• Features of the Rules: 

1. Applicability of the Rules:

Under Rule 2(1) it is provided that the Rules apply to all persons owning or possessing, or engaged in leasing, operating, transferring, or maintaining an Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) in India and all drones that are registered in India or being operated for the time being, in or over India. Rule 2(3) clarifies that it does not apply to drones used by the naval, military, or air forces of the Union.

2. Online Portal for Management:

Rule 3(g) defines Digital Sky Platform which has been established as an online platform hosted by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (“DGCA”), for the management of various drone-related activities in India.

3. Meaning of Drones:

Under Rule 3(i) a drone has been defined as an unmanned aircraft system, and Rule 3(zb) states that a UAS is an aircraft that can operate autonomously or can be operated remotely without a pilot on board.

Drones have been classified under Rule 5 based on the maximum all-up weight including payload as under:

• Nano Drone: Less than or equal to 250 grams.
• Micro Drone: Greater than 250 grams and less than or equal to 2 kilograms.
• Small Drone: Greater than 2 kilograms and less than or equal to 25 kilograms.
• Medium Drone: Greater than 25 kilograms and less than or equal to 150 kilograms; and
• Large Drone: Greater than 150 kilograms.

Rule 2(2) clarifies that in case, the weight is more than 500 kilograms, the provisions of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 shall apply instead of the drone Rules.

4. Mandate of general registration:

Rule 14 mandates the registration of individual drones on the Digital Sky Platform and obtaining a Unique Identification Number (“UIN”). The Rules further mandate registration of existing UAS. It states that a person, who owns a drone, manufactured in India or imported into India on or before the 30th day of November 2021, to make within thirty-one days falling after the said date, an application for a UIN.

5. Requirement of Certification:

On Conjoint reading of Rule 6 and Rule 8, a certificate must be required to obtain a type certificate for any particular type of drone from the Director-General (“DG”) or any entity authorized by DG, on the recommendation of the Quality Council of India or an authorized testing entity, to operate the drone.

However, the exemption has been provided under Rule 13 for:

1. for manufacturing or importing an unmanned aircraft system
2. operating a model remotely piloted aircraft system or a nano UAS.

6. Procedure to obtain certification:

Rule 9 provides that to obtain certification a person shall apply on the Digital Sky Platform in Form D-1. Once the proposal is applied it is examined by the Quality Council of India (“QCI”) or an authorized testing entity and the testing entity then submit the test report along with its recommendations to the Director-General within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application. Based on the test report along with the recommendations received by the testing entity, the Director-General shall issue to the applicant a type certificate for the specific type of unmanned aircraft system within fifteen days of receiving such test report.

7. Drone Operations:

The Rules give power to the Central Government to segregate the entire airspace of India into 3 zones- red, yellow, and green zones.

The three zones have been defined under Rule 3(l) as follows:

• Green Zone (Permissible Zone)

The airspace of defined dimensions above the land areas or territorial waters of India, up to a vertical distance of 400 feet or 120 meters that has not been designated as a red zone or yellow zone in the airspace map for UAS operations; and the airspace up to a vertical distance of 200 feet or 60 meters above the area located between a lateral distance of 8 kilometers and 12 kilometers from the perimeter of an operational airport.

• Yellow zone (Intermediate zone)

The airspace of defined dimensions above India’s land areas or territorial waters within which UAS operations are restricted shall require permission from the concerned air traffic control authority. The airspace above 400 feet or 120 meters in the designated green zone and the airspace above 200 feet or 60 meters in the area located between the lateral distance of 8 kilometers and 12 kilometers from the perimeter of an operational airport.

• Red Zone (No-Fly Zone)

The airspace of defined dimensions, above India’s land areas or territorial waters, or any installation or notified port limits specified by the Central Government beyond the territorial waters of India, within which UAS operations shall be permitted only by the Central Government.

8. Mandatory Reporting of an accident under Rule 30:

The Rules also mandate reporting an accident involving the drones, within 48 hours to the DG through the Platform.

9. Remote Pilot License:

Part VI of the rules provides provisions for Remote Pilot License. Rule 30 limits the operation of a drone by any person other than a holder of a valid Remote Pilot Licence (RPL) enlisted on the Platform. Though rule 36 provides an exemption from the mandate of RPL by stating that an RPL is not required for a person operating a nano drone or operating a micro-drone for non-commercial purposes.

10. Eligibility for the RPL under Rule 33:

To be eligible for the RPL the following criteria need to be fulfilled:

1. not less than eighteen years of age and not more than sixty-five years of age;
2. have passed class tenth or its equivalent examination from a recognized Board;
3. have completed the training prescribed by the DG for the applicable class of remote pilot license from an authorized remote pilot training organization.

11. Offenses & Penalties:

Any contravention of the Rules is a punishable offense under the Rules. However, under Rule 49 a defence has been provided, in case any contravention or failure to comply with the Rules is proved to have been caused due to factors or circumstances, such as the stress of weather or other unavoidable cause or circumstances, beyond the control of such person or without his knowledge or fault. In addition to this, a penalty of up to a maximum of one lakh rupees under Section 10A Aircraft Act, 1934 may be imposed.

12. Foreign Operators:

The rules are silent regarding the validity of the operation of drones by foreigners. Though on a conjoint reading of Rule 14, 15, and Form D-2 where Indian Passport number is required to file form D-2 for registration of UIN. It can be inferred that foreigners are currently not allowed to fly drones in India.

Conclusion:

The rules amount to be a crucial development in the regulation of drones in India brought by the Civil Aviation Ministry to date. A statement passed by the Civil Aviation Ministry stated that the Liberalised rules “will tremendously help start-ups and our youth working in this sector. It will open up new possibilities for innovation & business. It will help leverage India’s strengths in innovation, technology & engineering to make India a drone hub”.[2] Civil Aviation Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia at a news conference stated “We want to create a strong Drone ecosystem in India. This policy will eliminate all unnecessary operational and entry barriers. We aim to make India a hub for Drones by 2030,” [3] “Digital sky platform shall be developed as a user-friendly, single-window system. There will be a minimal human interface, and most permissions will be self-generated.”[4] In the regime of drone Regulation, the most important role is to be played by the regulation and the control of Digital Sky, the self-regulatory software developed by the Ministry to govern drones in India. However, the success of self-regulation and non-intrusive monitoring will depend on the effective functioning of the platform.

[1] https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1749154

[2] Ibid

[3] https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/govt-eases-rules-for-Drone-operations-101630011996284.html

[4] https://www.livemint.com/news/india/ministry-of-civil-aviation-notifies-liberalized-Drone-rules-2021-11629969569226.html

Author is an Associate at Seraphic Advisors, Advocates & Solicitors – New Delhi

The post Taking Flight: The Drone Rules appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

India’s public aviation industry is a promising sector due to rising demand from the top class, high disposable income, good census and rapid economic growth. It hopes to become the third largest airline market by 2020 and reach its peak by 2030. The industry is following a continuous trend, paving the way for a new wave of growth and expansion with a focus on low cost carriers, modern airports, foreign direct investment (FDI) in domestic airlines, information technology development and regional connectivity. India’s public aviation industry is among the top 10 in the world, with a value of almost US $ 16 billion, making up only a fraction of the strength and capability of the industry. With the National Public Aviation Policy of 2016, which came into effect on 15 June 2016, it is necessary to review the current aviation sector framework. The Ministry of Public Aviation (MoCA) is responsible for the management of the aviation industry in India. It plays a key role in formulating national policies and programs for the development and management of public aviation, as well as the development and implementation of effective and efficient air transport strategies. The MoCA also approved the implementation of the Aircraft Act 1934.

CONVENTION OF AIR ACT

The Convention by Air Act 1972 incorporates the provisions of the Warsaw Convention 1929 and the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol 1955. While a large number of countries incorporated

S

 appropriate amendments to the Agreements over time, India continued to comply with old conventions. It was finally realized that outdated policies would not address debt-related issues and, as a result, India became the 91st country to ratify the Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99), which is a historical landmark in the aviation industry. The use of MC99 is specified in Article 1 (2) of the Convention.vii In addition, MC99 does not provide compensation in the event of a traumatic event or mental injury unless such injury has a close proximity to physical injury.

INDOOR AND OTHER NON ASSEMBLY CARTS

Section 8 of the Traffic Act of 1972 applies this Act referred to in international air transport, and provides that the central government, by notice in the Official Gazette, may apply the rules contained in this Schedule and any provision of sections provided there on that air carrier, not, international transport by air as defined in the First Schedule, as may be specified in the notice subject to this release, modification and correction, if any is specified in this regard.

STANDARD AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

Air Act 1972 covers the entire territory of India, and applies to the citizens of India regardless of the nationality of the aircraft carrier. In today’s world where the use of air travel is part of modern life, public safety is a major concern in the aviation industry. As a result, a two-way compensation system under the Act is established when the carrier is firmly bound to the first 100,000 special drawing rights (SDR) or 8.8 million rupees. For any claim of more than 100,000 SDR damages, aircraft operators are not liable if it is shown that the damage was not due to negligence or other wrongful act or omission by the supervisor or his or her staff or agents, or that damage was solely the result of negligence or other wrong However, nothing prevents the carrier and passenger from entering into an agreement to repair the upper limit of damage. In addition, any provision for relieving the carrier in trouble or repairing a lower limit than set out in these rules will be null and void.

PASSENGER RIGHTS

Human Aviation Requirements, Series ‘M’ Part IV, issued by the DGCA Office on 6 August 2010 and operational on 15 August 2010, directs that the premises be provided to passengers by flight due to denial of boarding, canceled flights or delayed flights. effective  from 1 August 2016, the airline will be liable to pay compensation to a passenger if the flight is delayed or canceled beyond the specified hours, and in the specified cases where passengers are denied boarding.

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is the statutory body formed under the Aircraft (Amendment) Bill, 2020. This directorate investigates aviation accidents and incidents.

1-Where and When Does This Act Work?

India’s Civil Aviation (ICAR) requirements apply if you have been flying from, to or within India regardless of which airlines are operating or your nationality. In the event that your plane is also eligible for compensation under EU conditions you can choose which Rule promises you the highest compensation.

2-The maximum amount of compensation required

The regulation was reviewed in August 2016, the maximum amount of compensation has now increased from 3,000 INR to 20,000 INR. The amount of the claim is specific but depends on many factors.

3- No Compensation In Extraordinary Circumstances

If the reasons for the cancellation or delay are beyond the control of the aircraft, (for example severe weather, earthquakes, storms, etc.) they may deny compensation.

I hope this answer helps you to understand your rights in India in the event of a delay in flight, cancellation or boarding.

OTHER RULES RELATING TO AIRLINE

The Competition Act 2002 empowers the Indian Competition Commission (CCI) to operate as an industry and regulate the aviation industry in India. CCI punishes tourism operators found guilty of Cartelisation offenses and violating Section 3 (anti-competition agreements) under the Competition Act 2002.

SAFETY

 The new anti-hijacking law has introduced some changes in the law, but it lacks certain details, such as providing for the protection of ground personnel or the safety of passengers and workers in a country where a plane can be hijacked. The threat of hijacking by military organizations has forced lawmakers to review our existing law and whether they are prepared to deal with such situations. The New Anti-Theft Act of 2016, passed by Lok Sabha on 9 May, gives effect to The Hague Convention of 1971 and the Beijing Convention of 2010. He introduced some major changes to this law, which was outdated. The purpose of this action is to increase the scope of the term ‘car hijack’ by including its definition and even to make the threat of a hijacking offense. It is now a crime to cause anyone to receive a threat under circumstances that prove that the threat is credible.

DEATH HAPPENED

Air Act 1972 includes the MC99 provisions relating to debt and compensation to be paid in the event of unjust death. According to Article 21 of MC99, in the case of 12 to the death of passengers, the airline is liable to pay up to 100,000 SDR. If there is a need for compensation beyond this limit, the airline may dispute it. If it is proved that such damage was not the result of negligence or misconduct or skipping of the aircraft, its personnel or agents, or if the damage was the result of negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party, then the airline is not liable to pay the maximum amount. The manner in which Indian courts operate in respect of debt in the event of a death is clearly demonstrated in the case of National Aviation Company of India Ltd v. Abdul Salam and others xlvi when a well-known international plane from Dubai crashed when it arrived at Bajpayee International Airport in Mangalore on May 22, 2011 resulting in the deaths of 158 people and injuring 10 people on board, including crew. The cause of the crash was found to be a pilot’s fault and the Kerala High Court ruled in favor of the victims.

The laws contained in the MC99 provisions relating to the rights and liabilities of carriers, passengers, consignors, shippers and other persons, in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage by Air Act 1972, will have effect in India in respect of any airline in which these laws apply, regardless of nationality. The supervisor is responsible for the following conditions as provided under the Marriage by Air Act 1972: personal injury: the carrier is liable for damages incurred in the event of the death or injury of a passenger or any bodily injury sustained by the passenger, if the accidental damage occurred on the aircraft.

