical meaning has been ascribed to both terms [the "State of registry" and the "launching authority"]" (9). The reason why in the Rescue Agreement only the latter term appears is clear enough – considering that every space object is launched but not each of them is registered, the registration is less reliable factor than the launching. At the same time, the basis for already mentioned "further interest" in this case is the exercise of jurisdiction and control (10) over the spacecraft which is ascribed to the State of registry (11).

On the one hand, the approach of binding the launching authority to the registration of spacecraft can solve the ambiguity with the concept of the "State responsible for launching" of the private spacecraft. However, on the other hand, the unreliability of the registration link may increase when applied to non-governmental space launches.


Registration link in identifying the launching authority of the private space object

First, the registration linkage still leaves the lacunae in identifying the launching authority of the private spacecraft in the specific cases. Since the primary "label" of the State of registry in private launches is the exercise of territorial jurisdiction, the issue arises if the private space activities are undertaken:

1) within a State having no national legislation to deal with space activities (e.g. UAE and Singapore offer their territories for construction of commercial spaceports while not having the national space legislation)

2) on international territory (e.g. by launching from the commercial platforms on the High Seas) (12).

In such cases, there is actually no launching State and therefore, no State of registry of the space object. One of the possible solutions of this issue is a wide interpretation of the term "procurement" contained in Art. VII (i) of the Liability Convention. According to this approach, the State "procures the launching" (and consequently is considered a launching State) even if it has no financial, technical or scientific linkage with the non-governmental entity but, at least, authorize and supervise this activity under Art. VI (2) OST – and thus, is able to control it (13). Nevertheless, while the term "procurement" is not unified internationally (14), this concept remains an insufficient tool for filling the mentioned gaps in identifying the launching authority.

Second, in case of equating the State of registry and the launching authority, the discrepancy may arise in the joint launches. This stems from the literal interpretation of the Art. 2 of the Registration Convention that does not prohibit registration of the space object in State A while jurisdiction and control can be exercised in State B (15). It requires the States only to 'bear in mind' Art, VIII of the Outer Space Treaty during such arrangements (16). An inconsistency can thus lawfully exist between registration and jurisdiction, notwithstanding the application of Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty (17). In turn, these divergences can cause the essential obstacles in identifying the launching authority of the space object – whether it is a State of registry or a State exercising the jurisdiction.

Moreover, it is disputable whether the State of registry would have the jurisdiction over the private spaceflight participants, or its national law is applicable only to the personnel of the space object carried on its registry (18) as Art. VIII of the Outer Space Treaty establishes. Finally, by relying on the registration link only we do not eliminate the problem of identifying the launching authority of the unregistered space objects.


Bringing back from the cold the traditional connecting factor (19): nationality of the spacecraft

The simplest and the most coherent way of filling the gaps in identifying the launching authority is to introduce the traditional connecting factor – nationality of the spacecraft.

In the absence of recognized nationality of spacecraft, the subject of international law primarily responsible for launching of the spacecraft owned, operated or launched by private individuals will be the State where the spacecraft is launched rather than the State of which their owners or operators are nationals (20). Furthermore, given that the concept of "nationality" in this context literally means being under the jurisdiction of the State (21), no intergovernmental arrangements will deprive the State of its jurisdiction over the spacecraft. It can also help to identify the launching authority in the absence of State exercising the territorial jurisdiction. According to the hierarchy of the jurisdictions, in such cases simply the personal (or quasi-territorial) jurisdiction of the State will work. Besides, nationality approach would resolve the issue of the national law applicable to the private spaceflight participants – the State of nationality of the space object would exclusively enjoy the quasi-territorial jurisdiction under all persons on board (22).

