Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
569
Marinich V.K., Myklush M.I. Space Law, Sub-
jects and Jurisdictions: pre-1963 period.
This article is a continuation of an extensive
study of the process and results of the regulation
of space activities over the period from 1958 to the
present, the purpose of which is a deep analysis of
international documents adopted over the entire pe-
riod of space activities.
The article is focused on an attempt to answer
some controversial or unresolved issues related to
the regulation of relations in outer space and on ce-
lestial bodies.
Thus, for example, there are still many dierent
theories and discussions on the topic: Does space
law exist or not, and provided it exists, what docu-
ments can be attributed to its sources? Who can be
the founder of space law, and to what extent? What
can be the subjects and objects of space activities
and space law? And, of course, one of the most im-
portant issues is the question of the jurisdictions of
subjects of space activities and space law.
To understand this, it is necessary to return to
the origins of the process of regulating space activ-
ities, namely, during the period 1958-1963 years,
when the technical exploration of outer space and
celestial bodies had just begun and the rst and
most important documents in this area were adopt-
ed, namely, the rst Resolutions and UN Declaration.
Based on the analysis of these documents and
the circumstances in which they were created, as
well as taking into account the various opinions of
scientists and the basic postulates of the theory of
law, and even taking into account some philosophi-
cal aspects of human nature, this article attempts to
dene and describe the essence of space law, exist-
ing and possible spatial and territorial jurisdictions
and also the subject-object composition of partici-
pants in space activities.
Key words: outer space law, space activity, ju-
risdiction, subjects, objects.
Марініч В.К., Миклуш М.І. Космічне право,
суб’єкти та юрисдикції: період до 1963 року.
Ця стаття є продовженням великого
дослідження процесу та результатів регулювання
космічної діяльності за період, починаючи з 1958
року і до сьогодні, метою якого є глибокий аналіз
міжнародних документів, прийнятих за весь
період здійснення космічної діяльності.
Безпосередньо у цій статті робиться спроба
відповісти на деякі спірні чи невирішені питання,
пов’язані з регулюванням відносин у космічному
просторі та на небесних тілах.
Так, наприклад, досі існує безліч різних теорій
та дискусій на тему: Космічне право є чи його
немає, і якщо воно є, то які документи можна
віднести до його джерел? Хто може бути творцем
космічного права, та в яких межах? Які можуть
бути суб’єкти та об’єкти космічної діяльності
та космічного права? І, звичайно ж, одним із
найважливіших питань є питання про юрисдикції
суб’єктів космічної діяльності та космічного права.
Для того, щоб це зрозуміти, необхідно
повернутися до витоків процесу регулювання
космічної діяльності, а саме – у період 1958–1963
років, коли тільки почалося технічне освоєння
космічного простору та небесних тіл і було
прийнято перші найважливіші документи у цій
галузі – перші Резолюції та Декларація ООН.
На основі аналізу цих документів та обставин,
у яких вони створювалися, а також з урахуванням
різних думок вчених та основних постулатів теорії
права, і навіть з урахуванням деяких філософських
аспектів природи людини, у цій статті робиться
спроба визначити та описати суть космічного
права, просторово-територіальні юрисдикції, що
вже існують і які можуть бути, а також суб’єктно-
об’єктний склад учасників космічної діяльності.
Ключові слова: космічне право, космічна
діяльність, юрисдикція, суб’єкти, об’єкти.
1. Introduction.
1.1. Problem Statement. It may seem that
cosmonautics is a young science. However, in real-
ity, attempts to explore Outer space have very an-
cient roots.
Already in the third millennium BC, the ancient
Egyptians carried out rather complex scientic re-
search of the Universe beyond the Earth. Then it
was known about the existence of cosmogonic theo-
ries on the origin of the Universe, which are increas-
ingly beginning to resemble scientic hypotheses
УДК 34.01
DOI https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2023.04.90
SPACE LAW, SUBJECTS AND JURISDICTIONS: PRE-1963 PERIOD
Marinich V.K.,
Ph.D. candidate in Law (the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine)
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3206-1436
Myklush M.I.,
CEO, Law Firm “FOX” of Maryna Myklush”
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2202-9482
РОЗДІЛ ХІ. МІЖНАРОДНЕ ПРАВО
570 Електронне наукове видання «Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство»
put forward by modern physics and astronomy.
Over time, the passion for Space exploration fad-
ed, and ancient knowledge was lost.
A new stage in Space scientic exploration can be
considered the period of the development of philos-
ophy and science in the 6-4 centuries BC in Ancient
Greece. Thus, in the 6th century BC Anaximander of
Miletus (approximately lived in the period 611 – 546
BC) found “The law of conservation of matter” and
expounded “The Cosmogony” as well as “The theo-
ry of primordial” under the name “apeiron” (in the
treatise “On nature”) [26, p. 42]. Later, Democritus
from Abder (approximately lived in the period 460-
370 BC) expounded the theory of “The Void” and
“Atomism” (in the works “The Great World-System”,
“On the Planets”, “Heavenly Causes”, “Description
of the Heavens”, “Terrestrial Causes”, etc.) [26,
p. 48–49]. Subsequently, Eudoxus of Cnidus (ap-
proximately lived in the period 408-355 BC) outlined
his planetary-spherical theory, suggesting that the
shape of the Earth and other space objects is spher-
ical (his works have not reached us, but are men-
tioned in the mathematical “Elements” by Euclid).
The result of these studies was Aristotle’s (approx-
imately lived in the period 384 – 322 BC) theory
of geocentric cosmology (essays “On the Heavens”,
“Physics”, and “Meteorologica”).
Later, with the spread and establishment of the
Christian religion in Europe, Space exploration ac-
quired an unscientic religious character. This con-
tinued until the 16th century AD.
The next stage of Space scientic exploration
can be considered the period from the 16th cen-
tury AD to the beginning of the 19th century AD,
which was marked by the creation of the theory on
the heliocentric system of the world, outlined in the
work “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres”
(Latin name is De revolutionibus orbium coelestium)
by Polish scientist Nicolaus Copernicus (lived in the
period 1473 – 1543).
However, the main stage of Space exploration
can be called the period that began in the rst quar-
ter of the 19th century AD and continues to this day.
This is the period of practical space exploration.
The beginning of this period can be character-
ized by the creation of a formula that established
the connection between the speed of the rocket at
any moment of its movement, the rate of gas out-
ow from the nozzle, the mass of the rocket, and
the mass of explosives (the rocket equation). The
rst attempts to create this formula were carried
out by British mathematician William Moore, Scot-
tish mathematician and physicist Peter Guthrie Tait,
and Russian scientist Ivan Vsevolodovich Meshcher-
sky. This formula acquired its nal form in 1897 in
a manuscript by Polish-Russian scientist Konstantin
Tsiolkovsky (who lived in the period 1857–1935),
which was published in 1903 [17, p. 1]. In memory
of the rst publication, this formula was named the
Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. Although this formula
was imperfect and had many shortcomings, it could
be considered that the era of practical space explo-
ration had begun.
At the same time, processes for regulating
space activities are beginning to emerge. In 1932
Vladimir Mandl published the rst study on the so-
called “space law”, and in 1953 Wolf Heinrich Prince
of Hanover presented his doctoral thesis entitled
“Luftrecht und Weltraum” (“Air Law and Space”)
[17, p. 1].