DAMAGE TO GOODS

1-The carrier is liable for damages stored on any cargo carried by any goods, if such damage occurs on an aircraft or at any time when the cargo of entry enters to replace the carrier; and

2-The passenger shall be entitled to enforce the rights of the vehicle contractor if the carrier agrees to the loss of the inspected goods, or in the unlikely event that the cargo does not arrive within 21 days from the due date;

CONCLUSION

The 2017 view of the aviation industry in India is beautiful. It is widely known that the country will record approximately 7.3 per cent growth in 2017. In addition, the central government’s proposal to invest heavily in the regional airport development sector is expected to work for the industry. However, given that the cost of choosing to fly still seems to be too high for most people, it is safe to say that the industry will still be considered. Special attention should be given to the following events

The National Aviation Policy (NCAP) came into effect in June 2016, with the aim of strengthening the aviation industry, which hopes to grow in the future. Raised air tax incentives; the establishment of illegal aircraft repair and maintenance services increasing the FDI limit of foreign airlines; and to provide funding for an effective carrier gap to strengthen regional connectivity. Setting the fare price on the basis of travel time as provided for in the National Civil Aviation policy is a welcome proposal. The central government has taken other steps to address this problem to expand air access to more people.

REFERENCES

[1] Civil Aviation Requirement Series3, Series C, Part2, Section 3.2.1

[2] The Aircraft Rules, 1937, Article11

[3] ] The Aircraft Rules, 1937,Rule50

[4] Voluntary Reporting Air Safety Circular, (27August 2015),www.dgca.nic.in/rules/safety/html

[5] The Carriage by aircraft, 1972, chapter3, Rule 22(3).

The post Indian Laws relating to Airline Industry appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

An object in the outer space that orbits or circles around an object which is bigger than the object itself is a satellite. There are two types of satellite natural (which includes moon that is orbiting the earth) and the second type of satellite i.e. artificial such as (International space station orbiting the Earth). The first artificial satellite was an attempt made by the Russians in which a beach-ball sized space probe was lifted on 4th October, 1957 and was named Sputnik.

COMMUNICATION SATELLITE

Extra-Terrestrial Relays: Can Rocket Stations Give World Wide Radio Coverage?-Officer Arthur C Clarke’s book in which he proposed the first practical concept of communication satellite.

A communications satellite is an  artificial satellite that relays and amplifies radio telecommunications signals via a transponder; it creates a communication channel between a source transmitter and a receiver at different locations on Earth. Communications satellites are used for television, telephone, radio, internet, and military applications.

About 2000 communication satellites are in the Earth’s orbit, used by both private and government organizations. The purpose of communication satellite is that they relay the signal around the curve of the Earth allowing communication between widely separated geographical points. They use a wide range of radio and microwave frequencies.

Communication satellites also play a vital role in the global telecommunication system. There are three types of  communication satellites namely telecommunications, broadcasting and data communications working in different fields and providing us with cellular services, weather forecasts, social networking sites and  our most dear Netflix which provides us with shows that are now available globally.

One of the largest domestic communication satellites in Asia pacific region is the Indian National Satellite; it is operational with nine communication satellites that are laced in geostationary orbit.

Indian Space Research Organization lunched its first communication satellite in June, 1981 which was named as APPLE (Ariane Passenger Payload Experiment) though an experimental satellite it was launched successfully by Ariane-1 from Kourou, French Guiana  almost 39 years back it was a milestone achieved by the Indian scientists. APPLE was a sandwich shaped satellite which had a Metosat on top and CAT (Capsule Ariane Technique) module below. APPLE was used in several communication experiments including relay of TV programmes and radio networking. APPLE was introduced to the nation on 13 August, 1981 by the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The Prime Minister than handed over the model of the satellite to the minister of Communication, and the address marked the “Dawn of India’s Satellite Communication era”. The addressing of the Prime Minister on 15th August was carried out by the APPLE satellite.

WORKING OF THE SATELLITE

The satellite is itself a self contained communication system with having the ability to receive signals from Earth and to retransmit those signals back with the use of a transponder and integrated receiver and transmitter of radio signals.

The weight of the satellites should be as light as possible because the cost of launching a satellite is heavy on the pocket and also the cost is based on the weight of the satellite. Satellites must be operative at a very high reliability of more that 99.9% in the vacuum of space with no prospect of maintenance or repair. The communication satellites contain antennas and transponders which receive and retransmit signals, the power system including solar panels that provide power and the propulsion system which includes the rockets that propel the satellite. To maintain a satellite’s orbital position the process is called “station keeping” and “attitude control” means made by using the satellite’s thrusters.

Satellite is continuously operatable over its entire lifespan. Electronical systems and communications payload are operatable with the internal power which is ruled by the satellite, whenever the sun is blocked by the earth the batteries in the satellite is used and they are recovered by the excess current generated by the solar panels in the presence of light.

INDIAN SPACE WORK REGARDING COMMUNICATION SATELLITE

The Indian National Satellite System is one of the largest domestic communication satellite systems in Asia-Pacific region with nine operational communication satellites place in geo-stationary orbit. Established in 1983 with commissioning of INSAT1-B, it initiated a major revolution in India’s communication sector and sustained the same later.

 G-SAT15 was launched on 11th November,2015,after an everlasting countdown of 11 hours and 30 minutes the Ariane launch vehicle lifted off right on schedule at 3:04 am on that day, after a successful flight of 43minutes 24 seconds G-SAT15 separated from the Ariane super stage in an elliptical geosynchronous transfer orbit. ISRO’s Master Control Facility (MCF) at Hassan in Karnataka took over the command and control of G-SAT 15, after immediately separating from the launch vehicle. Normal health was revealed after the preliminary health checks of the satellite.

India’s telecommunication satellite G-SAT 30 was successfully launched into a geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) ON January 17, 2020 from Kourou launch base, French Guiana by Ariane 5 VA 251.

INDIA REGARDING THE SATELLITE COMMUNICATION POLICY 1997 & 2000

Though there were policy formation in the region of space and there were various laws created for the space and the protection for the satellites sent to the space. A lot was expected from the policy of 1997 for the satellite communication sector in India but only the following 4 points were discussed and kept in mind.

1)      Developing satellite communication launch vehicles and ground equipment industry in India.

2)      Making available and developing further the infrastructural built through the government operated Indian National Satellite System (INSAT)

3)      Encouraging private sector investments in space industry.

4)      Allowing to a very limited extent use of foreign satellite for services in India.

The government realized the insufficiency of the policy in 2000 the government framed “norms” for implementation of this policy the scope of the policy was elaborated by the norms of 2000. The norms in the 2000 policy classified satellite communication services in two broad categories of “domestic” and “international”. Preference was given to satellites and the norms whether they are right or wrong the use of “foreign satellites” for the domestically communication, lacked norms for the use of foreign satellites for international communication. On the following points the norms of the 2000 policy were focused.

1)      Telecommunications

2)      Broadcasting

3)      Educational and developmental communications

4)      Security communications for Defence Ministry / Services

Education and security communications are the rapidly growing sectors and their growth is considerable. In both these cases the normal procedure for adopting the license may not be applicable and also the financial arrangements for INSAT both these sectors may be different.

THE SPACE ACTIVITIES BILL, 2017

This bill has been proposed to protect and promote the space activities of India. The participation of the nongovernmental/private sector is encouraged under the guidance and authorization of the Department of Space. Many startups have shown interest in the space system activities and also the participation of private sectors would help the space agency to grow in size. Also various telecommunications and DTH service providers have shown interest in the investment of the satellites so that they can provide their customers with the best of the services.

 FUTURE OF THE COMMUNICATION AND VARIOUS OTHER TYPES OF SATELLITES

With the evolution of the satellites from the Sputnik to the very present day sophisticated satellite the world as well as the ISRO has shown rapid and commendable changes in the evolution of satellite. The agencies are now concerned about increasing the satellite life span form 10-15 years to 20-30 years in the near future. There is also a lot of focus on technical innovations such as low cost reusable launch vehicle.

Along with the development in the space area the focus should also be on the protection of the environment and the harm it causes the environment and also the debris which falls out in the seas to which there are no claims one such recent example is of the Chinese satellite which fell down only after serving few days in the outer space which fell on its own land.

Stringent laws is the need of the hour and accountability is what is required in the collection of debris around the world and that is why more focus is on the environmental impact of the satellite which should also be reusable and renewable.

SOURCES OF CONTENT

1)    ISRO – https://www.isro.gov.in/Spacecraft/gsat-30

2)    Norms and guidelines of the Satellites communication policy 2000-https://www.isro.gov.in/sites/default/files/article-files/indias-space-policy-0/satcom-ngp.pdf

The post Communication Satellites and Law appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

The world witnessed the beginning of the nuclear age when the cities of Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki witnessed the power of nuclear technology and capabilities which it holds and how the technology can be diverted towards nuclear weapons. There were initial efforts back in 1946 to create an international system where the states can have access to nuclear technology only under certain conditions and safeguards. The objective was not achieved due to political conflicts and differences between the superpowers, United States and Russia (former the Soviet Union) who had already tested their nuclear weapons. It was US President Eisenhower’s “Atoms of Peace” in December 1953 which proposed that there should be an establishment of an international organisation that checks on the nuclear technology which the states possess. The Eighteen Nation Committee on Disarmament negotiated the Treaty between 1965 and 1968. The Treaty was opened for signatures by July 1968 and came into force in 1970.

There are 191 states as of August 2016 that have become parties to the Treaty but North Korea which acceded the Treaty back in 1985 but never came into conformity. North Korea announced its withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 following the violation of conditions and obligations due to the detonation of nuclear devices. Four United Nation member states have never accepted the Non-Proliferation Treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan out of which three of them, India, Israel and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons and the latter is said to possess but ambiguously. South Sudan was founded in 2011 and has joined the Treaty yet. The Treaty mentions the Nuclear-Weapon States that includes, USA, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China. These countries have built and tested their nuclear explosives before January 1967. The other states which possess the nuclear weapons include India, Pakistan and North Korea who have openly tested and declare about their possession of nuclear weapons. Israel has not openly stated about its possession of nuclear weapons or its nuclear weapon status.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty is reviewed every five years in Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Treaty was conceived for 25 years but in 1995 during the Review Conference in NYC extended the Treaty indefinitely.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty consists of a preamble and eleven articles and is also interpreted for its three-pillar system:

1.     First Pillar: Non-Proliferation in the NPT treaty under Article I states that the countries or states possessing the nuclear weapons should not transfer nuclear weapons or other explosive devices to any recipient or states and should not assist, encourage or try to induce any non-nuclear-weapon country in the manufacture or acquisition of nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation is mentioned in Article I, II, and III of the NPT treaty. Non-nuclear weapon states should not acquire control over nuclear weapons or other explosive devices and should not seek assistance in the manufacturing of nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices under Article II. Under Article III of the NPT treaty states that non-nuclear-weapon should accept IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards to verify that their activities related to nuclear technology serve only for peaceful purposes and not alternative purposes.

There are five recognised states by the Non-Proliferation Treaty as Nuclear-weapons states (NWS): The United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union (now, Russia), France and China. These countries are also the five permanent members of UNSC (United Nations Security Council).

2.     Second Pillar: Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy of NPT Treaty under Article IV acknowledges the right of all the states which are party to the NPT Treaty to develop nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes and should be in conformity with the non-proliferation obligations. It also encourages cooperation and to benefit international cooperation in the area of nuclear energy. It also acknowledges that the parties have the right to peaceful usage of nuclear technology.

3.     Third Pillar: Disarmament of NPT treaty under Article VI states that the parties to the Treaty must pursue negotiations in bona fide on effective measures related to nuclear disarmament and termination of the nuclear arms and general and complete disarmament.

Salient Features

1.     No Nuclear-Weapon State (NWS) will transfer its weapons and technology to the Non-Nuclear States:

Under Article I states that the countries or states possessing the nuclear weapons should not transfer nuclear weapons or other explosive devices to any recipient or states and should not assist, encourage or try to induce any non-nuclear-weapon country in the manufacture or acquisition of nuclear weapons.

2.     The Non-Nuclear States will neither develop nor receive Nuclear weapons or explosive devices or control:

Under Article II, Non-nuclear weapon states should not acquire control over nuclear weapons or other explosive devices and should not seek assistance in the manufacturing of nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices. Each Non-Nuclear weapon states which are party to this Treaty undertakes that they will not receive a transfer of any nuclear power, nuclear weapons or other explosive devices or controls, directly or indirectly. The non-nuclear-weapon state should not manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive controls and devices. Neither should they seek or receive assistance in the manufacture of the same.