It is important to mention that the nationality link would not supersede the registration factor. As Dr. Bin Cheng suggests, such nationality may depend on registration, as is the case with aircraft, or on a combination of either registration or ownership, as is the case with ships (23). In this way, no inconsistencies would arise between the State of nationality and the State of registry and, at the same time, it would be easier to identify the launching authority of the unregistered private space objects through the "genuine links" of nationality (24) (see illustr. 2-3).
The State of nationality of the private space object as a State who authorized the entrepreneur`s space activity in case the factual launching state has no national space legislation // Irina Efremova ©
The State of nationality of the private space object as a State who authorized the entrepreneur's space activity in case the private space object is launched from the private spaceport on the international territory // Irina Efremova ©
Thus, in the era of non-governmental spaceflights, nationality of the spacecraft is one of the most reliable connecting factors between the State and the private space object. Hence, the establishment of the nationality of space objects would obviously be a step forward in improving the legal basis for private space launches.




RESCUE AGREEMENT AS A MEANS OF REGULATION OF SPACE TOURISM

As it was mentioned at the beginning, the Rescue Agreement can become an efficient legal tool for protecting the rights of persons involved in the non-governmental spaceflights. Nevertheless, its applicability to the legal relations of private spaceflights must be proved since they simply did not exist when the Agreement was adopted. And although nothing in the text of the Rescue Agreement explicitly excludes commercial venture or limits the scope of the duties to government-sponsored missions (25), the question of applicability of the Rescue Agreement specifically to private space tourism still remains.

The root of the problem of Rescue Agreement applicability to space tourists lies in the definitional issues. If the equalization of the rights of the "personnel of a spacecraft" and private spaceflight vehicle crew is largely uncontested (26), it remains unresolved whether a private spaceflight participant (space tourist in this case) falls under the scope of the term an "astronaut" and, therefore, enjoys the same rights (27). It is of great importance to clarify this matter in order to provide the space tourists with an adequate assistance since a rescue action, as it was accurately noted by Ms. Kunihiko Tatsuzawa, will be in fact taken "because of law but from humanity" (28).

The main problem here is that no international space act establishes who exactly can be considered an astronaut. The closest to this purpose is the Moon Agreement, which equates an "astronaut" to "any person on the Moon" (29). Nevertheless, this meaning is not generally applicable in as much as it relates only to activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies but not in outer space in general.

The majority of international legal acts define the "astronauts" as "envoys of mankind" (30). It gives the grounds for some authors to believe that one of the criteria for acquiring the status of an astronaut is to act in the interests of all mankind and for the benefits of all countries (i.e., for the public interest) (31). If it is the case, the space tourist cannot be considered an astronaut since he/she pursues his/her own interests and acts for personal benefits only.

Among other arguable requirements for being qualified as an "astronaut" there are the selection (32) and professional criteria. The latter means performing of the professional activity while in outer space, which, in turn, can be connected directly with exploration and use of outer space (33) or with performing any service on board (34). Both of these criteria make the tourists excluded from the scope of "astronauts" since the space tourists presumably are taking leisure travel in outer space without carrying out any professional activity and on the basis of the purchased permit but not the results of selection.

Despite all the diversity of views on the requirements for an "astronaut", two most common criteria can be identified: an element of training and an element of altitude (35). Nevertheless, this still creates ambiguities in comparing the space tourist to an astronaut. While for orbital spaceflights availability of training is rather compulsory (given the experience of ISS`s tourists) (36), the suborbital space tourist is exempted from this requirement (the health indicators are important only). The same with the altitude criterion: there is no definite internationally agreed demarcation line between the air space and outer space, which makes it difficult to equate, for instance, a suborbital tourist to a person travelling beyond the Earth atmosphere (37).

To provide the space tourists with the same rights astronauts have under the Rescue Agreement, two ways can be suggested. The first one is to formally differentiate a notion of space tourist from that of a "traditional" astronaut but let them enjoy the same rights. This approach is used in the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act which separately defines the "spaceflight participant" as an "individual, who is not crew or a government astronaut, carried within a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle" (38) and thus, including space tourists.

The second solution introduced in the Draft Convention On Manned Space Flight simply equates the space tourists with the astronauts. Under Art. VI(6) of the Convention, "States shall regard any person in outer space as an astronaut within the meaning of Art. V of the Outer Space Treaty and as part of the personnel of a spacecraft within the meaning of Art. VIII of the Outer Space Treaty and the Rescue Agreement" (39).