The 1950s can be called the period of the begin-
ning of the Outer Space Race, in which the USSR
seized the initial leadership. Ukrainian and Soviet
scientist Sergei Pavlovich Korolev (lived in the peri-
od 1906 – 1966) developed and created space ve-
hicles with three- and four-stage launchers, which
on October 4, 1957, allowed him to launch into
near-Earth orbit the rst in the history of mankind
satellite “Sputnik 1”. This launch shocked everyone
because the satellite “Sputnik 1” weighed 84 kg,
while the USA was just developing the possibility of
launching into space a satellite weighing 10 kg [14,
p. 353]. However, the hype had not yet subsided, as
on November 3, 1957, the USSR launched a satellite
‘Sputnik 2’ weighing 508 kg with the rst animal
on board (the dog Layka) [14, p. 353]. In 1958,
with the direct participation of Sergei Korolev, the
geophysical satellite “Sputnik 3” was developed and
launched into space, and then the paired Electron
satellites for the study of the Earth’s radiation belts
were also launched. The reason for such a success
was that in the USSR, the organization of space ve-
hicle launches into space was carried out only by
military state bodies that had the appropriate tech-
nologies and resources.
Only on January 31, 1958 the United States
managed to launch its rst research satellite into
orbit using the space vehicle “Jupiter C”. Although
it was a joint military-civilian state project, from
that moment the United States faced a division of
space activities into military and civilian. Military
space vehicles were launched into space by mili-
tary government agencies under the direction of
the Department of Defense (DOD), and launches
of civil research space vehicles were carried out by
civilian government agencies under the control of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), established under the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Act (NASAct), adopted in 1958 [14,
p. 353].
Further, the development of space activities took
place very rapidly. Already in 1959 three automatic
stations to the Moon were created and launched in
the USSR. On April 12, 1961, Sergei Korolev man-
aged to create and launch the rst manned space-
craft “Vostok 1”, which allowed Yuriy Gagarin to
carry out the world’s rst human ight into space.
Since that moment, representatives of more than
571
40 countries of the world have already gone into
space, many of which have directly participated in
the work of the International Space Station. Just
over 60 years have elapsed since the rst manned
ight into space, but plans for space tourism, hu-
man exploration of the Moon and Mars, and ights
beyond the Solar System are already being serious-
ly discussed in the scientic society.
All these research and scientic and technical
achievements in the eld of space eventually led to
the need to regulate relations among participants in
space activities.
At the same time, it was clear that existing inter-
national documents (for example, the Chicago Con-
vention of 1944) could not regulate the relationship
on the use of space vehicles, since they concerned
only ‘aircraft’, whereas the concept of ‘spacecraft’
(or ‘space vehicle’) does not meet the requirements
of the denition of an ‘aircraft’ as laid down in air
law [17, p. 4].
At the initial stage, the States that participated
in the space race developed their standards related
to the training of astronauts, the creation of space-
craft, and the behavior of astronauts in space. How-
ever, the jurisdiction of all these regulations extend-
ed only to the territory of the relevant State.
Thus, the international community was faced
with the question of creating a common law that
could regulate space activities outside the States.
The implementation of this task was carried out
by both certain States and the international com-
munity under the leadership of the United Nations
General Assembly (the UN GA or the UN General As-
sembly), which subsequently led to the emergence
of a fairly large number of international and national
acts in the eld of space activities.
However, to date, these documents have not giv-
en answers to questions about what can be con-
sidered Space Law and its sources as well as about
the subjects and jurisdictions in space activities and
space law.
To understand this, it is necessary to return to
the origins of the process of regulating space activ-
ities, namely, to the period 1958-1963, when the
technical exploration of outer space and celestial
bodies had just begun and the rst most important
documents in this area were adopted, namely, the
rst Resolutions and UN Declaration.
The main documents on the regulation of space
activities created by the international community in
the period up to 1963 can be considered the follow-
ing:
– the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1148
(XII) “Regulation, limitation and balanced reduction
of all armed forces and all armaments; conclusion
of an international convention (treaty) on the re-
duction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic,
hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction”,
adopted by the UN GA during its 12th session at the
716th plenary meeting, 14 Nov. 1957 (the UN GA
Resolution 1148) [6];
– the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1348
(XIII) “Question of the peacefull use of outer space”,
adopted by the UN GA during its 13th session at the
792nd plenary meeting, 13 Dec. 1958 (the UN GA
Resolution 1348) [7];
– the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1472
(XIV) “International co-operation in the peaceful
uses of outer space”, adopted by the UN GA during
its 14th session at the 856th plenary meeting, 12
Dec. 1959 (the UN GA Resolution 1472) [8];
– the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1721
(XVI) “International co-operation in the peaceful
uses of outer space”, adopted by the UN GA during
its 16th session, 20 Dec. 1961 (the UN GA Resolu-
tion 1721) [12];
– the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1802
(XVII) “International co-operation in the peaceful
uses of outer space”, adopted by the UN GA during
its 17th session at the 1192nd plenary meeting, 14
Dec. 1962 (the UN GA Resolution 1802) [13];
– Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the
Atmosphere, in outer space and under water
(No. 6964), signed at Moscow (Union of Soviet So-
cialist Republics, United States of America and Unit-
ed Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland),
on 5 August 1963 (the Treaty № 6964) [21];
– the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1884
(XVIII) “Question of general and complete disarma-
ment”, adopted by the UN GA during its 18th session
at the 1244th plenary meeting, 17 Oct. 1963 (the
UN GA Resolution 1884) [9];
– the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing
the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer Space, adopted by the UN GA during its 18th
session at the 1280th plenary meeting, 13 Dec.
1963, No. 1962 (XVIII) (the Declaration of Legal
Principles) [10];
– the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1963
(XVIII) “International Co-operation in the peaceful
uses of outer space”, adopted by the UN GA during
its 18th session at the 1280th plenary meeting, 13
Dec. 1963 (the UN GA Resolution 1963) [11].
1.2. The article is aimed at analyzing and sys-
tematizing the above documents.
The aforementioned will ensure the possibility
to identify (dene, classify, and formulate) the ba-
sic principles, concepts, models, and rules of space
activities, spatial and territorial jurisdictions as well
as the subject-object composition of participants in
space activities.
In addition, the results of this study make it pos-
sible to understand what issues remained unresolved
in the eld of space activities at this stage and also
understand the new tasks the international commu-
nity has to solve and identify possible solutions.
1.3. The status of the issue. At the same time,
it should be noted that today many scientists, dip-
РОЗДІЛ ХІ. МІЖНАРОДНЕ ПРАВО
572 Електронне наукове видання «Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство»
lomats, and honored lawyers have studied the evo-
lution of the process of regulating space activities.
However, it is necessary to underline that the
majority of them provided deep analysis only of
global international documents on the regulation of
space activities, such as international treaties or UN
conventions. At the same time, other international
documents, such as Resolutions and Declarations
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
were subjected to only supercial analysis concern-
ing their insignicance. In turn, it was precisely this
position that led to the emergence of a “patchwork”
and “leaky” quilt, which today consists of the so-
called Space Law, where most of the processes have
remained unsettled or are irresponsibly violated.
In addition, it is essential to pay attention to the
fact that, in general, scientists considered the pro-
cess of regulation of space law only from the point
of view of states or international organizations,
bypassing the point of view of such participants in
space activities as people, non-governmental, and
commercial organizations. This has led to the fact
that such studies have become one-sided and have
missed other important elements of the process of
regulation of space activities.