3.     ARTICLE III:

a)     Each of the Non-nuclear weapon states which are party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards in the agreement which needs to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The states must place all nuclear activities, materials under IAEA safeguards for the exclusive purpose of verification to achieve the obligations under the Treaty. The procedures required by this Article for safeguarding shall be followed for if there is unique fissionable material or source that is being produced, processed in any principal nuclear facility or outside such nuclear facility. The safeguards which are mentioned in this Article shall be applied on all special nuclear fissionable material or source in all peaceful nuclear activities and not otherwise within the territory of the State performing, under the state’s jurisdiction or that is carried out under the control of such state.

b)     Each Nuclear-Weapon State (NWS) which are party to the Treaty will not provide (i) source or special fissionable material, or (ii) any technology, equipment or material especially designed, developed for processing, to any Non-nuclear weapon State for peaceful purposes without an IAEA safeguard agreement.

c)     The safeguards of the IAEA required by this Article should comply with Article IV of this Treaty. They should not hamper the economic or technological development of the states which are party to the Treaty or impede any international cooperation amidst peaceful nuclear activities. This also includes the international exchange of source or nuclear materials or equipment for processing of nuclear energy and technology.

d)     The Non-nuclear weapon states which are party to the Treaty shall conclude agreements with IAEA. The safeguard agreements can be concluded on an individual or with the other parties in conformity with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Within 180 days from the entry of such agreements into force of the NPT treaty, negotiation of such agreements shall commence. The state parties must begin their instruments of accession or ratification after the 180 days. Also, such agreements shall not come into force before eighteen months from the date of initiation of negotiations.

4.     There is a right for the development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Under (i) and (ii) of ARTICLE IV, the rights of Non-nuclear weapon states were recognised. This Article makes it clear that the purpose of the Treaty is not to curtail the national development and not to limit international cooperation on nuclear energy but instead, NPT aims to promote the purpose of nuclear energy.  All parties to the Treaty are in obligation to participate and facilitate in the exchange of materials, equipment, technology and scientific information which is helpful in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty can contribute on an individual basis or in cooperation with the other parties to the Treaty for the dissemination of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

5.     Provision for withdrawal from the Treaty

Each party to the Treaty has the right to withdraw itself from the Treaty if it jeopardised the supreme interests of the party. The state shall give notice of such withdrawal from the Treaty to all the other parties and UNSC, three months in advance.

6.     Translation of the text in NPT

Under Article XI, The Treaty is in English, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish, which are authentic and needs to be deposited in the archives of the governments.

Over many years, NPT has been crticised for, “a conspiracy of the nuclear ‘haves’ to keep the nuclear ‘have-nots’ in their place.” The controversy has been rising off Article VI which obligates the nuclear weapon states to liquidate their nuclear stockpiles. The state parties are obliged to negotiate towards the three ends which are: the end of the nuclear arms race, nuclear disarmament and general or complete disarmament.

The post Salient features of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Advertisement and consumer behavior goes hand in hand and has become an integral part of our life today. In the current era of globalization advertisement plays a very vital role in embedding a strong brands name of the product or services dealing with. Generally, advertisement is the mode of communicating with the consumers to purchase their products and also to inform and remind the customers about their products and services. Therefore, the main purpose of Advertisements is to create an awareness among the consumers about the advertised product or services and to provide with the right information so that it helps them to make a choice of their own so that the consumer can purchase a product which is already well informed to them.

But the main concern is to wonder about is if we are getting what we paid for?

The ethical problem of the present business age which is disturbing and is also increasing is the false and misleading advertisements which is misleads the consumers as well as the injure competitors. The problem of deceptive advertisement is getting worse with the passing of time. The concept of advertisement which is been used in today’s business promotion includes class consciousness, complexion related ads, conspicuous consumption, materialism and other such relative factors which is not globally accepted by the consumers. This to look after the consumers confusion from the misleading advertisements and the strategies that are being used up by the major marketing agencies is what is concern to be discuss in today’s marketplace. The influence of advertisement on consumer choices is bonafide.

This kind of false and misleading advertisement and not only unethical but also not fair and truthful. It violates the basic rights of consumer, their choices and their safety.

Such as –

• Fair and Lovely Fairness Cream: This fairness cream claims that if any consumer uses this cream then the consumer will get a fair complexion within a month also they mention that one can build his career if one has a fair complexion, which is a misleading statement, for which judicial action can be taken.

• Red Bull: Here the advertising company claims that having a bottle of drink can give wings. For which this energy drink company was sued in 2014 for it slogan “Red Bull gives you wings” by paying a maximum amount of $13million.

• Duracell Battery: The very famous battery company Duracell Inc. and the Procter & Gamble Company was being issued by a US based customer who claim that this company delivered a false marketing and deceptive and misleading statements, in which the most powerful batteries was available at a higher rate than the regular batteries but it did not provide longer durability then the regular alkaline batteries.

Laws governing the Misleading advertisements:

There are various laws and regulation that prevents the false and deceptive advertisement emerging in the market. Which law has been passed by the legislation in order to protect the consumers from various forms of exploitation that is done by the marketing or the advertising agencies to promote their business brands. But the main concern is relating with the implementation of this laws, which is to be taken into consideration.

1. Laws having horizontal application on advertising:

• The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

• The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950

• Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

• Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995

• Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986

• Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969

2. Laws having vertical application on advertising:

• Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

• Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954

• Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994

• Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954/ Food Safety and Standards Act, 2005

• Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978

• Prize Competition Act, 1955

• The Infant Milk Substitute, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992 and Amendment Act, 2002

• Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994

• The Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956

Some of the few important laws and regulation which is enacted for the protection and interest of the consumers are discussed below;

1. Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act:

This act basically prohibits kinds of advertisements which are related to drugs and magical cures.

As per Section 3 of the mentioned act states that any person shall not take part in any publication of any advertisement which is promoting or leading the use of drugs;

(a) For procurement of miscarriage in women and for preventing conception in women.

(b) For maintaining or improving of the capacity of human being for sexual pleasure.

(c) For correcting menstrual disorders in women

As per Section 5 of the act which prohibits advertisement of those magic remedies which is used for the treatment of certain diseases elements or disorders. It also mentions that if any person violates this law, then the advertisers can be imprisoned for six months or fine or both.

Previously, AIDS/HIV was not mention in the schedule of the act. But with the span of time, the Union Ministry of Health included in the schedule now. It is to see the fact what prompted this move was Kerala High court order in 2002, against the manufacturer, sale and promotion of Ayurveda Drug Immuno QR they sure cure for AIDS. In response to a public interest litigation the Bombay High court has also restrained Mr Majid from making “tall and unfounded claims” about the drug.

2. The Cable Television Network Regulation Act and Rules:

This act was laid down so that all the advertisements which were transmitted through the cable TV network must be adhered to the Advertising Code formulated under it.

Section 6 of this Act states that any person shall not transmit or retransmit any advertisements through a cable service, unless such advertisement is uncertainty with the prescribed advertising code.

The Advertising Code must be drawn under the cable TV network rules 1994 which states that all advertisement must be in certainty to the relevant laws and it’s also should not suffer from any deficiency of services or defects in goods as it is mentioned in the consumer protection act 1986. This act also mentioned that no court should take any such consideration of any offence which is punishable under law under this act accept a complaint which is made in in written form by any authorised officer. This act gives the authority to the central government to regulate control and prevent transmission of such advertisements.

3. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006:

Section 24 of this act states that,

• Any advertisement should not be made of any food all products which is misleading or deceiving all contradicts the provisions, rules and regulations of this Act,

• Any person shall not indulge himself in any unfair means of trade practice just for the promotion of the brand for promoting the sale supply consumption in use of the articles of food or adopt any unfair means of advertisements which can cause harm to the consumers or create confusion in the mind of the consumers, by making false representation of the food articles or any such factor relating thereto;

4. Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940:

Rule 106 of the drugs and cosmetics rules 1945 is framed under this act in such a way which discusses about the diseases which a drug may not be able to prevent or cure;

• No drug make cream to prevented cure one or more of diseases or elements as it is specified in Schedule J on may convey to the intended use there of any idea that it may prevent or cure

• No drug main claim to assist appropriate miscarriage in women or may conveyed to the intending user there of any idea.

5. Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003:

This law clearly restricts advertisements/ promotion of cigarettes and other tobacco products, which states;

As per Section 5 which states the prohibition of advertisements of cigarettes and other tobacco products where any person cannot be engaged in production supply and distribution of cigarettes any other tobacco products, and pulses should not indulge in advertising of those products which are harmful and cause danger to any individual’s life.

With all the claims that is found in the cigarettes packets states “Smoking is injurious to Health”, “Tobacco can cause Cancer”, any consumers can approach to the consumer courts for the legal help.

6. Consumer Protection Act:

As per Section 2(1)(r) Of the Consumer Protection Act which gives a clear vision and extensive definition of unfair trade practices.

As per Section 14 which deals with the procedures that the court provides to deal with the the unfair trade practices and the way to discontinue such advertisements which must not be repetitive in nature.

The consumer can also claim for compensation or damages for any loss that is being caused to them through such unfair trade practices. But the main factor of concern is that they can also direct those advertisers to issue some rectification measures for such advertisements.

The following Regulatory authorities have power to regulate advertising in their respective domain

• Insurance Regulatory Development Authority

• Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

• Securities and Exchange Board of India

• Reserve Bank of India

• Medical Council of India

Some of the misleading advertisements and their Regulators are discussed below:

1. Insurance Regulatory Development Authority

The IRDA REGULATIONS, 2000

This regulatory body lays down strict rules and guidelines, which not only restricts on the content of the advertisements issued by the intermediaries but also on the compliances relating to. Most importantly it also centralizers its power to direct issuance of using that corrective measures in regulating the advertisements in such a manner in which the original advertisements were initiated.

2. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

This regulatory body ensures that there is a proper procedure for the telecom users are the consumers on the commercial communication as per their preferences. How to say it differently they do not want to registered any unwanted calls in the registry by mentioning “Do not Call Registry”.

3. Reserve Bank of India

Being the backbone of the financial system it acts as a regulator and supervisor for the cases of misleading advertisement. The RBI also accelerate its power to prohibit for the deceptive advertisement by the means of financial institutions. It also regulates the power to prohibit the issuance of the prospectus and soliciting the advertisement agencies.

The post Indian Laws on Advertisements in General appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Internationally, the space activities are governed by treaties and principles evolved under UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of space (UNCOPUOS).

The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of space (COPUOS) was founded by the UN General Assembly in 1959 to manipulate the exploration and use of space for the advantage of all humanity: for peace, security and development.

India is additionally a celebration to the space Treaty, 1967.

Constitution of India provides for implementation of international treaty obligations, vide Articles 51 and 253.

The “space” as a theme isn’t mentioned within the Union List. However, Parliament retains residuary legislative power in respect of “any matter not enumerated” in any of the three lists.

Currently, space activities are regulated by policies like Satellite Communication Policy, 2000 and Remote Sensing Data Policy, 2011[1].

RELEGATED TO THE BACKGROUND

The lack of independent private participation in space is thanks to absence of a framework to produce transparency, timelines on licensing, issuance of authorization and continuous supervision mechanism (in accordance with the space Treaty), among others[2].

These issues have to be addressed today to produce a stronger thrust for ‘Make in India’ further as FDI in space.

INDIA’S SPACE PROGRAM

One of India’s great success stories, is perhaps its ability to develop its own satellites, launching systems and ground control technology to put not just Indian satellites into space, but so too, other satellites on a commercial basis. In February 2017, the ISRO reached a record milestone, launching 104 satellites from single payload[3]. to add to the vision, earlier this year, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced India’s intention to put a man on the moon by 2022[4].

The ISRO has been at the forefront of driving this industry, enabling a number of services encompassing navigation and communications to imagery, facilitating a number of social and economic programs over the last 50 years[5].

It successfully launched a lunar orbiter in 2008 and plans to launch a further unmanned mission to the moon in the first quarter of 2019[6].But perhaps the apex of ISRO’s achievement to date however, is putting an orbiter around Mars on its very first attempt, back in September 2014, a mission that still continues today, more than four years later[7]. The cost Just USD 74 million, a fraction of the cost of its foreign competitors[8].

INDUSTRY ISSUES

There are several ways of looking at the space industry and broadly, we can think of it in the context of the following headings. Firstly, how should we regulate what goes up there in the first place? Secondly, who should be able to put things into space? Thirdly, how do we put things into space, and what regulatory framework should govern it?

Critically, any regulatory framework governing this sector will have to consider what happens if things go wrong; and generally, if things go wrong, it’s likely to go fantastically wrong. Who takes the risk on a satellite launch and what happens if the rocket blows up after leaving the launch pad? Alternatively, what happens in the event that objects in space collide and who takes responsibility for objects that could come crashing back down to earth?