However, considering the existing practice of defining an "astronaut", a more consistent step would be rather to establish a separate category for such spaceflight participants, giving preference, thus, to the first approach mentioned.


Applicability of Rescue Agreement to the suborbital space tourism

Most uncertainties in the application of Rescue Agreement (and in general – of all the space treaties) to private spaceflights concern exactly the suborbital space tourism. The reason is that it is not certain which legal regime should comprise manned suborbital flights as they are right now, either Air Space or Outer Space regime (40). To identify the problem and the ways to solve it, let us single out two key approaches for the demarcation of legal regimes in question: 1) the spatial approach and 2) the functional one.

The main characteristic of the suborbital flight which generates uncertainties in its legal regime is an altitude. For today, no international act defines the strict boundary between the air space and outer space (41). At the same time, the clear and specific distinction where the air legal regime ends, and the outer space begins is of great importance in this matter. The reason is that suborbital vehicles would take their passengers to an altitude of 62 miles (100 km) – the zone of ambiguous international regulation for today.

Therefore, the spatial approach to the definition and delimitation of the outer space offers to set a specific boundary at the international level (100 km being the popular choice for the location of this boundary) between the regions of airspace and outer space (42). Below this line vehicles would be subject to air law while anything from 100 km and above it would be subject to outer space law (43). In this case, the suborbital flights would be under space law regulation, meaning the Rescue Agreement would be applicable to them.

In contrast to the spatial approach, the functional one would require considering the intent and the purpose of the object in question (44). This approach is more complex since it requires answers to such questions as: is the vehicle an aircraft, a space object, or an aerospace object? what is its purpose and function of what?, or its destination? what are its technological properties, functional characteristics, design, and aerodynamics? (45).

According to Functional Approach, if the vehicle falling under the concept of space object follows the Earth-Space trajectory, for instance, through aerodynamics forces, reactive thrust, being vertically launched etc., it would be the subject of space law regulation regardless of the altitude. One of the problems here concerns the absence of the definition of "spacecraft" in the international acts. For practical purposes some authors equate space object to any man-made object launched into outer space (46). However, this approach is too narrow. Annex 7 of the Chicago Convention defines an "aircraft" as "any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the earth's surface" (47). On this basis, it can be concluded that the definition of the vehicle must come from more criteria than simply a spatial one. Consequently, for the effective application, in particular, of the Rescue Agreement to private suborbital flights, a detailed definition of such a crucial term as a "space object" must be given. An obvious advantage of this approach is that it guarantees the applicability of the Rescue Agreement`s provisions on every stage of the launch, even if a "space object" failed to reach the outer space (48).




ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO BE MADE IN THE RESCUE AGREEMENT IN TIMES OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL SPACEFLIGHTS

Before that we considered the issues mostly pertaining to clarification and applicability of the provisions of Rescue Agreement in the context of private space flights. At the same time, there is a need to update the specific provisions of Agreement in order to improve the mechanisms of rescue and return provided by it in the era of non-governmental spaceflights. Considering that with the development of commercial private spaceflights more and more manned space vehicles would be launched (and, consequently, landed), it is of great importance to provide the spaceflight participants with the prompt and effective rescue by any State.


Return upon the request of a private entity

According to Art. 5 (2) of the Rescue Agreement, the Contracting Party having jurisdiction over the territory on which a space object or its component parts has been discovered shall, upon the request of the launching authority take the practicable steps to recover the object or its component parts. This provision should be adapted to the "second space age" by triggering the duty to recover additionally to the request of the private owner of a space object. This would enable recovery operations to be launched more quickly without the private owner of a spacecraft having to go through governmental channels in order to request recovery (49).