In this regard, it is necessary to conduct a new
study of this process to get answers to all of the
above questions.
2. The basic material. Outer space law.
2.1. Outer space law: to be or not to be, that
is the question.
That is, already at this stage, the foundation was
laid for the creation and future development of rules
for the regulation of space activities.
At the same time, when analyzing the scientic
literature, one can notice that most scientists and
writers condently apply the term “The Space law”
(or “Outer space law”) to the process of regulating
space activities. For example, a book on the reg-
ulation of space activities, which was written by a
member of the International Institute of Space Law
Albert K. Lai, contains in its title the phrase “The
Law of Outer Space” [20]. British legal scholar Bin
Cheng named his book on the same topic “Studies
in International Space Law” [16]. A book about the
history of the process of regulating space activi-
ties, which was written by Prof. Dr. I. H. Ph. Die-
deriks-Verschoor is called “An introduction to space
law” [17]. Fabio Tronchetti called his book on space
activities “Fundamentals of Space Law and Policy”
[25], and Imre Anthony Csaba named his book
“The concept of state jurisdiction in international
space law” [3]. Many other lawyers, scientists, and
authors analyzed the process of regulating space
activities, including through the UN Resolutions
and Declarations as well as through international
treaties.
As Fabio Tronchetti noted, expressing a fairly
widespread opinion, everyone usually understands
by space law the set of international and national
rules and regulations governing human activities in
and relating to outer space [25, p.viii].
However, everything is not as clear as it seems
at rst glance, since there are many other opinions
on this topic.
For example, according to a fairly common point
of view, it is believed that the Declaration of Legal
Principles is no more than an academic exercise [5,
p. 21] and only a formal declarative source as well
as the UN General Assembly Resolutions have no
legal force because they are only recommendations
[3, p. 101] even for the UN members [5, p. 19].
As the French delegate noted on this occasion,
when discussing the Declaration of Legal Principles
at the plenary session of the Assembly, the set of
Resolutions and Declarations of the UN General As-
sembly cannot be called space law, because they
cannot inherently create binding norms for every-
one [1, p. 147]. Moreover, the French delegation
stated that this Declaration is only a document of
intent, and the UN General Assembly Resolutions,
even if they are adopted unanimously, cannot cre-
ate legal obligations that can occur only from inter-
national agreements [5, p. 19]. Further, delegates
from many other countries also drew attention to
this fact [1, p. 157–159]. And if the UN’s authority
to adopt Resolutions and Declarations on the regu-
lation of space activities has never been questioned,
then there have been many legal disputes about the
legal eect of such documents [5, p. 17]. As a result
of such discussions, most delegations disagreed on
whether the Resolutions and Declarations of the UN
General Assembly could be considered the founda-
tions of space law, except for the USA delegation,
who insisted that at least the Declaration reected
international law as accepted by the United Nations
members [5, p. 18].
In turn, many lawyers and scientists, on the con-
trary, believe that the Resolutions and Declarations
of the UN General Assembly can form a positive in-
ternational outer space law and be legally binding
even without having the legal eect of a Treaty [5,
p. 17]. It was even suggested that the UN General
Assembly Resolutions on the Organization of Space
Activities can create an “instant” custom law [5,
p. 17]. At the same time, even supporters of this
point of view believe that the Resolutions and Dec-
larations of the UN General Assembly can be called
space law only conditionally, and then with the char-
acteristic of “Soft Law”, where most of the conditions
are fullled only voluntarily and is not legally bind-
ing rules of international law, but is only non-bind-
ing “norms” or guidelines found [15, p. 405].
Even though most States voluntarily began to
comply with the conditions and principles set out in
the Resolutions and Declaration of the UN General
Assembly (or pretended to comply), this issue re-
mains open.
573
Given this situation and a large number of dif-
ferent opinions on this topic, for further analysis of
documents regulating space activities, it is still nec-
essary to determine the “existence or absence of
space law”.
At the same time, many legal scholars can say
that space law was formed in the middle of the 20th
century, and the UN documents or interstate agree-
ments became the basis for it, and some will even
say that space law could even be called a kind of
stable oral agreement between two or more astro-
nauts who are simultaneously in outer space.
At the same time, historians and theologians can
say that space law has existed for a very long time
and it appeared back in the days when the rst peo-
ple began to talk about traveling beyond the Earth
(space, paradise, the afterlife, Olympus, Nirvana,
and so on) and about the rules of behavior in such
journeys, described in numerous myths, legends,
and cosmogonic theories.
However, if we abstract from the ancient percep-
tion of the world, which sometimes seems too meta-
physical to people, then we can say that we should
not expect from “space law” the form in which peo-
ple are used to recognize the “law”, due to the ex-
clusivity of the environment in which this new “law”
will be formed. It can even be assumed that space
law will not always be based on “heavy” interna-
tional acts and its basis may be new principles and
conditions beyond state agreements.
At the same time, it should be noted that the
comparison of space law with maritime and air law,
which often occurs during such discussions, cannot
be considered correct. After all, maritime and air
laws regulate relations in the redistribution of the
planet Earth, where a person is born, grows up, and
lives, and where all natural environments are inter-
connected with each other and with humans. How-
ever, the environment for the application of space
law is outer space and celestial bodies outside the
Earth, which are not a human habitat - for a person
this environment is alien, where he is only a guest.
In turn, when people come to someone else’s envi-
ronment, the principle of “alien room” appears for
them and they cannot set their own rules there, but
can only agree on how they should behave being a
guest. That is, they can only set rules for their be-
havior in an “alien room”, which we can understand
as Extraterrestrial or Space law.
At the same time, to determine the existence of
such a Space law, it is necessary to form its de-
scription and understanding. For this, rst of all, it
is important to understand what characteristics of
general “law” can be applied to describe “space law”,
and to which subjects it will be applied.
According to O. F. Skakun, academician of the
National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, the
law is a system of legal principles and norms (rules
of conduct) formed in society as a fair measure of
freedom and equality, which are established and
provided by the state [23, p. 227]. In turn, Fabio
Tronchetti describes law as the system of regula-
tions to govern the conduct of the people of a com-
munity, society, or nation, in response to the need
for regularity, consistency, and justice [25, p. vii].
The majority of other scientists and lawyers adhere
to approximately the same opinions regarding the
interpretation of the so-called “internal” law (but
sometimes in dierent formulations). In turn, “ex-
ternal” law (or public international law) covers rela-
tions between states in all their myriad forms and
regulates the operations of the many international
institutions and non-governmental organizations
[22, p. 2].
That is, we can conditionally assume that law is
a system of permanent principles and norms reg-
ulating the relations and behavior of certain sub-
jects (participants) within the community (or soci-
ety, nation, or state) as well as regulating relations
among such communities (or societies, or nations,
or states).
However, this formulation cannot be used in full
to describe space law, since it does not take into
account the exclusive environment of its application
(outer space and celestial bodies outside the Earth).
So, to date, it is unknown about the existence of
specic nations and States outside the Earth, within
which such a law could be applied. This means that
it is necessary to exclude from this formula the pro-
cesses of regulating relations within “nations” and
“states”. At the same time, such processes of regu-
lating relations can occur among nations and states,
within the framework of specic unions or other as-
sociations based on international agreements.