But also, there are other pertinent questions in relation to who owns the intellectual property in relation to public private partnerships, relating to what goes up into space (or what otherwise might be made in space in the future) and the revenues that derive from operation.

INTERNATIONAL LAW

The international system already has quite a lot of space law governing what it can be used for and what happens if things go wrong. The principle of using space in good faith for peaceful purposes forms the bedrock of the existing international legal regime.

Following the launch of the first satellite, Sputnik, into orbit in 1957, the United Nations established it’s Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (“COPUOS”) and COPUOS created two different sub-committees: a scientific and technical sub-committee; and a legal sub-committee.

• COPUOUS has been instrumental in negotiating five international treaties covering space, namely: the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the “Outer Space Treaty”);

The Outer Space Treaty broadly, forms the basis of international space law, with 107 ratifications and 23 other signatories as of October 2018. It basically prevents states from putting weapons of mass destruction into space or installing them on the moon or any other celestial body. It exclusively limits use of the moon for peaceful purposes. Interestingly, it does not prevent the putting of conventional weapons into space.

The Outer Space Treaty also prevents states from making territorial claims to the moon or other celestial bodies and maintains that space shall be free and for the use and exploration by all states. Interestingly, the question of who owns resources that may one day be mined from the moon (or other celestial bodies) is a separate one.

The Rescue Convention basically requires signatory states to provide all possible assistance to recover space objects and astronauts that may come down within its territory, at the cost of the state that launched it. Some commentators suggest that it needs to be amended when commercial operations putting humans into space commences, extending the definition of astronaut to include passengers.

The Liability Convention sets out the principle that states bear responsibility for space objects launched from their territory. Regardless of who launches the space object, the state from which it was launched is liable for damage caused by it, though there are exceptions to this principle, where two or more states work together. In such circumstance, they are jointly and severally liable. Note further that claims under the Liability Convention are inter-state (and individuals have no separate legal standing). To date, there has been just one claim under the Liability Convention, in relation to the 1978 crash of the Russian satellite, Kosmas 954 in Canadian territory.

The Registration Convention requires states to provide information about the orbit of each object put into space, in addition to the general function of the space object.

Interestingly, the Moon Treaty, which attempted to establish a global commons regime (similar to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea), has just 18 signatories, and no country that potentially has the capability to undertake activities on the moon or other celestial bodies, is a signatory.

The UN Office of Outer Space Affairs (“UNOOSA”) is the body responsible for promoting international cooperation for the peaceful use of space. UNOOSA essentially serves as a secretariat for the COPUOS and maintains the register of objects launched into space, amongst other things.

Generally, it’s probably fair to say that the existing international legal framework is a broad brushed statement of principle and it does not really address particular nuanced legal questions related to particular activities. When the mining of celestial bodies becomes a practicality, we are likely to see a top-down international convention with a regime not too dissimilar to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Otherwise, we could see a bottom-up approach, between private and public sector actors, mapping out a regime of rights and responsibilities and revenue sharing.

DOMESTIC LAW

Notwithstanding the international law on the subject, many states have also developed their own municipal law, providing greater clarity in relation to the relationship between the private sector and the public sector in particular. Generally, such legislation governs the launch and operation of objects that go into space, regulations relating to the design and manufacture of the technology that goes into space, the application of space technology, exploration activities and research.

THE BILL

Turning back to the Bill and its contents, perhaps the first thing to note about the Bill is that it is quite general and all encompassing, perhaps symptomatic of all initial regulatory attempts to get to grips with technological advancement and the changes in society that it will bring about. To a certain extent, the Bill takes the off-the-shelf model law solution[9] prepared by the International Law Association, with local customization for the Indian context.

On the one hand, it obviously acknowledges that the private sector will play a crucial role in the future use of space to develop and enhance human communications and other scientific endeavors, having an impact on society. However, on the other hand, it provides a great deal of discretion to the state to control access to space. Nevertheless, the Bill clearly anticipates a type of public-private partnership in the sector, with government working in tandem with the private sector, to meet its future strategic goals, with the ISRO inviting the private sector to develop as many as 30 future satellites.

DEFINITIONS

The Bill defines “space activities” very broadly to mean:

“the launch of any space object, use of space object, operation, guidance and entry of space object into and from outer space and all functions for performing the said activities including the procurement of the objects for the said purposes.”

Clearly, this definition will capture almost everything in the supply chain and care needs to be taken to prevent an over-draconian limitation on the usage of materials or services rendered in assembling components.

“Space objects” are defined to mean:

“(I) any object launched, or intended to be launched on an orbital trajectory, around the earth or to a destination beyond the earth orbit;

(ii)any device, the purpose of which is to launch an object on a trajectory under sub clause (i), even when such a device is operated without payload for the purpose of its development and validation phase;

(iii) Any constituent element of an object referred to in sub-clause (i) and (ii).”

It’s also interesting to note that “Commercial Space Activity” is defined to mean:

“A space activity which generates or is capable of generating revenue or profit.”

The definitions raise a number of interesting questions. Firstly, the definition of space object is so broad that it would likely include all of the software and other technological components of it, which raises the question as to whether the use of services, such as GPS, by individuals using mobile phones would be caught by it? Clearly, this would be an irrational over-extension of the ambit of the Bill, though clarity needs to be brought out.

Note that a “license” is defined later on in the body of the Bill, as a license in relation to a commercial space activity, though the operative drafting leaves open many of the terms and conditions of the license and what it actually might contain in practice. Nevertheless, it’s clear that a license will be required to carry out space activity.

THE REGULATORY MECHANISM

Chapter 2 of the Bill sets out a broad obligation on the Central Government to put in place a mechanism through the framing of policies for the use of outer space for peaceful purposes, and in particular Section 3, specifies the duty to:

(a) Develop a space activity plan, with established goals, targets and principles,

(b) Grant, transfer, vary, suspend, ensure compliance and terminate a license;

(c) To provide technical and professional support and authorization to launch a space object;

(d) Regulate the procedures for conducting and operating space activities;

(e) Create and maintain a register of space objects;

(f) Monitor conformity with international treaty obligations;

(g) Ensure safety;

(h) Supervise the conduct of space activity where India is the launching state for which a license has been granted;

(i) share access and potential benefits, including the pricing mechanisms for products created by space activity and technology with any person, or any agency in the manner as so prescribed; and

(j) Investigate accidents in connection with any space activity.

While the regulatory, safety and registration of objects launched into space, mirror general international requirements, some of the other proposed regulatory mechanism raises a number of interesting questions. In particular in relation to sub paragraph (i) stated above. To what extent might this prejudice the private sector’s investment into any commercial space activity?

The Outer Space Treaty broadly, forms the basis of international space law, with 107 ratifications and 23 other signatories as of October 2018. It basically prevents states from putting weapons of mass destruction into space or installing them on the moon or any other celestial body. It exclusively limits use of the moon for peaceful purposes. Interestingly, it does not prevent the putting of conventional weapons into space.

POWER OF GOVERNMENT

Section 4 of the Bill grants broad powers to the Central Government to inspect and investigate the space activity proposed by licensee, together with the power to requisition data and information in relation thereto. These are not unreasonable requirements, though the private sector will no doubt want assurances from government that any commercially sensitive information remains confidential.

GRANTING OF A LICENSE

The process for granting a license is yet to be developed, but section 5 of the Bill envisages that there will be eligibility criteria, and a fee to pay, without giving any detail or indication as to what those criteria or fees might be. In particular, it sets out the obligation to provide a financial guarantee or insurance, which essentially addresses the broader liability question and the principles of liability that flow under the international space regime discussed in Section 4 (International Law) above.

THE LICENSE 

The substantive provisions relating to the granting of a license are set out in section 7 of the Bill. These provisions are subject to fairly standard conditions relating to public health and safety; and compliance with existing international law is also included. Other conditions, including grounds detrimental to the interests of India, public order, decency and morality are also included. This is likely to be contentious with private parties and in particular, foreign private parties, in relation to subjective notions of decency and morality.

REGISTRATION & LIABILITY

Section 11 of the draft Bill sets out the criteria in relation to registration, and critically, Section 12 sets out an obligation to indemnify the Central Government from any third party claim in connection with damage or loss relating to a space activity or space object. Interestingly, the quantum of the indemnity is to be determined by the Central Government, in a manner to be prescribed and it remains to be seen what the mechanism for determining the quantum of liability will be, though it is unlikely to be capped.

The obligation to indemnify stems from the international regime that governs space law and the general principal that a launching state is liable for damage caused by objects which it launches into space. To the extent that the private sector launches from India, the state will be primarily responsible under international law for liability arising from accidents causing damage to another state.

OFFENCES & PENALTIES

Section 13 of the Bill specifies the penalties for carrying out space activities without a license, which are both criminal (between one to three years in prison) and civil (a fine of no less than INR 1 Crore (approximately USD 140,000) and for continuing breach, a fine of INR 50 lakhs (approximately USD 70,000 per day). For the offence of providing false information, the penalty is potentially imprisonment for up to a year, and/or a fine of INR 50,000 (approximately USD 700).

Penalties for damage or pollution to the environment (be it on earth, in space, or on a celestial body) through any space activity include a jail term of between one and three years and a civil liability of no less than INR 1 Crore (approximately USD 140,000).Tucked away in section 20 of the Bill, the penalty for breaching any direction of the Central Government could extend to a fine between INR 1 to 50 Crore (between approximately USD 140,000 to USD 7,000,000).

The draft Bill further goes on to clarify that in the event that a company breaches its obligations, the persons in charge of the Company shall be liable, in addition to the company. This clearly suggests that a director, manager, company secretary, or other officer of the company will be criminally liable for a breach, in addition to potentially receiving a fine. It should however, be noted that a person may demonstrate that he had no knowledge of the act, or that he demonstrated all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

The intellectual property rights section of the draft Bill is curious and is perhaps counter-intuitive to courting the private sector to participate in space activities. Section 25 of the Bill states that:

“Any invention or other form of intellectual property rights, developed, generated or created during the course of any space activity shall be protected by any law for the time being in force, with the primary objective of safe guarding national security.”

RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE

Interestingly, Section 17 of the draft Bill contains a wide ranging provision for the Central Government to restrict a person from disclosing information relating to space technology, systems, operations, processes and procedures to any other person, and the penalty for breach could potentially be a jail term of between 6 months to 2 years, together with a fine of between INR 50,000 to INR 100,000.

The provision no doubt, aims to take into account a public private partnership, and any leak by a private partner of confidential material belonging to the public sector.  However, to what extent it relates to confidential information provided by a private sector manufacturer of a space object in relation to any license application (effectively acting as a deterrent for any breach of confidentiality by the public sector) remains to be seen.

EXCLUSION

Section 26 of the draft Bill sets out a provision stating that the Central Government shall not be held accountable in relation to anything done in good faithin pursuance of any space activity. Broadly, this appears to provide the Central Government immunity from suit on the grounds that good faith is extremely subjective, potentially prejudicing private participation and underlining the risk of claims by a private sector partner against the public sector.

EXPROPRIATION

Section 30 of the draft Bill could be misconstrued as a thinly disguised expropriation provision, permitting the Central Government to take over the management, control or supervision of any space object or any installation in relation thereto, for whatever duration it deems fit on the grounds of war, external aggression, a natural calamity, or, controversially, such other eventuality as it may deem necessary. To what extent will this apply to foreign satellites and other foreign private parties engaging in any joint venture with an Indian party?

SALIENT FEATURES OF INDIA DRAFT SPACE LAW POLICY (IN BRIEF)

§  The provisions of the Bill are applicable to any or all Indian citizens and to those sectors which are engaged in space activity either inside or outside the country/

§  It provides for the grant of non-transferable license to those people engaged in commercial space activity

§  It provides for the suitable mechanisms for licensing, eligibility criteria, and costs for license.

§  It will provide for the upkeep of a register for all space objects by the union government. Space objects here are those objects launched or likely to be launched round the earth.

§  The new Bill provide for professional and technical support for polishing off commercial space activity.

§  The new Bill provides for the regulation of procedures for conduct and operation of space activity

§  The provisions within the Bill will ensure safety requirements and supervise every space activity in India.

§  The Bill contains provisions for the investigation of accidents in reference to the operation of an area activity.

§  The Bill has provisions for sharing of details about the pricing of products created by space activity & technology with any person/agency in a much prescribed manner.

§  The new Bill has provisions for punishing those persons who take pleasure in commercial space activities with imprisonment of up to three years or fine of quite ₹1 crore or both.

WHY THERE’S A REQUIREMENT FOR A THIS ACT IN INDIA?