Reimbursement of the expenses for rescue

The Rescue Agreement provides the reimbursement by the launching authority of the expenses for recovering and return of a space object (Art. 5) (5). Meanwhile, the expenses for the rescue of the spacecraft personnel are not provided, which reduces the chances of such persons to be promptly rescued after alighting on the high seas or on any other territory not under the jurisdiction of any State. In such case the Agreement obliges to undertake rescue operation only those States which are "in a position to do so" (Art. 3). At the same time, the rescue operations conducted, for example, on the high seas, would obviously take much more expenses than the ones carried out on the land (50). In this respect, given that the decision as to which States are in a position to rescue might appear to be a subjective one (51), some developing countries can show their passivity with regard to rescuing astronauts, by referring to their financial situation. The inclusion of the obligation of the launching authority to compensate for all the expenses incurred by the Rescuing State during the rescue and return of flight participants (and its crew) would eliminate this problem to great extent.


Expansion of the terrestrial focus on rescue

The Rescue Agreement binds the States to rescue the spacecraft personnel with the landing (alighting) of the latter (52). In such formulation, the provisions of Agreement may be interpreted to rule out any duty to rescue personnel stranded in orbit or in deep space (53). This omission, in particular, requires correction in the light of the current developments of space tourism. For today, two companies – Bigelow Aerospace and Axiom Space – have announced their plans to launch habitat modules to orbit in 2020 (54), which would be the private destination for space tourists. In addition, Space Adventures Ltd and SpaceX have an intention to offer the circumlunar missions for the wealthy customers (55). This demonstrates the striking need to abolish the trigger of landing for conducting the rescue operations and ensure the spaceflight participants` right to be assisted regardless of the location – either after landing or while traveling in space, or being in kind of space hotel or on a celestial body.

To assist space tourists prior to the landing of the spacecraft the advanced means of communication and other technical facilities must be used.

If this is the case, it would be necessary to make one more similar amendment to the text of Agreement concerning the expansion of the notification requirement. At the moment, the Rescue Agreement obliges the State to notify the launching authority only about the return of a space object or its component parts on Earth (Art. 5 (1)). Taking into account the above arguments, this duty should be expanded to require the sharing of all information about the errant spacecraft and regardless of where this spacecraft is located (56).




CONCLUSION

The development of the non-governmental spaceflights and particularly of the space tourism is a revolution of the space industry. It is a completely new kind of spaceflights, which was not known at the times when the existing international space legal acts were adopted. This, in turn, leads to certain inaccuracies, ambiguities, and incompleteness when the provisions of these acts apply to such flights. Especially important here is the application of the provisions of the Rescue Agreement, since this act enshrines the essential international protection of the space objects and persons in outer space.

To adapt the Agreement to the private spaceflights some alterations and clarifications should be made, including introduction of the nationality of a spacecraft, provision of the category "private spaceflight participant" including a "space tourist"; clarification of the legal regime of the suborbital private spaceflights through the spatial or functional approach, or both; and other changes to improve the rescue mechanisms in light of the spreading of the non-governmental spaceflights. By considering these proposals, flying into outer space on the private ships will be much safer and more reliable.