Thus, taking into account the above, Outer space
law can be described as a system of permanent
principles and norms governing the relations and
behavior of certain subjects within a community or
society, or union of nations, or union of other orga-
nizations. At the same time, the term community,
in this case, can be applied to people, and the term
society could be applied to all intelligent beings in
the Universe.
In addition, for the correct interpretation of the
concept of “law”, rst of all, it is necessary to take
into account not the established theoretical dogmas,
but the etymology of the word “law” itself and recall
how the Ancient Roman lawyer Ulpianus described
its origin: “Est autem a justitia appellatum: nam, ut
eleganter Celsus denit, jus est ars boni et aequi”
[4, p. 18] (translated by the author: “it comes from
the word ‘justice’, because according to the excel-
lent denition of Celsus, law is the art of the good
and justice”).
In turn, the concept of “justice” is a certain spir-
itual and moral form of the state of the attitude of
everyone to everyone. There are many dierent
philosophical, legal, and economic denitions of the
РОЗДІЛ ХІ. МІЖНАРОДНЕ ПРАВО
574 Електронне наукове видання «Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство»
concept of “justice”, but all these denitions can be
conditionally reduced to an interpretation that de-
scribes a just society as a society of equal rights and
equal opportunities based on impartial and unbiased
relations.
Given this interpretation, the concept of “justice”
can only be applied to the term “principles”, which
can express an impartial and unbiased attitude to
something. It cannot be applied to the term “norms
of behavior” (not to be confused with moral norms),
since “norms of behavior” are often based not on
justice, but on the stability of society, on the par-
tiality of the majority of society, and standards of
behavior recognized by the majority of society or a
small group governing society (and not the whole
society). That is, the norms of behavior cannot be
fair for everyone, but can only be considered con-
ditionally fair by the majority of society (although
even this rarely happens in modern times).
At the same time, a very important point, in
this case, is that the principles inherently presup-
pose their voluntary execution, and the execution
of norms of behavior is often mandatory-compulso-
ry, despite doubts about their fairness. That is, the
essence of the principles is to show how it is pos-
sible to act correctly (fairly) and how it is possible
to act incorrectly (unfairly) without responsibility for
wrong actions. In turn, the essence of the norms of
behavior is to indicate how it is allowed to act (be-
cause their creators believe that it is “right”), and
how it is impossible to act (because their creators
believe that it is “wrong”) with the mandatory es-
tablishment of responsibility for their violation.
Accordingly, given such a dierence in principles
and norms, it can be assumed that the principles
and norms of behavior can be applied to dierent
subjects. How can we not remember here Irish and
British writer and philosopher Jonathan Swift, who
wrote that not everyone can be considered an “An-
imal Rationale” (a rational being), because in most
cases a person is only an “Animal capax Rationis”
(capable of reason) [19, p. xxxiv]. He proceeded
from the fact that for “Animal rationale” it is enough
only to know how to act correctly (that is, to know
fair principles) to do the right thing. In turn, for “An-
imal capax rationis” and for all others prescribed
norms are needed to indicate how to act and the
types of actions that are punished.
At the same time, taking into account the fact
that Space law is a new sphere of law that is not
related to human habitats, one can aord to form
an absolutely new concept of law regulating space
activities based on combining established doctrinal
concepts of law with its original purpose and philo-
sophical concepts of justice and the essence of hu-
man nature or another individual.
To do this, space law can be conditionally divid-
ed into at least two sections (branches): Animal ra-
tionale jus (law consisting only of fair principles of
behavior, to which any willing subjects can join) and
the Law of Norms (law, the application of which is
carried out based on norms of behavior). Given this
division, it is necessary to determine which subjects
of space activities to each type of Space law can be
applied.
In a global sense, the subjects of law outside the
Earth can be anyone who can understand Space law
and carry out their activities following its principles
and norms. These can be various individuals (bio-
social beings, such as humans [23, p. 55], or ex-
traterrestrial intelligent beings). Also, the subjects
of this right can be societies and communities of
individuals (created both within the Earth and out-
side the Earth). In addition, the subjects of Space
law can be various forms of political and territorial
organization of society (such as States [23, p. 117]
and similar organizations) as well as their unions
and associations.
Of course, even from the essence of the name
Animal rationale jus, it can be understood that this
section (branch) of Space law can be applied only
to biosocial beings because neither states nor vari-
ous societies and communities can be animal ratio-
nale (they can only be their participants or repre-
sentatives). At the same time, Animal rationale jus
can only be applied within a certain community or
society of animal rationale, but cannot be applied
among such societies or communities. Accordingly,
the Law of Norms will apply to all other subjects of
space activity.
Thus, Outer space law will consist of two sec-
tions (branches), each of which will have its subject
composition: Animal rationale jus (that conditionally
can be called “The Law of Principles”) and the Law
of Norms.
Based on this, each of these sections of Outer
space law can be described as follows.
The Law of Principles (or Animal rationale jus)
is a system of permanent principles describing fair
forms of relations and behavior for individuals (ani-
mal rationale) within the community or society cre-
ated by them.
In turn, the Law of Norms is a system of perma-
nent norms regulating the relations and behavior of
subjects (not animal rationale) within the commu-
nity, society, or union created by them. The Law of
Norms is a classical type of law that is widespread in
modern society and consists of Private Law and Pub-
lic Law as it was dened in ancient times [4, p. 18].
At the same time, only Private International Law
and Public International Law will be applied to space
activities (since the environment of their application
will be located outside the sovereign territories of
the subjects of space activities). Conditionally, these
two subtypes of law can respectively be called Space
Private Law and Space Public Law.
Based on this, we can nally try to determine the
possible authors (creators) of such a law and well-
575
known manuscripts of such authors (creators) that
can be considered sources of this type of law.
When it comes to the Law of Principles, then nei-
ther states, nor private companies, nor unions of
states can be the authors (creators) of such a sec-
tion (branch) of law, since this law is not and cannot
be another element of Corpus juris gentium. The
Law of Principles is the exclusive law of individuals.
Accordingly, the authors (creators) of this section
(branch) of the law can only be individuals who con-
sider themselves to be Animal rationale and under-
stand what is right and what is wrong. However, can
individuals who are authors (creators) of the Law of
Principles dictate the conditions of activity in space
for all other individuals? Of course, they cannot act
in such a way. In essence, the Right of Principles can
be created only based on goodwill. That is, one or
more individuals cannot impose, but can only oer
their community or the whole society the principles
of relationships and behavior that they consider fair.
However, these principles will become legal only
when all other individuals (Animal rationale) of this
community or society join them voluntarily. At the
same time, this principle will apply only to the com-
munity or society for which it was created.
To date, in scientic circles, there is no informa-
tion about the creation or attempts to create such
a law as Animal rationale jus (or the Right of Prin-
ciples). Most likely, this is the kind of “law” that has
yet to be developed, and which can go beyond the
dogmatic image of law and can become a new law
for the whole Universe, namely, “Universum jus”.
In terms of Space Private Law and Space Public
Law, which are part of the Law of Norms, then today
it is considered that only states can be the authors
(creators) of these types of law, and the subjects of
these laws can be individuals, states, state and non-
state organizations as well as unions or associations
of states (on the similarity of the UN) and various
associations.
However, it is necessary to draw attention to the
fact that in this case, the object of application of
Space law does not belong to any of these subjects.