First, those nations engaged in space activities like the USA, Russia, Ukraine, Republic of Korea, African country; UK, Indonesia, Austria, etc. have come up with their own domestic space legislations. Other nations like China and Japan are within the process of formulating their own domestic Space Act.

Second, until recently, ISRO was the only player within the space sector. So there was no need for a separate legislation governing the space activities[11]. But now the scenario has changed with the entry of the many Indian and foreign companies. In India, around 20-odd startups have began to function during this sector. So it’s now important to return up with a regulatory mechanism and legislation to control their activities.

Third, with the rising in demand for space systems, it’d be prudent to involve Indian industry and repair providers in space activities under the technical guidance and authorization of DOS[12]. Hence, it becomes necessary to supply appropriate legal environment for performance and growth of Indian space sector.

The global space researcher Euro consult, in its July 2017 report has estimated that globally over 6200 small satellites are likely to be launched by 2026. Around 70% of those satellites are likely to be built from the commercial operators.

CONCLUSION

The draft Bill is a welcome starting point in the context of building a regulatory framework for a future industry that is yet to reach critical mass. Many of the provisions are perhaps analogous to embryonic regimes governing the introduction of new technology of the time (think the car, the plane and more recently, the drone) and it’s inevitable that such regimes will generally set out a requirement to license entities to undertake certain activities, with corresponding obligations to be observed so as to not endanger the public at large.

Parallel domestic legislation in other major economies generally contains provisions which give the state the discretion to refuse a license for space activities if it would violate international law, the health and safety of persons within the state concerned, or otherwise, is a threat to national security[13]. In this context, many of the analogous provisions in the draft Bill are perhaps no worse than general industry standard.

However, it’s quite important that the government doesn’t overly regulate the sector to the extent that it will potentially discourage the private sector from participating, or otherwise, prejudice foreign participation (whether it be public or private) in future space endeavors.

Care therefore needs to be taken in getting the balance right, in particular in relation to intellectual property rights for new products or services developed in space, or otherwise, the rights to minerals or other substances mined from celestial bodies. Put otherwise, if the private sector isn’t equitably rewarded for its innovation, the sector is unlikely to attract the investment that it so critically needs.

A final point for reflection: following the coming into force of any space law, the government will need to consider its stance on foreign direct investment in related technologies, whether it be launch technology, satellites or other vehicles that could potentially be launched into space. The more permissive this regime is, the more likely India will be able to attract capital and investment into this sector to develop not just its own space program, but essentially make India a hub for the international space industry in general, developing launch and space vehicles and their components in a potentially more cost effective manner.

The post Salient Features of Draft India’s Space Law Policy appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Adopted on December 5, 1979, opened for signature on December 18, 1979, and came into force on July 11, 1984 (General Assembly resolution 34/68), the Moon Agreement, 1979 is a framework of laws relating to the Moon and other celestial bodies within the Solar System, other than Earth, including orbits around or other trajectories to or around them.1 It is one of the 5 multilateral treaties deliberated and developed by the Legal Subcommittee for the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) from 1972 to 1979.

The Moon Agreement aspires to establish an international regime to govern the exploitation of resources that explorations by various countries may yield. But there has been no consensus on establishment of such laws. Hence, in 2018, S. Neil Hosenball (NASA General Counsel and chief US negotiator for the Moon Treaty) decided, that negotiation of the rules of this international regime should be delayed until the feasibility of exploitation of lunar resources has been established.

It upholds and elaborates various provisions of the Outer Space Treaty, however, it is still considered to be a failed international law and remains unratified by major space faring powers like United States of America, Russia and People’s Republic of China. This article critically analyses the provisions of the Moon Agreement, 1979, to draw out conclusions about its relevance and validity in the current times along with its future implications.

INTRODUCTION

The United Nations has the power and responsibility to develop and codify international law and has thus become a focal point for international cooperation in outer space.4 The United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space are “Text of treaties and principles governing the activities of States in the exploration and use of outer space, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly”. However, extension of law to outer space has been gradual and evolutionary, beginning with the study of questions relating to legal aspects, continuing to the formulation of principles of a legal nature and, then, incorporating such principles in general multilateral treaties. The declaration of legal principles governing the activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space was adopted by the General Assembly in 1963. This text is the genesis of what has become known as “Space Law”.

Thereafter, as stated above, UN saw development of 5 multilateral treaties, out of which one became the Moon Agreement or the Moon Treaty that provides several guidelines and provisions outlined in 21 articles.

The Agreement governs the activities on moon and other celestial bodies stating that the moon and its natural resources are “the common heritage of mankind”. It declares that the Moon should be used for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of the entire international community reiterating the fact that lunar resources shouldn’t be subjected to claims by nations on basis of sovereignty or by means of occupation.  The primary objective of the Moon Agreement is ‘to provide the necessary legal principles for governing the behaviour of states, international organizations, and individuals who explore celestial bodies other than Earth, as well as administration of the resources that their explorations may yield.’8 The Agreement proposes to establish an international regime or framework of laws that apply to the Moon and to other celestial bodies within the Solar System (Article 11.5; Moon Agreement, 1979).9

Currently, 18 States are parties to the Agreement, out of which, seven have ratified the same and the rest acceded. Four other Sates have signed, but not ratified the treaty yet.

ANALYSIS

As mentioned earlier, the Agreement reiterates most of the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty. However, it provides a new angle to the international space laws by addressing the issue of exploitation of natural resources, by applying the concepts of ‘common heritage of mankind’ and to have the participating countries develop ‘appropriate procedures for mining’ in order to protect and sustain the natural environment for the present as well as future generations. It explores some significant themes by ensuring that parties to this Agreement consider the repercussions of their activities in space and the environmental changes that follow and identify the general need to promote better standards of living. Article 2 of the Agreement specifically states that the Moon and other celestial bodies are a province of all mankind and not subject to national appropriation by any means.

This Agreement augments the agreement on outer space laws in several ways. It is first space law treaty that specifically mandates that sustainable options should be used while exploring the Outer Space, considering the idea that both, the present and the future generations have an equal right on the available resources.13 It also provides wider prohibitions on use of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction as well as setting up of military bases on moon and other celestial bodies than the 1967 treaty.14 It also expresses the aspiration to prevent the Moon and other celestial bodies from becoming a source of international conflict.

Apart from this, it also rectifies another flaw of the Outer Space Treaty by banning the ownership of any extra-terrestrial property by any organisation or private person, allowing only international and governmental organisations to carry out research. The Agreement provides strength to the concept of ‘Global Commons’ by disallowing individual ownership of resources on Moon and other Celestial Bodies.

The question however, is whether this Agreement successfully justifies its ratification as a new space law, considering that it has not been ratified or signed by any of the ‘Big Three Nations’ (USA, Russia and China).

The Moon Agreement is one of the least supported treaty/agreement relating to the outer space law.15 India is the only country with independent spaceflight capabilities that has signed (but not ratified) this Agreement.

One of the major objections that is often raised is that this Agreement mandates that extracted resources, along with the technology used to achieve that end should be shared with developing nations that have not invested funds or assumed risks to enable use of lunar resources.

The moon plays an important role in the exploration of Outer Space, and exploitation of its resources can prove to be commercially profitable in the long run. Thus, each major space faring power wants to extract the maximum benefit out of the Moon’s available resources. But the Moon Agreement acts as a check on the countries by mandating that the UN should be informed about any new station that is to be placed on the Moon. Also, one of the major focus points of the Agreement is ‘sharing’ of resources which is a major drawback for the developed nations when analysed commercially.

Even though, the Agreement doesn’t require ratification from any of the “Big Three” to come into force, it is not a binding international law as US, Russian Federation and China have neither signed nor acceded to, nor ratified it, leading to a conclusion that it is a failure from the standpoint of international law. An example of Dennis Hope, where he asserts a claim over the Moon in 1980, has not formally been rejected by the US, and thus, questions the validity of the Moon Agreement as a binding international law.

A reason for the failure of this Agreement is the threat it imposes on the developed nations. Similar to the Agreement of Law of Sea Convention, this Agreement might also demand for the developed nations to share their technology and innovations with the developing nations, which the nations like USA, often consider hinderance to their progress.

If the international regime that is envisioned by the Moon Agreement takes a form similar to that of the Enterprise (proposed in the Agreement of the Law of the Sea Convention), developed nations would be required to relinquish a portion of the resources extracted from the Moon and other celestial bodies. They would also be required to surrender technology developed by private industries under their jurisdiction for extracting extra-terrestrial resources so that the

developing nations also get a chance to explore the available resources. This implies that the Moon Agreement’s common heritage view might also apply to Intellectual Property Rights.

Another limitation to the Agreement is that it fails to define the term ‘resources’, thereby posing a critical challenge to the countries that ratify the same. The Agreement remains ambiguous at various instances, leading to its failure as an international space law.

Another major drawback of the Agreement is that it is a compilation of dictates from past agreements, with only six out of 21 articles that aren’t addressed previously in other space laws. Apart from this, the areas that are novel, lack the clarity required to make necessary changes.

Louis de Gouyon Matignon, in his study on the Moon Agreement states that, “the Agreement is a germinal legal framework for developing the required laws, rather than a finished set of detailed laws”.

Therefore, this Agreement requires a lot of changes before it can actually be implemented in the current scenario. However, as mentioned earlier, negotiation of the rules of this Agreement have been delayed until exploitation of such resources, available on Moon and other Celestial Bodies, becomes a reality.

Although, the Moon Agreement has a lot of drawbacks, it also creates a shadow of customary law that could grow such that non-parties could find themselves overshadowed by the penumbra of the Moon Agreement, especially if those non-parties take no action to refute its legitimacy. Also, the soft power gains of China and Russia might promote them to sign and ratify the Moon Agreement, restoring its status as a customary law binding on parties and non-parties alike.

The assumption that the Moon Agreement has no legal effect because of the non-participation of the Big Three nations is false. Hence, to officially curb the power of the Moon Treaty of becoming a customary law highly depends on its official denunciation by these nations.

CONCLUSION

Considering the advantages and the drawbacks of the Moon Agreement, 1979, it is evident that some major changes are required before making it binding on parties and non-parties, along with the ratification of major space faring powers. Thus, the UN should review the present provisions of the Agreement and incorporate the required changes and also provide a better clarification on the already existing clauses. However, the genuine test of the Moon Agreement as a treaty as well as a customary law will only be possible after exploitation of the extra-territorial resources becomes technically and economically feasible

Author: Sujata Porwal, Legal Intern at Legal Desire (June 2020)

Sujata is a student of law, currently pursuing BA. LLB. (Hons.) degree from Symbiosis Law School, Pune. Criminal law and psychology, along with Sports Law are few subjects of her interest.

The post MOON AGREEMENT, 1979 appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

The development of air as a medium of travel in the beginning of last century brought rewards along with difficulties. On one hand it advanced globalization, whilst on the other hand it also resulted in imperialist tendencies over the sovereignty of airspace which eventually ensued into the conflict of power. There were, primarily, three ideas to resolve such power struggle, viz, absolute sovereignty over its territory without any control on other country’s aircraft; absolute sovereignty but with the power of control to regulate other’s aircraft and; limited sovereignty only to the extent of lower strata of air space. Such conflict of ideas gave rise to the formation of organizations, bundle of treaties, conventions, and conferences to the make effective use of air and space while maintaining the international solidarity.

2. Historical Background

The first effort for codification of international air law took place in 1910 with the making of German balloons and its constant flights over French territory without permission. The incident gave rise to Paris conference of 1910 with some rules and regulations1, which in a period of time became foundation stone for the formation of first ever international convention i.e. Paris Convention of 1919, dealing with airspace. Consequently, several treaties and conventions were made, but were unable to solve the problem of space flight or the regulation of space exploration. Distinction between the usage of breathable air and space was still bone of contention. The conundrum thereto triggered when Mandl expressed that space law as something different and distinct from the law of air and special legislation is need of hour for judicious and effective use of space. Finally, in 1967 Outer Space Treaty was formulated concerning space law and space exploration exhaustively, abolishing the complete and exclusive sovereignty of airspace above its territory.

3. Air law: International scenario

Air law, in its current usage, refers to the set of principles and series of rules governing the use of airspace and its benefits for aviation, general public and different nations.5 A number of multilateral as well as bilateral treaties have been formulated for the effective and peaceful usage of airspace. The locomotion of first flight between London and Paris ensued the first-ever convention, Paris Convention of 1919, in the field of air space.6 Consequently, four distinct and cardinal conventions took place. These were Havana Convention, 1928; Warsaw Convention, 1929; Chicago Convention, 1944; and Montreal Convention, 1999. All these conventions progressed the idea of Aerial navigation.