  1. Von der Dunk, Frans G. Space Tourism, Private Spaceflight and the Law: Key Aspects. (2011). Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications.
  2. Ibid. The author refers to: S. Freeland, Up, Up and … Back: The Emergence of Space Tourism and Its Impact on the International Law of Outer Space, Chicago Journal of International Law (2005); S. Hobe & J. Cloppenburg, Towards a New Aerospace Convention? Selected Legal Issues of "Space Tourism," in Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (2005)
  3. Zeldine Niamh O'Brien. Liability for Injury, Loss or Damage to the Space Tourist. (Unpublished paper presented at 47th Colloquium of the International Institute of Space Law, Vancouver, 2004). Taken from: Steven Freeland. "Up, Up and … Back: The Emergence of Space Tourism and Its Impact on the International Law of Outer Space. Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol.6, No.1, Art.4 - p.6
  4. Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space
  5. Sundahl, Mark, The Duty to Rescue Space Tourists and Return Private Spacecraft. Journal of Space Law (2009) – p. 35
  6. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects
  7. Bin Cheng. "Space objects and their various connecting factors" in "Outlook on Space Law Over the Next 30 Years. Essays Published for the 30th Anniversary of the Outer Space Treaty"(Gabriel Lafferanderie, Dafne Crowther). Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston Boston – p. 206
  8. Ibid, p. 207
  9. Manfred Lachs. The Law of Outer Space: An Experience in Contemporary Law-Making. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (2010) – p. 81
  10. However, it should be mentioned that the State of registry often does not have the power to control the private space objects or possibly is even excluded from enjoying such power. (Source: Gabriel Lafferanderie, Dafne Crowther. Outlook on Space Law Over the Next 30 Years. Essays Published for the 30th Anniversary of the Outer Space Treaty. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston)
  11. Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space
  12. Michael Gerhard "National Space Legislation" in "Space Law: Current Problems and Perspectives for Future Regulation" (edited by Marietta Benko, Kai-Uwe Schrogl and others). Eleven International Publishing (2005) – p.82
  13. Ibid
  14. The particular difficulties relating to this concept are rooted in the financial or funding implications associated with the English word "purchasing". The Russian language version of procuring implies "organizing" rather than funding (Source: Stephan Hobe, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd,Kai-Uwe Schrogl. Cologne Commentary on Space Law. Outer Space Treaty. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag (2017))
  15. Bin Cheng. "Nationality for Spacecraft?" in "Studies in International Space Law" (1997) . Published to Oxford Scholarship Online - p. 9 of 17
  16. Ibid
  17. Ibid
  18. Ibid, p. 12 of 17
  19. Supra note 7, p.208
  20. Bin Cheng. "From Air to Space Law" in "Studies in International Space Law" (1997). Published to Oxford Scholarship Online – p.10 from 23
  21. It can be deduced from the provision of Art. VI of the Moon Agreement which literally states that the private space activity is referred to the national activity of the State when it falls under this State`s jurisdiction (which can be exercised particularly by means of authorization and supervision of such an activity).
  22. Supra note 15, p. 14 of 17
  23. Ibid, p. 12 of 17
  24. E.g., which State authorized space activity of the entrepreneur-owner of spacecraft, nationality of which State an entrepreneur has, etc.
  25. Supra note 5, p. 18
  26. In fact, the only significant difference between them is the subject on whose behalf they are performing the service – private or public. All the other characteristics – performance on behalf of the employer, kind of professional activity carried out on board are the same. Consequently, it would make sense to equate the private spaceflight vehicle crew to "personnel of a spacecraft", hence endowing them with the rights enunciated by the Rescue Agreement (Source: Frans G. von der Dunk. Space for Tourism? Legal Aspects of Private Spaceflight for Tourist Purposes.University of Nebraska, Linkoln (2006) – p. 21)