At the same time, the actual jurisdiction of the
UN (which operates based on its Charter which is
only an international agreement) is limited by the
jurisdiction of the Member States of the Organiza-
tion, which in turn are limited by their territorial ju-
risdiction. That is, for the UN and the states there is
a kind of “home room” principle, which implies the
presence of a sovereign territory within which they
can act in full, and beyond which they have no uni-
versally recognized rights. Thus, two principles op-
erate simultaneously for the UN and states, namely,
the principle of “home room” and the principle of
“alien room”, which was mentioned earlier. Accord-
ingly, the UN and States cannot establish norms of
conduct for non-State participants in space activities
and cannot even use material resources in an envi-
ronment that is outside their spatial and territorial
jurisdiction. States can only agree on how to inter-
act and not harm each other based on international
treaties and other international acts, and can also
assume unilateral obligations in the form of public
promises (stipulatio), which can be considered the
UN General Assembly Resolutions or other ocial
documents. At the same time, the opinion of some
lawyers about the non-binding and insolvency of the
UN General Assembly Resolutions cannot be con-
sidered correct because all activities of states are
carried out on behalf of and at the expense of their
people. Thus, States cannot spend their people’s
money to adopt meaningless Resolutions at the UN
- on the contrary, their every action has legal conse-
quences. Moreover, history shows that the delegates
of the States that signed the UN General Assembly
Resolutions had repeated discussions and agreed on
the text, essence, and purpose of the UN Gener-
al Assembly Resolutions [5, p. 18–19]. Thus, in a
sense, these Resolutions can be considered the fruit
of certain agreements of the signatory States, that
is, international treaties, although not in the usual
format, in the format of “Conventionalis stipulation”
(a contractual public promise to fulll certain obli-
gations). By fullling these obligations, the States
have additionally turned them into an internation-
al legal custom. In turn, according to the generally
accepted doctrine of law [23, p. 206–207] and also
under the provisions of Article 38.1 of the Statute of
the International Court of Justice there were listed
sources to which the Court is to look in determining
a case. In this case, it is worth mentioning that the
sources of international law can be both internation-
al treaties and international legal customs.
That is, obviously the Resolutions and Declara-
tions of the UN General Assembly cannot be binding
on States that have not signed them, but they are
binding on those States that have signed these acts
and thus, as pioneers in this eld, have assumed
unilateral and multilateral obligations. Thus, the
Resolutions and Declarations of the UN General As-
sembly can be part of the Space Public Law.
In turn, it should be noted that since the envi-
ronment for the application of Space law does not
also belong to non-State participants of space ac-
tivities, they also cannot dictate the conditions of
space activities to the States and UN. In turn, unlike
States, non-state actors in space activities do not
have territorial jurisdiction and sovereignty and are
not bound by the principle of “home room”. That
is, they are not limited to any territory for carrying
out space activities in full. However, according to
the “alien room” principle, non-State actors in space
activities also cannot dictate conditions to States
and each other and will have to negotiate among
themselves. At the same time, given the possibility
of creating an unlimited number of dierent space
communities, Space Private Law may consist of an
РОЗДІЛ ХІ. МІЖНАРОДНЕ ПРАВО
576 Електронне наукове видання «Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство»
unlimited number of contracts regulating relations
in such communities. Such diversity will exist un-
til all non-governmental communities decide to act
based on a single generally accepted agreement or
move to a new level of Animal rationale jus.
Thus, taking into account all of the above, we can
conclude the following.
Space Law is a set of legal systems regulating
space activities, implying dierent legal ideologies
and dierent subject compositions as well as the en-
vironment of the application, which extends to outer
space and celestial bodies beyond the Earth.
Space Law can consist of many legal systems,
of which three systems are currently distinguished,
namely, Animal rationale jus (or the Law of Space
Principles), Space Private Law, and Space Public
Law.
The Law of Space Principles (or Animal rationale
jus) is a system of permanent principles of space
activity developed by individuals (animal rationale)
and describing fair forms of relations and behavior
for such individuals within the community or society
created by them.
Public Space Law is a system of permanent norms
created by public subjects of space activities (vari-
ous forms of political and territorial organization of
society, such as States and similar organizations as
well as their unions and associations) and regulating
the behavior of such subjects and relations among
them.
Space Private Law is a system of permanent
norms created by non-public subjects of space ac-
tivities (organizations and/or individuals who do not
consider to be animal rationale), and regulating the
relations and behavior of such subjects within the
community, society, or association created by them.
Taking into account the above, it can be conclud-
ed that as of the end of 1963, part of Space Law
already existed, namely, Space Public Law, which
consisted of unilateral obligations of some States
expressed in Resolutions and Declarations of the UN
General Assembly.
2.2. Goals, objects, and participants of
space activities as possible objects and sub-
jects of space law.
2.2.1. It is necessary to say that during this pe-
riod space activity was very active and its main par-
ticipants were states (the USA and the USSR) that
launched objects into space as well as the UN, which
tried to regulate this process. However, the USA and
the USSR received the status of participants in space
activities ex post facto as a result of their successful
launches of objects into space. At that time, the rest
of the States were only witnesses of space activi-
ties. However, since the UN GA Resolution 1472, the
status of participants in space activities has been
assigned to all States.
Later, the Resolutions and Declarations of the UN
General Assembly established the status of partici-
pants in space activities for non-governmental or-
ganizations (the UN GA Resolution 1721) and astro-
nauts, that is, for people who ew into space (the
UN GA Resolution 1802 and the Declaration of Legal
Principles).
Thus, during this period, a group of subject-ob-
ject elements that had or could have been related to
space activities gradually began to form.
At the same time, only States and international
organizations were singled out as subjects of Space
law on the similarity of the UN [24, p. 39]. This was
justied by the fact that only States and internation-
al organizations are parties to international legal re-
lations that arise in connection with space activities
carried out under their jurisdiction and control [24,
p. 39]. On this basis, people (and, accordingly, as-
tronauts) were treated not as subjects of space law,
but as objects because they were not participants in
international legal relations [24, p. 39].
However, such a conclusion, even though it is
supported by many scientists, contradicts the very
essence of the concept of a “subject”, which is con-
sidered to be any initiator and active participant in
an activity that has a goal and moves toward it as
well as makes decisions and controls such activi-
ties [24, p. 39]. After all, it is the astronaut who
takes a direct active part in space activities. Al-
though he often performs the tasks of his state of
registration, only he decides how exactly to per-
form these tasks and whether to perform them or
not. In turn, the state cannot force an astronaut to
do something with which he does not agree, and
also cannot terminate the existence of an astro-
naut without his consent as an ordinary object. In
addition, it is necessary to understand that in outer
space (outside the space vehicle), an astronaut is
not subject to the jurisdiction of international law
and the jurisdiction of his state at all, and he au-
tomatically becomes a separate participant in legal
relations with other astronauts. At the same time,
as mentioned earlier, Space Law is not only inter-
national legal relations. Moreover, landing on the
territory of a foreign state or being in a foreign
space module, an astronaut automatically becomes
a participant even in international legal relations.
At the same time, it is also necessary not to forget
that the Declaration of Legal Principles determined
that “States shall regard astronauts as envoys of
mankind in outer space”. This means that even the
UN has recognized the astronaut’s status as a sub-
ject of Space Law. After all, an object cannot be an
active participant in space activities, a participant
in international relations, and a representative of
all mankind.