In Paris convention, the exclusive and complete sovereignty over the air space above its territory was recognized. Along with other important principles, innocent passage to other country’s aircraft was the cardinal principal of the convention. It also focused on the issue of peace and prohibition of military use. Further in Havana Convention, the important issue regarding air traffic dealt with dexterity. Both the conventions lack the proper regulation of airspace after World War II, which resulted into the formulation of Chicago Convention which proved to be Magna Carta in the field of air law.

The peculiar features of Chicago convention includes, the need of consent of concerned state before schedule flight and power of ICAO council to settle disputes along with its binding nature. For the first time ‘Five freedoms of air’ were also declared under the convention.10 It was also declared that for state aircraft, special agreement and consent thereon is prerequisite for their locomotion. The International Civil Aviation Organization, considered to be the paramount organization concerning air law, was also established under the convention.

Another important aspect of airspace, apart from air navigation, is aircraft hijacking. Several treaties and conventions took place to contain the curb of hijacking, most important incudes, Tokyo Convention, 1963; Hague Convention, 1970; Montreal Convention, 1971; and Beijing Protocol, 2011.12 The Important principles being emerged from such treaties and conventions are principal of universal jurisdiction and principle of extradition. Former implies that, crime of hijacking is against the interest of international community and in order to conquer such a crime, all states can exercise jurisdiction. The Principle of extradition provided that the offence is deemed to be to be extraditable offence in common extradition treaty which will have effect of considering hijacking as not a political crime.

4. Space law: International scenario

The term space law, often, refers to rules, principles, and standards of international law enumerated in five international treaties along with five sets of principles under the auspices of the United Nations. It addresses issues which include, inter alia, safeguarding the space and earth environment; liability for damages caused by space objects; rescuing of astronauts, sharing information about the potential danger in the space; delimiting space warfare; freedom of use and exploration of space materials by every state indiscriminately; and resolution of any dispute arising out of space exploration.14

The treaties, commonly referred to as “five United Nation treaties on outer space”, are Outer space treaty, Rescue agreement, Liability convention, Registration convention, and Moon agreement… All these treaties emphasize the notion that all the space exploration activities and consequent benefits must take place with the common intention of enhancing man-kind, with an emphasis on promoting international solidarity.

With the increase in the development of space explorations by several countries, exploitation of the same is also increasing with stressing speed, the militarization of space, exploitation of natural resources, space debris are one of the several issues being faced in the recent times. The Outer Space treaty, being Magna Carta of all other treaties prohibits any discriminatory use of space resources by the Countries. But these provisions are interpreted by states according to their comfort and at their whims.

Some of the major points to the treaty include:

· No discrimination based on the country’s power when it comes to space exploration, meaning the claim of sovereignty on space exploration is not possible.

· Any nuclear or other mass destructing tests are not allowed in any celestial body by any state irrespective of country’s might.

· Vicarious liability on an individual state for any kind of damage occurred by the respective state’s space exploration mission.

5. Limitations of Air and Space law

Formulations of conventions, treaties, conferences and organizations have played significant role for the effective use of air and space while maintaining international harmony and solidarity. But it is also pertinent to note that all such measures are not bereft of limitation, which consequently resulted into maladministration of the regulations and exploitation of developed countries to developing countries. The major problem with such treaties and conventions is that they are non-binding in nature. Domestic legislations and international pressure by other countries become pertinent in order to efficacious use of such treaties and conventions. Notably, behemoth of space exploration, viz, China, India, and Russia do not have robust mechanism of domestic air and space laws. Condemnation of states for disregard to the principles declared in treaties seem to be more the consequence of convenience and diplomacy, rather than an obligation.

Apart from this, when it comes to space law, the biggest challenge seems the militarization of space and the same is flourishing with exponential rate even with the presence of dozen of treaties, conventions and conferences.18 Another major concern is with respect to space debris. Under Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects 1972, compensation is needed to be paid for any kind of destruction caused due to country’s space debris but the convention did not explain the quantum of compensation to be paid. It has consequent result of taking decision regarding quantum of compensation at the whim and impulse of victim countries resulting into injustice to the countries at fault. Conflict between India and Japan is the living example of injustice due to the loopholes engrafted in respective treaties and conventions.

Air law is also no less than space law when it comes about limitations. No treaty or convention concerning air law has been dealt with the rules and regulations at the time of war. Paris convention along with others as well only enumerated rules for peace time. Further, despite the efforts being taken by international organizations to curb the problem of hijacking, the cases are still increasing with ascending rate. The presupposition of the states that prosecution or criminal sanctions will prove to be an effective measure for preventing hijacking seems to be fallacious and dubious.

6. Conclusion

In time gone by, military dominance of the country was seen as international supremacy and more bargaining power but with the changing times, technological advancement has become a key player to ascertain the country’s hegemony. Unmistakably, subjugation of behemoth countries like the USA, China, Russia, and Japan has been a result of their technological advancement in air as well as space. But it is also very pertinent to note that such technological feats must take place with the intention of advancement of human race while maintaining world peace and international solidarity, rather than the promotion of air and space warfare. To achieve such goals, more attention must be contributed to the goal of diminishing the existing loopholes of the treaties and conventions along with each country’s efforts to implement effective domestic air and space legislations.

Author: Shama Jha Legal Intern at Legal Desire (June 2020)

Shama is pursuing BA LLB from University School of Law and Legal Studies (GGSIPU). A law student in 2nd year, ambitious, inquisitive and consistently curious. I am passionate about changing dimensions of law and its impact on international human rights.

The post Air and Space Law: International Overview appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Public international law deals with those laws, rules, and standards of general application that manage the direction or conduct of country states and global associations among themselves just as the connections between country states and universal associations with regular and juridical people. The public international law plans to screen the conduct between states since where there exists a network of states, the keeping up of peace gets fundamental. Essential discussion for the making of public international law is between administrative associations like the United Nations; through the codification of standard law by method of global bargains, the UN creates, makes, and implements universal law on numerous levels.

The Liability Convention was thought of and negotiated by the Legal subcommittee from 1963 to 1972. The understanding was reached in the General Assembly in 1971 [resolution 2777 (XXVI)], and the Convention went into power in September 19721. Explaining on Article 7 of the Outer Space Treaty, the Liability Convention gives that a launching State will be totally obligated to pay compensation for harm brought about by its space objects on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft, and at risk for damage because of its shortcomings in space. The Convention additionally accommodates techniques for the settlement of cases for damages.

The exceptional conditions that brought forth space law mean the international network saw an opportunity for a fresh start in the ascendance of humanity to the stars. This last arrangement builds up a double system of risk, contingent upon whether the damage was caused on the surface of the Earth (just as aircraft in flight) or in space. Concerning the previous, “a launching State will be totally at risk to pay compensation for damages brought about by its space object” (Art. II) — the sole special case to this method of ‘absolute liability’ exists in circumstances when the damage might be appeared to have been really incited by the other State Party. Then again, with regards to damage caused to another space object, the launching State is subject just to the extent that the damage might be appeared to have been its ‘fault’ (Art. VI (1)).

THE PRESENT STATUS OF LIABILITY CONVENTION

Taking supplies of the current proportion of adherence to the Liability Convention, as indicated by the latest information, as of now there are 76 states which have endorsed the Convention. A further 25 states have marked the Convention. Along these lines, somewhat finished half of the world’s states are by and by bounding in any event to regards of the Liability convention. That is certainly not a terrible score, particularly in the event in which one remembers that among them pretty much all the space-faring nation’s countries are to be found. In addition, the Liability Convention basically is an elaboration of article VII of the Outer Space Treaty. This implies, indeed, even states neither gathering nor a signatory to the Liability Convention, while in actuality having endorsed or marked the Outer Space settlement, are not permitted to just disregard its legal entities. Such states would need to demonstrate in some random case that the previous convention would not comprise an elaboration with standard lawful power of the last Treaty. The other issue is all more explicitly of a legal character. The privatization of room furthermore, space exercises difficulties the embodiment of global space law, as right now given shape mostly through the five settlements at issue. The truly determined and nearly complete direction of the Juris spatial international is on states and state entertainers are placed in a critical position. The Liability Convention warrants uncommon consideration from this double viewpoint. As to space debris, lawfully talking the problem is typically expressed as far as liability for the damage brought about by such debris. With respect to privatization, the method of activity of the leads on obligation on account of private space adventures is of central significance for the security of business tasks in outer space.

WHAT IS LIABILITY UNDER THE LIABILITY CONVENTION 1972?

Liability could be depicted as “an extensive lawful term that portrays the state of being really or possibly subject to a lawful commitment”. One of the most critical words in the field of law, liability implies legitimate duty regarding one’s demonstrations or exclusions. failure of an individual or entity to meet that duty leaves him/her/it open to a lawsuit for any resulting damages or a court order to proceed (as in a break of agreement or infringement of rule). So as to win a lawsuit, the suing party (plaintiff) must demonstrate the legitimate liability of the respondent if the plaintff’s charges are demonstrated to be valid. This requires proof of the obligation to act, the failure to satisfy that obligation, and the connection (the proximate reason for) of that failure to some injury or damage to the plaintiff. Obligation likewise applies to supposed criminal acts in which the defendant might be answerable for his/her demonstrations which comprise wrongdoing, in this way making him/her subject to conviction and punishment5.

‘liability’ here alludes to a circumstance where a State, having made damage to the people or property of another State, causes a commitment to pay damages to that other State. This is now contemplated by Art. VII of the OST, which predicts that “each State Party to the Treaty is universally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its regular or juridical people by [its space object],” regardless of whether such damage is cased in space, on divine bodies or the Earth itself. Be that as it may, this core value is just investigated finally in the Liability Convention itself.

RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

It is fascinating to consider the two parts of what is generally called liability under International Law; those are State Responsibility and International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law. The two points manage the commitments and obligations occupant upon States under international law. Distinguishing between State duty and global obligation of a State is adroitly troublesome. Despite the fact that an act of a State may not be unjust by temperance of assent, power Majeure or happy occasion, pain, or need, the absence of an unfair act does not prejudge the subject of pay for damages brought about by that act. The State may connect with its international obligation and make up for damage brought about by its act, paying little heed to the presence of an illegal act. In a bigger number of ways than one, a State’s global responsibility comprises verification of damaging results free of an unjust act owing to that State.

Two statutes might be drawn from the assessment of the origin and recorded improvements of State responsility and international liability. In the first place, State obligation comprises a far-reaching some portion of international law. It embraces all aspects of obligations incumbent upon States vis-à-vis’ other States, whether voluntarily contracted or imposed by custom, including the general principle that an internationally wrongful act engaging State responsibility has international legal consequences. It embraces all aspects of obligations incumbent upon States vis-à-vis’ other States, whether voluntarily contracted or imposed by custom, including the general principle that an internationally wrongful act engaging State responsibility has international legal consequences. Second, the global liability is predicated on a lot of essential guidelines concerning the essential commitments of States. In this way, the penetration of an essential commitment under global obligation definitely gets underway the optional standards recommended under State responsibility. The commitment not to cause harm others, or its more extensive adaptation, the commitment to forestall destructive impacts to other people, would be an essential standard of universal liability, a penetrate of which connects with State responsibility.

Phonetic lack in non-English dialects to separate among duty and liability further intensifies the trouble in recognizing State responsibility and States’ global liability. Civil law vocabularies express the thought of liability as far as responsibility or civil responsibility. In this way, State responsibility alludes to a State’s responsibility under international law in general, though global liability means a State’s civil responsibility, or commitment to pay compensation or make reparations for wounds that non-nationals endure outside its national limits because of exercises inside its domain or under its influence. A State’s global obligation is locked in under international law yet in addition inside the national element of civil lawful frameworks in conditions including transnational relations. It is essential to comprehend the connection between State responsibility under universal law and international obligation of States for harmful outcomes that emerge out of exercises inside their purview or control and that influence different States or nationals of different States.

Under international liability, international conventions and multilateral treaties have created specialized regimes of implementation of secondary rights and obligations in several areas. Notwithstanding the presupposition of essential principles and essential commitments in State responsibility, the guidelines and commitments expounded under global risk establish the equivalent exact essential standards and commitments. Under State responsibility, the breach of essential standards and commitments brings about the utilization of optional principles in State obligation. Then again, under global risk, a breach will produce secondary commitments that must be satisfied under the law of State responsibility.

SPACE OBJECTS UNDER LIABILITY CONVENTION AND SPACE LAW

The term Object concerning space was first utilized in 1961 in General Assembly Resolution 1721 (XVI) titled International collaboration in the peaceful uses e of space to depict any item propelled  by States into space. Teacher Bin Cheng, a world expert on International Air and Space Law, has noticed that individuals from the COPUOS during dealings over the space arrangements rewarded shuttle and space vehicles as interchangeable terms. The Space Object can be considered as the regular launcher, the reusable launcher, the satellite, the orbital station, the test, the impactor, the space telescope. The five UN bargains talk about Space Objects. Article X of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1967) states that “So as to advance worldwide participation in the investigation and utilization of space, including the Moon and other divine bodies, in similarity with the reasons for this Treaty, the States Parties to the Treaty will consider on a premise of uniformity any solicitations by different States Parties to the Treaty to be managed a chance to watch the trip of room objects propelled by those States”. Likewise, under the Outer Space Treaty, Space Object involves risk, enlistment, and a restriction on the arrangement of weapons of mass decimation into space.