  27. Despite the contextual equation of the terms "personnel of a spacecraft" and an "astronaut" in the Rescue Agreement, we will distinguish them when applying to the private spaceflights on the basis of their duties.
  28. Kunihiko Tatsuzawa. The Regulation of Commercial Space Activities by the Non-Governmental Entities in Space Law. Faculty of Law and Research Institute, Chuo Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan – p. 3
  29. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
  30. See Art. V of the Moon Agreement, para. 9 of the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space
  31. See, e.g., Yasuaki Hashimoto "The Status of Astronauts towards the Second Generation of Space Law", Carl Quimby Christol "The Modern International Law Of Outer Space" (Pergamon Press 1982)
  32. See, e.g., Kunihiko Tatsuzawa. The Regulation of Commercial Space Activities by the Non-Governmental Entities in Space Law. (Faculty of Law and Research Institute, Chuo Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan); Francis Lyall, Paul Larsen. "Space Law: A Treatise" (Ashgate Publishing, 2009);
  33. See, e.g., Elena Kamenskaya. Cosmonaut ("Astronaut"): an Attempt of International Legal Definition (taken from: Alex Li. Are Space Tourists Astronauts?); Stephan Hobe. Legal Aspects of Space Tourism. Nebraska Law Review. Vol. 86, Art. 6 - p. 455
  34. Yun Zhao. National Space Law in China: An Overview of the Current Situation and Outlook for the Future/ Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston – p. 252;
  35. See e.g. Francis Lyall and Paul Larsen ."Space Law: A Treatise" (Ashgate Publishing, 2009) (mentions both criteria); Oxford Living Dictionaries, available at: <link>; (mentions training criteria); Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at: <link> (mentions altitude criterion) etc.
  36. Space tourists that have flown to ISS underwent extensive training together with their "professional" colleagues prior to launch. (Source: Christian Brünner,Alexander Soucek. Outer Space in Society, Politics and Law. Springer-Verlag/Wien (2011)) – p. 330
  37. See para. 2 of this Chapter
  38. United States Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (2015)
  39. Draft Convention On Manned Space Flight (1990)
  40. Rosa Ma. Ramirez de Arellano Haro, Teresa Castillo Olascagoa, Roberto José Romero. Emerging Space Activities and Civil Aviation. 55 Session 2016 Legal Subcommittee. Mexican Space Agency.
  41. In the Legal Subcommittee of 1978, it was first discussed that the delimitation of outer space could be about 100-110 km above sea level, known as the von Karman line. This delimitation would not, however, create a ceiling for airspace. (Source: Thomas Cheney, Lauren Napier. Policy Analysis: Air versus Space, Where do Suborbital Flights Fit Into International Regulation? Journal of Science Policy & Governance - Vol. 7, Issue 1, August 2015 – p.4)
  42. Thomas Cheney, Lauren Napier. Policy Analysis: Air versus Space, Where do Suborbital Flights Fit Into International Regulation? Journal of Science Policy & Governance - Vol. 7, Issue 1, August 2015 – p. 5
  43. Ibid
  44. Ibid
  45. Paul Stephen Dempsey. The legal Regimes Governing Aerospace Transportation Systems. McGill University,Institute of Air and Space Law
  46. Von der Dunk, Frans G. A. Sleeping Beauty Awakens: The 1968 Rescue Agreement after Forty Years. (2008). Journal of Space Law/ Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications. – p. 422.(the author refers to Stephen Gorove, Definitional Issues Pertaining to "Space Object,", in PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTY-SEVENTH COLLOQUIUM ONTRE LAW OF OUTER SPACE (1994); Gyula Gal, Space
  47. Convention on International Civil Aviation Done at Chicago on the 7th day of December 1944
  48. Supra note 42
  49. Supra note 5, p.37
  50. Tanvi Mani. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE NORMS OF EMERGENCY RESCUE OF ASTRONAUTS TO SPACE TOURISTS. The King's Student Law Review, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2016), pp. 28-39
  51. Nandasiri Jasentuliyana. Maintaining Outer Space for Peaceful Uses: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in the Hague.The United Nations University, 1984 – p. 97
  52. See Art. 2-3 of the Rescue Agreement
  53. Supra note 5, p.8
  54. Mike Wall. Private Space Stations May Take Flight in 2020
  55. Jeff Foust. A short history of lunar space tourism
  56. Supra note 5, p.37