That is, an astronaut is not only an independent
representative of humanity but also a subject of
space activity who performs work in outer space for
the state or for another subject and independent-
ly makes decisions (including legal ones), although
577
taking into account the working orders of the rele-
vant employer subject.
Also, it is necessary to take into account that the
subject of space law and space activities can be not
only someone who is in space but also someone who
takes part in the preparation for a ight into space
or just wants to take part in space activities.
However, it is necessary to understand that not
every participant in international legal relations can
be a subject of space law, but only those who partic-
ipate or want to participate in space activities.
Taking into account the above, it is possible to
distinguish the following subjects of space activity,
which may have the status of subjects of space law:
individuals (humans and possibly extraterrestrial in-
telligent beings), states (or other similar forms of
political and territorial organization of society) and
their associations and unions as well as various so-
cieties and communities of individuals (created both
within the Earth and outside the Earth).
2.2.2. At the same time, the object of space law
can be considered any goals and any side of space
activity, to which the active ability of one or more
subjects of such activity is directed [24, p. 39]. Ac-
cordingly, such objects can be all objects and pur-
poses of space activities, which were declared by
the subjects of Space Law in the UN Declaration and
Resolutions for this period.
At the same time, such objects can be divided
into several types, namely, natural objects, man-
made objects, technical phenomena, and natural
phenomena.
Man-made objects of space activity include the
following objects mentioned in international docu-
ments at that time: satellites (the UN GA Resolu-
tion 1721), objects launched into outer space (the
UN GA Resolution 1721 and the Declaration of Legal
Principles), rocket launching facilities (the UN GA
Resolution 1802), space vehicle (the UN GA Reso-
lution 1802).
Technical phenomena include “satellite commu-
nication” (the UN GA Resolution 1721).
Natural objects of space activity include such ob-
jects as outer space (mentioned in all documents)
and celestial bodies (the UN GA Resolution 1721 and
the Declaration of Legal Principles).
At the same time, it is necessary to remember
that as an object of Space Law, outer space is a sep-
arate all-encompassing spatial and territorial unit
that does not fall under the jurisdiction of any State
on Earth but falls under the jurisdiction of interna-
tional law in relations among States.
In turn, the celestial body is a separate large spa-
tial-territorial unit that does not fall under the juris-
diction of any State on Earth (except for the territo-
ries of the States on Earth) but falls under the juris-
diction of international law in relations among States.
Natural phenomena include any changes occur-
ring in the nature of the planet Earth (the UN GA
Resolution 1721) as well as any phenomena in the
Universe outside the Earth.
2.2.3. Considering the above, we can say that as
of the end of 1963, it was already possible to dis-
tinguish a group of subjects and a group of objects
of space law that were direct or predictable partici-
pants in space activities.
2.3. Relationships and jurisdiction. In turn,
the existence of established subjects of space law
also presupposed the establishment of rules for such
subjects regarding the implementation of space ac-
tivities. In this connection, the UN General Assem-
bly has taken the rst steps to streamline incipient
space activities. However, the formation of general
principles and rules of space activities, in the end,
led to the need to resolve one of the most important
issues of space activities and space law – the deni-
tion of rules of relations and jurisdiction of subjects
of space activities.
As mentioned earlier, the real jurisdiction of the
UN is limited by the jurisdiction of the UN member
States, which in turn are limited by their jurisdiction
(the principle of “home room”). Accordingly, over
time, the question arose about how extensive the
Space Public Law created by such entities can be,
and how far it can extend if it relies on the jurisdic-
tion of States.
In this regard, it should be noted that the notion
of jurisdiction nds its origin in the concept of terri-
tory, the principle of sovereign equality, and non-in-
terference with the domestic aairs of States [3,
p. 50]. That is, as mentioned earlier, the jurisdiction
of states is carried out according to the principle of
“home room”.
For a long period, it so happened that, protect-
ing their territorial integrity (that is, access to nat-
ural, human, and tax resources within a certain ter-
ritory), states adopted a large number of various
regulatory legal acts (constitutions, declarations,
codes, and similar acts) as the basis for their le-
gal activities [23, p. 118]. These normative legal
acts, on the one hand, approved the jurisdiction
of States in the territories occupied by them, and
on the other hand, limited their jurisdiction only to
these territories. That is why, although States can
represent the interests of their people in interna-
tional relations, their special administrative appa-
ratus has the authority to manage, protect order,
persuade, and compel only on their territory [23,
p. 86]. Thus, the States have established the legal
principles of “home room” and “alien room”, ac-
cording to which they can use resources only on
their territory, and, accordingly, do not have the
right to use any objects (resources) outside their
territory. In turn, the UN General Assembly does
not have the authority to grant such a right of use
to States, since this is not provided for by the UN
Charter. Moreover, according to paragraph 7 of Ar-
ticle 2 of its Charter, the UN has no right to inter-
РОЗДІЛ ХІ. МІЖНАРОДНЕ ПРАВО
578 Електронне наукове видання «Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство»
fere in the internal aairs of states at all, even to
expand their territorial jurisdiction.
In this regard, the authors of the rst UN GA Res-
olution 1148 recognized that no State on Earth has
the right of sovereignty and, accordingly, jurisdic-
tion in outer space [5, p. 12].
However, attention should be given to the fact
that States do not have jurisdiction in outer space
and on celestial bodies (outside the Earth), and
it does not require recognition by the States and
the UN. It simply needs to be accepted as truth.
Everything is quite simple. The state can act freely
only within the boundaries of its territorial juris-
diction.
However, despite this, there is a concept of pub-
lic international law, according to which a state can
also act where it is not directly prohibited and re-
stricted by international law, and sometimes may
even go beyond international law [2, p. 146]. That
is, the essence of this concept of “narcissus” is that
states can decide for themselves whether or not to
limit activities to their territory. Moreover, within
the framework of this concept, three theories about
jurisdictions in neutral territories have emerged,
namely, “Res Communis”, “Res Nullius”, “the Com-
mon Heritage of Mankind” or “Res Communis Hu-
manitatus” [2, p. 147].
According to the rst theory “Res Communis” or
“Res Communis Omnium”, outer space and celestial
bodies are considered a common territory. There-
fore, all States, their citizens, and international le-
gal entities are free to explore, use, and develop a
common territory (the “commons” area). Naturally,
most technologically advanced states adhere to this
theory, since it allows them to act as if on equal
terms, but to enrich much faster than underdevel-
oped states [2, p. 147].
According to the second theory, “Res Nullius”,
outer space and celestial bodies are a territory that
does not belong to anyone. Therefore, certain States
have the right to own and control the “commons” for
their exclusively sovereign purposes by right of rst
discovery or use [20, p. 38]. This imperialist and
colonial theory is attractive to states claiming world
hegemony.
According to the third theory, “Res Communis
Humanitatus”, outer space and celestial bodies are
common territory for all mankind. Therefore, all
States, their citizens, and international legal entities
are free to explore, use, and develop a common ter-
ritory in the interests of humanity and provided that
they share the benets with other participants (that
is, there is an aspect of sharing) [2, p. 147].
However, all these theories are only theories, and
the concept itself is not perfect and cannot extend to
outer space and celestial bodies.
Although, according to Ogunsola O. Ogunban-
wo, agreeing with the UN GA Resolution 1721, the
States chose the theory that outer space and celes-
tial bodies are not “Res Nullius”, but “Res Communis
Omnium” [5, p. 12].