The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1968), particularly its Article 5, discusses Objects Launched into Outer Space. Under the Rescue and Return Agreement, we ought to likewise take note of that the term characterizes whether a State can ask for or send back a Space Object found in its region, just as the degree to which a State might be made up for the exertion. The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1972) discusses Space Objects as is the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1972) which determines in its Article I (b) that “The expression space object incorporates segment portions of a space object just as its dispatch vehicle and parts thereof”. Under the Liability Convention, we notice that Space Object characterizes the degree to which a State can apply a hypothesis of obligation in looking for pay or compensation for harm caused to different items in space, on the outside of the Earth, or airplane in flight. Under the Registration Convention, a State party must enroll its Space Objects so as to allocate nationality to a Space Object. At long last, Article 3 2. of the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1984) states that “Any danger or utilization of power or some other threatening act or danger of antagonistic follow up on the Moon is restricted. It is in like manner disallowed to utilize the Moon so as to submit any such demonstration or to participate in any such danger corresponding to the Earth, the Moon, rocket, the staff of shuttle or man-made space objects”.

Consequently, the way that a Space Object causing harm triggers universal obligation under the 1972 Liability Convention, that a Space Object requires enrollment by the 1975 Registration Convention, and that a Space Object adequately triggers the use of a significant part of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1968 Rescue Agreement, none of the Five Space Law Conventions characterize unequivocally what a Space Object is (and Space Object speak to explicit implications under various settlements).

As per the COPUOS (Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Legal Subcommittee, Fifty-seventh meeting, Vienna, April 2018, on The definition and delimitation of space, Suborbital flights and the delimitation of air space opposite space: functionalism, spatial and state sway, A Submission by the Space Safety Law and Regulation Committee of the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety), a rocket ought to be equipped for moving in space (either orbital or suborbital) with no help from the air, and ought to have a force source not needy upon outside oxygen. Educator Bin Cheng depicts a Space Object as a man-made article that is propelled or is planned to be propelled into space. A few States have re-imagined Space Object in their national law utilizing terms of workmanship and additionally through authorizing and enrollment systems under national law (Austria, Belgium, China, Spain, and so forth.). What is designated “the functionalist approach” – concerning the meaning of a Space Object – takes as a reference point the capacities or exercises of the vehicles? So to address the inquiry “Is it space make or an airplane?” one would ask: “Do the vehicle’s capacities look like to those of an airplane or of a rocket?” Functionalists accept that a suborbital vehicle ought to be named an airplane when the reason that it satisfies is inalienable to aeronautics exercises, while it is considered to be a shuttle when it fills space-related needs.

The functionalist hypothesis imparts basic grounds to what is classified “the specialist approach” (in view of the earth where the action is occurring); it analyzes whether the crash dangers of the vehicles are higher among aircraft or space make as per the area inside which the vehicle works.

Another hypothesis, which is firmly connected to the specialist approach, is “the streamlined lift hypothesis”. It proposes the boundary between air space and space at eighty-three kilometers over the outside of the Earth (or all in all somewhere in the range of eighty and ninety kilometers), as this is the point after which the airplane capacities can’t be kept up, for the thickness of the air isn’t adequate to help vehicles that have not accomplished round speed (the carrier is practically nil at that height). We can say that what can’t be viewed as an airplane is a rocket. Space items can be depicted as any article propelled into space from Earth, the Moon or other heavenly bodies to go to, in or through space, every fake article liable to discover or develop in space without the bearing quality of the air. A notional advancement joined the Aerospace Object.

LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY SPACE OBJECTS

At the point when damage is brought about by a space object in space, normally through a crash with another space object, global space law’s Liability Convention gives an instrument to compensation for the harmed state. Among different prerequisites, the Convention requires confirmation of state fault with the end goal for liability to emerge, however it doesn’t characterize this famously ambiguous term, nor does it set up a standard of care for those directing space exercises. The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (went into power on September 1, 1972) is unique in international law being the only shortcoming based liability system.

In the space field, given the quite certain nature of the activities, the topic of obligation essentially takes on a perspective contrasted with the great standards, either by a fortification of the responsibility or by the deletion of the responsibility. At the point when space exercises appeared, they were dependent upon the general duty of Public International Law with no exceptional technique. Since 1962, COPUOS had been examining to expand a unique convention. It was received and opened for signature on March 29, 1972 and has gone into power that year. Subsequently the Convention does not characterize what a space object is, neither does it build up a responsibility system for all space activities, which are then dependent upon the general international law of liability.

I. APPLICATION UNDER LIABILITY CONVENTION 1972

Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty (1967) states that “States Parties to the Treaty will bear international responsibility regarding national activities in space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, regardless of whether such activities are carried on by administrative organizations or by non-legislative entities, and for guaranteeing that national exercises are completed in congruity with the arrangements set out in the current Treaty. The exercises of non-administrative elements in space, including the Moon and other heavenly bodies, will require approval and proceeding with oversight by the suitable State Party to the Treaty. At the point when exercises are carried on in space, including the Moon and other divine bodies, by a global association, responsibility regarding consistency with this Treaty will be borne both by the international and by the States Parties to the Treaty taking an interest in such association”.

Article VII of a similar Treaty attests that “Each State Party to the Treaty that dispatches or secures the starting of an item into space, including the Moon and other divine bodies, and each State Party from whose region or office an article is propelled, is universally at risk for harm to another State Party to the Treaty or to its regular or juridical people by such item or its segment parts on the Earth, in air space or in space, including the Moon and other heavenly bodies”.

The terms liability and responsibility have particular implications in legal English. To be subject for something intends to be legitimately liable for something; risk is a lawful commitment. liability alludes to the consideration and thought an individual has for the result of their activities. It can likewise allude to an individual’s responsibility for a result to which their activities have contributed, along with any legitimate commitment they may need to fix any damage caused.

Article II of the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects enounce that “A starting State will be totally subject to pay remuneration for damage brought about by its space object on the outside of the Earth or to airplane in flight”. The accompanying article relates that “in case of harm being caused somewhere else than on the outside of the Earth to a space object of one propelling State or to people or property on board such a space object by a space object of another starting State, the last will be subject just if the damage is because of its shortcoming or the flaw of people for whom it is responsible”.

II. SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES

It’s the traditional guideline of discretionary assurance: universal responsibility is talked about just between States. Just one State can guarantee pay, either for itself or in the interest of physical or lawful people who have its nationality. The guideline has been widened since in case of inability to do as such: a State in whose region harm has been endured may likewise introduce the case to the starting State the solicitation must be sent inside one year). Article XII of the Convention expresses that “The pay which the starting State will be subject to pay for harm under this Convention will be resolved as per worldwide law and the standards of equity and value, so as to give such reparation in regard of the harm as will reestablish the individual, normal or juridical, State or universal association for whose sake the case is introduced to the condition which would have existed if the harm had not happened”.

Article XVIII and XIX of a similar Convention enounce that “The Claims Commission will choose the benefits of the case for pay and decide the measure of remuneration payable, assuming any” and that “The Commission will give its choice or grant as instantly as could be expected under the circumstances and no later than one year from the date of its foundation, except if augmentation of this period is discovered vital by the Commission”

In the Convention, references to States additionally concern global intergovernmental associations that participate in space exercises and have acknowledged the show: the state gatherings to the association of the last are together and severally at risk. The arbitral technique has never truly worked: almost no harm was brought about by space objects (with the exception of in 1969, a few mariners of a Japanese tanker were harmed by the flotsam and jetsam of a Soviet rocket, we can likewise make reference to Kosmos 954 or Kosmos 2251)9, and States need to stay attentive and abstain from making any point of reference based on the distinctive space arrangements.

From the earliest starting point of the Space Age, talking about the worldwide risk for harm brought about by space questions, the various members have denied making plan of action against one another. States have concurred on cross-waiver of risk: a cross-waiver is a lot of guarantees settled on by gatherings to an understanding in which every one of the gatherings vows not to sue the other for harms brought about by the other, with the exception of under explicit conditions. The utilization of these conditions has the result that if there should arise an occurrence of harm, everybody will bear the outcomes. Gatherings that take an interest in a framework may even remember a condition for which they dismiss any risk to outsiders and guarantee to participate to secure against claims for remuneration. That is the thing that we can say about the global risk for harm brought about by space objects.

Where does the militarization of space fit into this? Fully trusted, the Liability Convention could be viewed as a run of the mill “peacetime” understanding, intended to oversee standard, quiet relations between States. Truth be told, the Liability Convention can be perused as applying in circumstances of the furnished clash, and thusly to the military utilization of room.

Its Preamble thinks about that “despite the careful steps to be taken by States and worldwide intergovernmental associations engaged with the starting of room objects, harm may now and again be brought about by such articles.” This wording proposes that the Convention was planned basically to suit for mishaps, yet in no way, shape or form would it be able to be interpreted as, a fortiori, not being pertinent to harm caused intentionally.

For instance, where Art. VI explains the sole special cases to outright risk, it proceeds to state expressly that “no exemption whatever will be conceded in situations where the harm has come about because of exercises led by a starting State which are not in congruity with universal law including, specifically, the Charter of the United Nations” or the OST. While the importance of this arrangement might be discussed, there is little uncertainty that what the drafters had as the main priority is the UN Charter’s disallowance on the danger and utilization of power in global relations. The extremely expansive idea of ‘harm’ is characterized as “death toll, individual injury or other hindrance of wellbeing; or loss of or harm to property of States or of people, regular or juridical, or property of global intergovernmental associations” (Art. I (a)). As an issue of bargain translation, it appears to be crazy to recommend that a settlement which unmistakably covers instances of mishap would not likewise apply to harm caused intentionally, or is restricted to ponder harm caused outside of an outfitted clash.

THE LIABILITY CONVENTION AND ARMED CONFLICTS CIRCUMSTANCES

The recently investigated the general thought of “peaceful uses” of space, just as the more explicit system administering the utilization of weapons of mass decimation, there is a third part of room law that is applicable to the ‘militarization’ or ‘weaponization’ of space: the arrangement of global liability set up by the Outer Space Treaty (OST) and the 1972 Liability Convention.

In the event it is acknowledged that space law gives no broad disallowance of the militarization of space, looking at the risk system turns out to be especially applicable. Though militarization in the broadest sense is lawful, the idea of liability in any event compel the ‘weaponization of room’

(implied as the utilization of space for direct power organization in circumstances of furnished brutality).

The Liability Convention could be viewed as a common “peacetime” understanding, intended to administer ordinary, peaceful relations between States. Truth be told, the Liability Convention can be perused as applying in circumstances of armed conflicts, and consequently to the military utilization of room.

Its Preamble thinks about that “despite the prudent steps to be taken by States and universal intergovernmental associations engaged with the starting of room objects, harm may now and again be brought about by such items.” This wording recommends that the Convention was planned essentially to oblige for mishaps, however in no way, shape or form would it be able to be translated as, a fortiori, not being appropriate to harm caused intentionally.

For instance, where Art. VI illuminates the sole special cases to outright obligation, it proceeds to state expressly that “no absolution whatever will be allowed in situations where the harm has come about because of exercises directed by a starting State which are not in congruity with worldwide law including, specifically, the Charter of the United Nations” or the OST. While the importance of this arrangement might be discussed, there is little uncertainty that what the drafters had at the top of the priority list is the UN Charter’s restriction on the danger and utilization of power in universal relations. The extremely wide thought of ‘harm’ is characterized as “death toll, individual injury or other debilitation of wellbeing; or loss of or harm to property of States or of people, regular or juridical, or property of global intergovernmental associations” (Art. I (a)). As an issue of arrangement understanding, it appears to be preposterous to recommend that a settlement which plainly covers instances of mishap would not additionally apply to harm caused intentionally, or is constrained to consider harm caused outside of an armed conflict.

By the day’s end, the most combative issue with respect to the Liability Convention probably won’t be the point at which it applies, but instead to what objects. While space law utilizes the term ‘space object’ with some recurrence, it never really characterizes it, and all the Liability Convention needs to state on the issue is that the expression will incorporate “segment portions of a space object just as its dispatch vehicle and parts thereof” (Art. I (d)). This may infer that the drafters intentionally abstained from giving a precise definition, as there is a sure constraining quality to characterizing legitimate terms, regardless of how important.