BIBLIOGAPHY

1) Official Documents

A – International norms

- Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies ("Outer Space Treaty"), adopted in January entered into force October 1967.

- Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space ("Rescue Agreement", "Astronaut Agreement"), adopted in December 1967, entered into force in December 1968.

- Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space ("Registration Convention"), adopted in November 1974, entered into force in September 1976.

- Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies ("Moon Agreement"), adopted in December 1979, entered into force in July 1984.

- Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects ("Liability Convention"), adopted in March 1972, entered into force in September 1972.

- Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space

- Draft Convention On Manned Space Flight 1990

- Convention on International Civil Aviation Done at Chicago on the 7th day of December 1944

B – National legislations

- United States Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015

2) Academic Documents

A – Books

- Gabriel Lafferanderie, Dafne Crowther. Outlook on Space Law Over the Next 30 Years. Essays Published for the 30th Anniversary of the Outer Space Treaty. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston

- Manfred Lachs. The Law of Outer Space: An Experience in Contemporary Law-Making. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (2010)

- Marietta Benko and Kai-Uwe Schrogl. Space Law: Current Problems and Perspectives for Future Regulation. Eleven International Publishing

- Stephan Hobe, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd,Kai-Uwe Schrogl. Cologne Commentary on Space Law: Outer Space Treaty. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag (2017)

- Christian Brünner,Alexander Soucek. Outer Space in Society, Politics and Law. Springer-Verlag/Wien (2011)

- Yun Zhao. National Space Law in China: An Overview of the Current Situation and Outlook for the Future. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston

B – Articles

- Von der Dunk, Frans G. Space Tourism, Private Spaceflight and the Law: Key Aspects. Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications (2011)

- Steven Freeland. Up, Up and … Back: The Emergence of Space Tourism and Its Impact on the International Law of Outer Space. Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol.6, No.1, Art.4 (2005)

- Sundahl, Mark. The Duty to Rescue Space Tourists and Return Private Spacecraft. Journal of Space Law (2009)

- Zeldine Niamh O'Brien. Liability for Injury, Loss or Damage to the Space Tourist. Unpublished paper presented at 47th Colloquium of the International Institute of Space Law, Vancouver (2004)

- Bin Cheng. "Nationality for Spacecraft?" in "Studies in International Space Law" (1997) . Published to Oxford Scholarship Online

- Bin Cheng. "From Air to Space Law" in "Studies in International Space Law" (1997). Published to Oxford Scholarship Online

- Michael Gerhard "National Space Legislation" in "Space Law: Current Problems and Perspectives for Future Regulation" (edited by Marietta Benko, Kai-Uwe Schrogl and pthers). Eleven International Publishing (2005)

- Stephan Hobe. Legal Aspects of Space Tourism. Nebraska Law Review. Vol. 86, Art. 6

- Von der Dunk Frans G. Space for Tourism? Legal Aspects of Private Spaceflight for Tourist Purposes. University of Nebraska, Linkoln (2006)

- Kunihiko Tatsuzawa. The Regulation Of Commercial Space Activities By The Non-Governmental Entities In Space Law. Faculty of Law and Research Institute, Chuo Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan

- Carl Quimby Christol. The Modern International Law Of Outer Space. Pergamon Press(1982)

- Francis Lyall, Paul Larsen. Space Law: A Treatise. Ashgate Publishing, (2009)

- Thomas Cheney, Lauren Napier. Policy Analysis: Air versus Space, Where do Suborbital Flights Fit Into International Regulation?/Journal of Science Policy & Governance - Vol. 7, Issue 1 (2015)

- Von der Dunk, Frans G. "A Sleeping Beauty Awakens: The 1968 Rescue Agreement after Forty Years". Journal of Space Law/ Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications. (2008)

C - Presentations and Reports

- Rosa Ma. Ramirez de Arellano Haro, Teresa Castillo Olascagoa, Roberto José Romero. Emerging Space Activities and Civil Aviation. 55 Session 2016 Legal Subcommittee. Mexican Space Agency, available at: <link>

- Paul Stephen Dempsey. The legal Regimes Governing Aerospace Transportation Systems. McGill University, Institute of Air and Space Law, available at: <link>

- United Nations. 2002. Historical Summary on the Consideration of the Question on the Definition and Delimitation of Outer Space. A/AC.105/769. Accessed March 1. <link>

- Nandasiri Jasentuliyana. Maintaining Outer Space for Peaceful Uses: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in the Hague. The United Nations University (1984)

3) Internet Sites

- Yasuaki Hashimoto. The Status of Astronauts towards the Second Generation of Space Law

- Alex Li. Are Space Tourists Astronauts

- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

- Oxford Living Dictionaries

- Mike Wall. Private Space Stations May Take Flight in 2020

- Jeff Foust.A short history of lunar space tourism