However, in this regard, we would like to note
that the wishes of representatives of certain States,
even if they are stated by the majority of States,
cannot violate the principles of the “home room”
and the “alien room” based on the territorial juris-
diction of States.
Outer space and celestial bodies cannot belong
to States, and the issue of their use can only be
decided by individuals (in this case, people who are
ready to act for the benet of all mankind, that is,
Animal Rationale).
In this regard, it would be more correct to pres-
ent this concept of the use of outer space with a
dierent formulation, namely, “Res Nullius Status
et Res Communis Animal Rationale”, or in a simpler
version, namely, “Res Communis Animal Rationale”.
In any case, taking into account the above-men-
tioned theories and contradictions, the situation
with the regulation of space activities required the
creation of new rules of relations for subjects of
space activities, beyond the classical norms of inter-
national and national law.
In this regard, already in the UN GA Resolution
1721, the UN General Assembly adopted a provision
according to which “International law, including the
Charter of the United Nations, applies to outer space
and celestial bodies” [12].
Further, the Declaration of Legal Principles stated
that “The activities of States in the exploration and
use of outer space shall be carried on in accordance
with international law, including the Charter of the
United Nations ... ” [10].
That is, the UN General Assembly proposed that
States as subjects of space activities regulate their
relations in outer space and on celestial bodies
based on existing norms of international law.
Thus, the UN General Assembly proposed to
change the existing jurisdiction of international law
in relations among States (as subjects of space ac-
tivities) and extend it beyond the limits of planet
Earth to outer space and celestial bodies (as objects
of space activities and separate spatial-territorial
units) [1, p. 130].
However, as mentioned earlier, the real jurisdic-
tion of the UN is limited by the jurisdiction of the
Member States of the Organization, which in turn
are limited by their territorial jurisdiction. That is, in
fact, within the territory of the Member States of the
Organization, this document applies to all subjects,
but outside their territories (in outer space and on
celestial bodies) only to relations among these States
as subjects of international law. The Netherlands del-
egate expressed the same opinion when discussing
the Declaration of Legal Principles at the plenary ses-
sion of the UN General Assembly [1, p. 146].
That is, we can say that the rules of relations
established by these documents extended to “outer
579
space” and “celestial bodies”, but were limited only
to relations among States, which should be regulat-
ed according to international law.
In addition, the Declaration of Legal Principles
stated that “The State on whose registry an object
launched into outer space is carried shall retain juris-
diction and control over such object, and any person-
nel thereon, while in outer space. Ownership of ob-
jects launched into outer space, and of their compo-
nent parts, is not aected by their passage through
outer space or by their return to the earth” [10].
That is, based on this provision, the national ju-
risdiction of States was extended to objects belong-
ing to them in outer space beyond their classical
territories on planet Earth.
Thus, the UN GA Resolution 1721 and the Decla-
ration of Legal Principles established rules that can
be conditionally called “Rules of Space Relations and
Space Jurisdictions”, and which could be stated as
follows (as of the end of 1963):
«The activities of States in the exploration and
use of outer space and celestial bodies shall be car-
ried on in accordance with international law, includ-
ing the Charter of the United Nations.
The jurisdiction of States extends to all objects
registered by them located in outer space and to
astronauts located inside such objects”.
According to these Rules, relations among States
in outer space and on celestial bodies were regulat-
ed by international law, and relations among astro-
nauts inside a state object (which is located in outer
space) were governed by the law of the State to
which this object belongs.
At the same time, despite the simplicity, these
Rules still left more questions than they gave an-
swers.
First of all, it is necessary to pay attention to
the fact that these Rules did not regulate relations
among astronauts outside of objects launched into
outer space (in outer space and on celestial bodies)
and did not regulate relations among private and
non-governmental subjects of space activities at all.
Also, these Rules did not apply to objects
launched into outer space, which could later land on
celestial bodies (including in their airspace and on a
solid surface).
However, the most important drawback of these
Rules was that the issue of the delimitation of out-
er space and the spatial-territorial (air) borders of
States remained unresolved. That is the issue of the
spatial-territorial jurisdiction of States.
Thus, according to Article 1(1) of the Chicago
Convention on International Civil Aviation, which
was adopted on December 7, 1944, “The contract-
ing States recognize that every State has complete
and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above
its territory”.
In other words, taking into account this Conven-
tion, we can state that the spatial-territorial juris-
diction of states extends upwards into space and
down to the center of the Earth, resembling some-
thing like the shape of an inverted cone, with un-
even sides that coincide in shape with the borders
of states on the surface of the Earth [18, p. 4]. At
the same time, the jurisdiction of states is absent
outside their territory, that is, in the airspace over
terra nullius or the open sea [18, p. 4].
Initially, everything seemed quite clear. However,
then the question arose about where the airspace of
States ends and outer space begins. In this regard,
many versions of such a distinction have arisen.
For example, there were versions about the lim-
itation of the airspace of states by the upper bound-
ary on which the force of gravity acts. However, it
would be dicult to turn this version into a rule,
since it is very dicult to determine an object with
an ideal shape, weight, and density on which an ex-
periment with the force of gravity could be carried
out.
Also, there is a theory that Bin Cheng expressed
which suggests considering this issue from the point
of view of the geophysical meaning of the term “air-
space”, that is, the airspace ends where the air ends
[18, p. 5]. However, in this case, it is necessary to
remember that ‘air is a mixture of gases and is not a
chemical compound’. In this regard, some scientists
have proposed to consider the height of 5.8 kilome-
ters as the upper limit of airspace, below which half
of the air in the Earth’s atmosphere is located [18,
p. 5]. According to another version, it was proposed
to consider the height of 60 miles (approximately
100 kilometers) as the upper limit of the airspace,
above which a vacuum can already begin [18, p. 5].
There were also versions that the vacuum begins
only above 400 miles (about 644 kilometers) [18,
p. 5]. In addition, a version was put forward ac-
cording to which it was proposed to consider the
maximum upper limit of the airspace as the max-
imum height at which there is enough air to ‘lift’
from the air for ights of airplanes and balloons [18,
p. 6]. At the same time, according to Bin Cheng,
airspace exists where there is an atmosphere (in-
cluding all its various layers, the troposphere, the
ozonosphere, the ionosphere, and, to some extent,
the exosphere), that is, at an altitude of 450 to 1000
kilometers above sea level [18, p. 7-8]. However,
the upper limit of the atmosphere is also a contro-
versial issue today.
Also, there are several other theories on this top-
ic, classied by McDougal, Lasswell, and Vlasic as
follows: 1) proposals based upon prescriptions of
the Air Conventions, 2) proposals based upon vary-
ing physical characteristics of space, 3) proposals
based upon varying natures of ight instrumentali-
ties, 4) proposals based upon the factors of eective
control, e) proposals based upon the earth’s gravi-
tational eects, and 5) proposals based upon arbi-
trarily chosen altitudes.
РОЗДІЛ ХІ. МІЖНАРОДНЕ ПРАВО
580 Електронне наукове видання «Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство»
However, as of the end of 1963, most of these
theories were only the subject of backstage nego-
tiations and none of them were taken into account.
Even today, it is believed that none of these theo-
ries is considered acceptable from a scientic point
of view [1, p. 138]. However, it should be noted
that perhaps the theories turned out to be unten-
able because none of them contains an economic
component and stratication of airspace (for exam-
ple, an air economic layer, an air military layer, an
air orbital layer, etc.). In any case, the States have
not been able to agree on such a delimitation of
spaces. It is still unclear how far the jurisdiction of
States extends in the airspace over their territory
[1, p. 137].