That being stated, the thought ought to be taken to be as comprehensive as could be expected under the circumstances and incorporate any man-made item propelled into space, albeit a teleological examination is in like manner justified as in it is in any case by one way or another intended to work in space. In this way, a satellite or the Space Shuttle would surely be viewed as space protests in the feeling of the Liability Convention and the OST, while a rocket, propelled from one point on the outside of the Earth to another and quickly crossing the Kármán line, would not.

SPACE WEAPONS, DAMAGE AND COMPENSATION

Remembering the natural challenges in perusing space law as restricting the wide idea of militarization or, much more barely, weaponization of room, the above perusing of the Liability Convention proposes an irregular, yet conceivably valuable understanding of the arrangements.

For one, if any utilization of room weapons other than those referenced explicitly in bargain law (for example putting weapons of mass decimation in space or utilizing divine bodies for “non-serene” designs) were to be in accordance with the OST, global risk may by the by be brought about for any harm caused to different States Parties by such use.

More or less, it may not be illicit to utilize a space weapon (as an issue of room law) against another State, however whatever harm might be caused must be redressed. In the midst of armed conflict, worldwide philanthropic law (IHL) covers the possibility of reparations, yet these are never to be accommodated in any case legitimate demonstrations of fighting. The contrary, the space liability system would thusly add up to a “roundabout” disallowance in down to earth terms: if compensation is to be paid for any damage done, can such harm be named “legal” in the standard feeling of the word?

While the Liability Convention flaunts exactly ninety States Parties, there is just too little work on in regards to its application to give believability to a specific translation. The single case under the Convention so far — made by Canada against the USSR after the 1978 Kosmos 954 incident — was made as for peacetime harms. It is not yet clear how such a case would toll for harms made in armed conflict.

Thus, regardless of whether the appropriateness of the Convention in armed conflict circumstances was to be affirmed, the between State nature of the obligation system would apparently restrict its significance for the non-global equipped clash, still, as a rule, battled inside the domain of a solitary State. Nonetheless, dissimilar to IHL, which, when in doubt, sets up commitments between antagonistic gatherings, the Liability Convention anticipates obligation for any harm caused to the people or property of another State. This would absolutely be a restricting component for the utilization of power from space even in the midst of non-universal armed conflicts, which is progressively extraterritorial and frequently include nationals of different nations.

This expansive and comprehensive understanding of the Liability Convention, aside from being steady with the pacifism inborn in present-day global law, may moreover serve to settle the worries of the individuals who point to the more positive side of room militarization, (for example, the utilization of satellites for the increasingly exact direction of weapons, bringing about less regular citizen “inadvertent blow-back”). To be sure, rather than constraining general military employments of room, the risk system would control its weaponization. I accept that forestalling the last stays an issue most of humanists would strive for.

CONCLUSION

International law provides a framework for any scientific, commercial or even military activities in space. As such, it can restrict specific activities, but it may not direct them. The latter remains primarily the domain of policy.At the end of the day, the most contentious issue regarding the Liability Convention might not be when it applies, but rather to what objects. While space law uses the term ‘space object’ with some frequency, it never actually defines it, and all the Liability Convention has to say on the matter is that the phrase shall include “component parts of a space object as well as its launch vehicle and parts thereof” (Art. I (d)). This might imply that the drafters purposefully avoided giving an exact definition, as there is a certain limiting quality to defining legal terms, no matter how relevant.

That being said, the notion should be taken to be as inclusive as possible and include any man-made object launched into space, although a teleological analysis is likewise warranted in the sense that it is nevertheless somehow meant to function in space. Thus, a satellite or the Space Shuttle would certainly be considered space objects in the sense of the Liability Convention and the OST, whereas a missile, launched from one point on the surface of the Earth to another and briefly traversing the Kármán line, would not.

International law gives a system to any logical, business or even military exercises in space. All things considered, it can limit explicit activities, however it may not immediate them. The last remains basically the area of policy. At the day’s end, the most combative issue with respect to the Liability Convention probably won’t be the point at which it applies, but instead to what objects. While space law utilizes the term ‘space object’ with some recurrence, it never really characterizes it, and all the Liability Convention needs to state on the issue is that the expression will incorporate “segment portions of a space object just as its dispatch vehicle and parts thereof” (Art. I (d)). This may suggest that the drafters intentionally abstained from giving a careful definition, as there is a sure constraining quality to characterizing lawful terms, regardless of how applicable.

That being stated, the idea ought to be taken to be as comprehensive as could be expected under the circumstances and incorporate any man-made item propelled into space, albeit a teleological examination is moreover justified as in it is in any case some way or another intended to work in space. Therefore, a satellite or the Space Shuttle would absolutely be viewed as space questions in the feeling of the Liability Convention and the OST, though a rocket, propelled from one point on the outside of the Earth to another and quickly navigating the Kármán line, would not.

Author: Swati Anand, Legal Intern at Legal Desire (June 2020)

Swati Anand is a budding law student at NMIMS school of law, Bangalore. She takes interest in human rights, legal writing and legal research. She also enjoys sports and plays basketball. She is always enthusiastic and ready to learn new things. She likes to travel and explore new places.

The post LIABILITY CONVENTION 1972 (SPACE LAW) appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Space law comprises all the law that may govern or apply to outer space and activities in and relating to outer space…’Space Law’ is the Law of Space, and can range from the terms of an insurance contract in respect of a particular space launch to the broadest of principles that govern how states act in outer space. Some ‘Space law’ is therefore simply the application of the principles of existing domestic law such as contract to a new field activity. ‘Space Law’ is particular law, developed to deal with the practical problems of the use and exploration of outer space.(1)

In other words the space law may be defined as “the body of regulations in international that governs conduct in and related to areas of space above Earth’s lower atmosphere.”(2)

It can be said that the Space law can be described as that branch of law which is applicable to and governing the space law related activities. The space law is that area of law which includes all the national and international conduct in the outer space.

Outer space….shall be free for exploration and use by all States…in accordance with international law.(3) States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law.(4)

LAW RELATING TO SPACE

It may be discussed under two heads:-

(A) Law relating to space at International level.

(B) Law relating to space at National level (i.e., law relating to space in India).

(A) Law relating to Space at International Level:- Space law is a creature of international law which is a combination of customs and treaties. An example of customary space law is the principle of free passage in space established when the USSR launched Sputnik into orbit and crossed over territories other than its own without protest from those countries.(5) In the year 1959, the United Nations created the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space created two sub- committees, the Scientific and Technical sub-committee and Legal sub-committee. It can be said that the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space has been a primary forum for discussion and negotiate of international agreements on outer space. There were five international treaties which have been negotiated and drafted in the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space:-

(1) The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, (2) The Rescue Agreement of 1968, (3) The Liability Convention of 1972, (4) The Registration Convention of 1975, and (5) The Moon Treaty of 1979.

(1) The Outer Space Treaty of 1967:- The primary treaty governing the law of space is the Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies or more commonly known as the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The Outer Space Treaty was created shortly after United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space set forth its fundamentals governing the use of outer space and incorporates and expands upon those fundamentals and serves as the parent for the subject matter of the other four space law treaties. The overriding principle of the Outer Space Treaty is that space is the common heritage of all mankind and that all nations have access to space and the resources contained within it and that the territory in outer space, on the moon or other celestial bodies cannot be claimed by any nation. This prohibition does not extend to private individuals or legal entities.(6)

The Outer Space Treaty specifically bans the placement of nuclear weapons or any other weapon of mass destruction in the orbit of Earth or on any celestial body. It does not specifically address the placement of non-nuclear weapons or those that are not capable of causing mass destruction.

(2) The Rescue Agreement of 1968:- The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space or more commonly known as the Rescue Agreement expands on the duties introduced in the Outer Space Treaty to render assistance to astronauts in distress. The Rescue agreement delineates the requirements of a State to come to the aid of astronauts in distress.(7)

(3) The Liability Convention of 1972:- The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects or more commonly known as the Liability Convention expands the principles of liability for damage caused by space objects introduced in the Outer Space Treaty. Two scenarios are envisioned by the Liability Convention:- (a) a space object causes damage to the surface of the earth or an aircraft in flight; or (b) a space object causes damage some place other than the surface of the earth i.e., outer space or another celestial body.(8)

(4) The Registration Convention of 1975:- The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space or more commonly known as the Registration Convention builds on the principle of the Outer Space Treaty concerning the registration of objects launched by a State. The impetus behind the Registration Convention is to ensure the peaceful use of outer space by creating a duty for States to create a registry of spacecraft that it launches and to make that registry available for public inspection.(9)

(5) The Moon Treaty of 1979:- The final and most controversial child of the Outer Space Treaty is the Agreement Governing the Activities on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies or more commonly known as the Moon Treaty. The Moon Treaty takes the concept of non-appropriation by nations from the Outer Space Treaty and closes the loophole for private entities barring them from laying claim to the moon or other celestial bodies and extending that prohibition to resources as well. The Moon Treaty expands the “common heritage” language and suggest that not only is extraterrestrial property and the resources contained within belong to all mankind, but the technology and means to obtain those resources must be shared with who could not otherwise obtain it on their own. This suggests that intellectual property rights as well as real property and resources rights are implicated as well.(10)

(B) Law relating to space at National level (i.e., law relating to space in India):- Space legislation in India is the ultimate need of the nation, especially because India is progressively looking forward to privatize and commercialize space assets, expand and develop capability in space exploration and scientific discovery, commercialize its competence to build satellites and offer launch service from its launch vehicles.(11)

India is a party to all the above significant international treaties i.e., (1) The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, (2) The Rescue Agreement of 1968, (3) The Liability Convention of 1972, (4) The Registration Convention of 1975, and (5) The Moon Treaty of 1979.

As far as India is concerned, India has a tremendous heritage in the field of scientific research. In this juncture, we must thank our Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru for his vision relating to the space law in India. The space revolution in India began with the launching of small sounding rockets from the Thumba Equitorial Rocket Launching Station (TERLS) in the year 1963 under the support of the United Nations. In 1975, India entered in to the space age by the launching of the first scientific satellite namely Aryabhatta on 19 April 1975 from the former Soviet Cosmodrome at Baikanur. The launching of SLV-3 in July 1980 brought India more close to the dream of achieving indigenous satellite launch capability. With the launch of Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) on 15 October 1994, India achieved the indigenous satellite launch capability. India has now specially made PSLV and Geosynchrous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV).(12)

The space and space related matters in India are regulated by legal rules belonging to domestic laws. This is because India does not have any legislation on space and space related matters. At present the position in India is that space industry is legally determined by the Indian Constitution, 1950. Articles mentioned in the constitution of India foster respect for International Law such as Article 51 of the Indian Constitution imposes on the state obligation to strive for the promotion of international peace and security, including maintaining just and reasonable relation between nations, respect for international law and treaty obligation, and settlement of international dispute by arbitration. Under Art 73 the executive power of the union extends a) to the matter relating to which parliament has power to make laws, b) to exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as one exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of any treaty or agreement.(13)

Our space legislation should incorporate (i) the legal issues connected to launch services (space transportation systems); (ii) the legal issues connected to satellite telecommunications, including satellite broadcasting; (iii) analyze issues associated to earth observation services as well as data processing and distribution; (iv) satellite navigational systems and (v) analyzes the intellectual property.

CONCLUSION

Space law can be described as that branch of law which is applicable to and governing the space law related activities. The space law is that area of law which includes all the national and international conduct in the outer space. India does not have any legislation on space and space related matters. At present the position in India is that space industry is legally determined by the Indian Constitution, 1950. Articles mentioned in the constitution of India foster respect for International Law such as Article 51 of the Indian Constitution imposes on the state obligation to strive for the promotion of international peace and security, including maintaining just and reasonable relation between nations, respect for international law and treaty obligation, and settlement of international dispute by arbitration.

ENDNOTES

(1). Francis Lyall & Paul B. Larsen, Space Law: A Treatise 2 (2009).

(2). Definition of Space Law, Encyclopedia Britannica Online: Academic Edition 2011, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/557401/space-law

(3). Outer Space Treaty Article I.

(4). Ibid, Article III.

(5). Listner J. Michael, International Space Law: An Overview of Law and Issues, New Hampshire Bar Journal, Spring 2011, p. 62.

(6). Ibid, p. 62.

(7). Ibid, p. 63.

(8). Ibid, p. 63.

(9). Ibid, p. 64.

(10). Ibid, p. 64.

(11). Kaushik Dhar Mr., Need of Space Law in India, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, p. 1, available at http://works.bepress.com/kaushikdhar/1/

(12). Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO); www.isro.org

(13). Kaushik Dhar Mr., Need of Space Law in India, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, p. 2, availabe at http://works.bepress.com/kaushikdhar/1/

The post Law relating to Space appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.