The absence of such a distinction practically nul-
lied all eorts to regulate space activities, since it
was unclear where aeronautics ends and cosmonau-
tics begins.
3. Conclusions.
It is necessary to say that as of the end of 1963,
the UN General Assembly had made several eorts
in the eld of regulating space activities. Although
not all ideas were implemented and not all propos-
als had a positive context for the development and
welfare of mankind, all these actions can be consid-
ered an important step towards the settlement of
relations in space activities.
Summarizing the study of legal documents on
space activities for the period 1958-1963, we can
state that already in this period the rst principles,
concepts, and rules of space activities were formed,
which led to the emergence and development of a
completely new area of law - the so-called Space
Law.
At the same time, as a result of the study, a de-
nition was formed, according to which Space Law
can be considered as a set of legal systems regulat-
ing space activities, having dierent legal ideologies
and dierent subject composition as well as the en-
vironment of the application, which extends to outer
space and celestial bodies beyond the Earth.
Considering that Space Law may consist of mul-
tiple legal systems, three possible legal systems of
this law were identied, namely, Animal rationale
jus (or Law of Space Principles), Space Private Law,
and Space Public Law.
Also, it was established that at the end of 1963
there already existed Space Public Law, which main-
ly consisted of Conventionalis stipulatio, formalized
in the form of Resolutions and Declarations of the
UN General Assembly.
Certainly, it shall be acknowledged that at the
early stage of its development, Space Law had many
gaps, shortcomings, and unresolved issues. Howev-
er, it is these nuances that today make it possible to
understand how this area of law should be further
developed.
REFERENCES:
1. Asamoah O.Y. Declaration of Legal Principles
Governing the Activities of States in the Ex-
ploration and Use of Outer Space. The Legal
Signicance of the Declarations of the Gen-
eral Assembly of the United Nations. Dor-
drecht: Springer Netherlands, 1966. P. 129–
160. DOI:10.1007/978-94-011-9495-2_12.
2. Christol C. Q. Outer space exploitabili-
ty. Space Policy. Vol. 6, № 2. P. 146–160.
DOI:10.1016/0265-9646(90)90050-8.
3. Csaba I.A. The Concept of State Jurisdiction
in International Space Law: a Study in the
Progressive Development of Space law in the
United Nations. Dordrecht: Springer Nether-
lands, 1971. 197 p. ISBN 978-94-015-0921-
3.
4. Justinian, Vėlyvis S., Misevičiūtė R.A. IUSTIN-
IANI AUGUSTI DIGESTA, SEU PANDECTAE:
IMPERATORIAUS JUSTINIANO DIGESTAI,
arba PANDEKTOS. Vilnius: VĮ Registrų cen-
tras, 2010. 319 p. ISBN 978-9955-30-085-4.
5. Ogunbanwo O.O. International Law and
Outer Space Activities. Dordrecht: Spring-
er Netherlands, 1975. 272 p. ISBN 978-94-
011-9212-5.
6. The United Nations General Assembly (12th.
Sess. 716th plenary meeting). Regulation,
limitation and balanced reduction of all
armed forces and all armaments; conclusion
of an international convention (treaty) on the
reduction of armaments and the prohibition
of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of
mass destruction. Resolution. № 1148. URL:
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/207243.
7. The United Nations General Assembly (13th.
Sess. 792nd plenary meeting). Question of
the peaceful use of outer space. Resolution.
№ 1348. URL: https://digitallibrary.un.org/
record/206866.
8. The United Nations General Assembly (14th.
Sess. 856th plenary meeting). Internation-
al co-operation in the peaceful uses of out-
er space. Resolution. № 1472. URL: https://
digitallibrary.un.org/record/206356.
9. The United Nations General Assembly (18th.
Sess. 1244th plenary meeting). Question of
general and complete disarmament. Resolu-
tion. № 1884. URL: https://digitallibrary.un-
.org/record/203960.
10. The United Nations General Assembly (18th.
Sess. 1280th plenary meeting). Declaration
of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of
States in the Exploration and Use of Outer
Space. № 1962. URL: https://digitallibrary.
un.org/record/203965.
11. The United Nations General Assembly (18th.
Sess. 1280th plenary meeting). Internation-
al Co-operation in the peaceful uses of out-
581
er space. Resolution. № 1963. URL: https://
digitallibrary.un.org/record/203966.
12. The United Nations General Assembly (16th.
Sess.). International co-operation in the
peaceful uses of outer space. Resolution.
№ 1721. URL: https://digitallibrary.un.org/
record/665195.
13. The United Nations General Assembly (17th.
Sess. 1192nd plenary meeting). Internation-
al co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer
space. Resolution. № 1802. URL: https://
digitallibrary.un.org/record/204272.
14. Smith M. S. The rst quarter-century of
spaceight. Futures. Vol. 14, № 5. P. 353–
373. DOI:10.1016/0016-3287(82)90056-8.
15. Beard J. M. Soft Law’s Failure on the Horizon:
The International Code of Conduct for Outer
Space Activities. Vol. 38, Issue 2. P. 335–424.
16. Cheng B. Studies in International Space Law.
Oxford University Press, 1997. DOI:10.1093/
acprof:oso/9780198257301.001.0001.
17. Diederiks-Verschoor I.H.P., Kopal V. An intro-
duction to space law. 3rd rev. ed. Alphen aan
den Rijn, The Netherlands : Frederick, MD:
Kluwer Law International ; Sold and distrib-
uted in North, Central and South America by
Aspen Publishers, 2008. 249 p. ISBN 978-
90-411-2647-4.
18. Cheng B. In the Beginning: the Interna-
tional Geophysical Year. Studies in Inter-
national Space Law. Oxford University
Press, 1997. 13 p. DOI:10.1093/acprof:o-
so/9780198257301.001.0001.
19. Rawson C.J. Introduction. Gulliver’s travels.
Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press,
2005. ISBN 978-0-19-280534-8.
20. 20. Lai A. K. The cold war, the space race,
and the law of outer space: space for peace.
Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York,
NY: Routledge, 2021. (“Routledge studies in
modern history” Series). ISBN 978-0-367-
75384-9.
21. Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in
the Atmosphere, in outer space and un-
der water. Signed at Moscow, on 5 August
1963. No. 6964. UNTC. URL: https://trea-
ties.un.org/pages/showDetails.aspx?ob-
jid=08000002801313d9.
22. Shaw M.N. International law. 5th ed. Cam-
bridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 2003. 1288 p. ISBN 978-0-521-
82473-6.
23. Skakun O.F. Theory of Law and State: Text-
book. 2d ed. Kyiv: Alerta, 2010. 520 p. ISBN
978-617-566-012-6.
24. Stelmakh-Drescher O. International Legal
Regime of Security for Exploration and Use
of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes. 2016.
DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.3882.9683.
25. Tronchetti F. Fundamentals of space law and
policy. New York: Springer, 2013. 107 p.
(“Springer briefs in space development” Se-
ries). ISBN 978-1-4614-7869-0.
26. Vitz B.B. Democritus. Moscow: Mysl’, 1979.
212 p. (“Mysliteli proshlogo” Series).
РОЗДІЛ ХІ. МІЖНАРОДНЕ ПРАВО