Outer Space Public Law: the 1958-1963 period. Part 2

Abstract

This is the fourth article in the study related to analyzing the process of regulation of space activities. Considering the results of previous studies of documents adopted by the international community during the 1958-1963 period in the regulation of space activities, this article continues the presentation of the study of the process of Outer Space Public Law development. The article describes the initiatives of the international community (including the UN General Assembly) connected with the regulation of relations among States in matters of the use of outer space and celestial bodies. First of all, it describes the process of gradual formation of one of the most important international principles of Public Space Law, which can be attributed to the group of General Principles of Space Activities, namely, "The Principle of a Useful Cosmos”. Also, legal conflicts and difficulties that arose at the initial stage of the formation of this principle as well as the consequences to which they could lead are described. In addition, the article describes the process of formation of another very important principle of Public Space Law that can also be included in the group of General Principles of Space Activity, namely, "The Principle of Space Traffic”, which at that time already consisted of three special principles formed under the influence of specific international initiatives. Thus, the initiative to streamline space vehicle launches into outer space formed "The Principle of launch registration”. The initiative to organize interaction among States regarding astronauts and space vehicles launched into space formed "The Principle of mutual assistance” In turn, the initiative to organize the safety of space activities formed "the Principle of Responsibility”. At the same time, all these principles were developed only in the form of Conventionalis stipulatio, which were mainly set out in the Resolutions and Declarations of the UN General Assembly. Considering the above, it is necessary to pay attention again to the fact that the researcher should not expect from the "Outer Space Law” the form in which this "Law” is accustomed to consider, due to the exclusivity of the environment to which this new "Law” was formed.

Full text

639
Марініч В.К., Миклуш М.І., Яра О.С. Кос-
мічне публічне право: період 1958–1963
років. Частина 2.
Дана стаття є четвертою статтею із циклу до-
сліджень, пов’язаних з аналізом процесу регулю-
вання космічної діяльності.
Враховуючи результати попередніх досліджень
документів, прийнятих міжнародним співтовари-
ством у 1958–1963 роках у сфері регулювання
космічної діяльності, у цій статті продовжується
висвітлення результатів дослідження процесу
формування Космічного публічного права.
У статті описуються ініціативи міжнародного
співтовариства, зокрема Генеральної Асамблеї
ООН, пов’язані з регулюванням відносин між
державами у питаннях використання космічного
простору та небесних тіл.
Насамперед описується процес поступового
формування одного з найважливіших міжнарод-
них принципів Космічного публічного права, який
можна віднести до групи Загальних Принципів
Космічної Діяльності, – «Принципу Корисного
Космосу». Також описуються правові колізії та
складності, які виникли вже на початковому ета-
пі формування цього принципу, а також наслід-
ки, до яких вони можуть призвести.
Крім цього, у статті описується процес фор-
мування ще одного дуже важливого принципу
Космічного публічного права, який також можна
віднести до групи Загальних Принципів Космічної
Діяльності, – «Принципу Космічного Руху», який
на той момент уже складався з трьох спеціаль-
них принципів, що сформувалися під впливом
конкретних міжнародних ініціатив. Так, ініціати-
ва щодо впорядкування запусків космічних кора-
блів у космічний простір сформувала «Принцип
реєстрації запусків». Ініціатива щодо організації
взаємодії між державами щодо астронавтів та кос-
мічних кораблів, запущених у космос, сформува-
ла «Принцип взаємодопомоги». У свою чергу, іні-
ціатива щодо організації безпеки космічної діяль-
ності сформувала «Принцип відповідальності».
При цьому всі ці принципи були оформлені
лише у вигляді Conventionalis stipulatio, які в ос-
новному були викладені в Резолюціях і Деклара-
ції Генеральної Асамблеї Організації Об’єднаних
Націй.
Враховуючи вищевикладене, необхідно ще
раз звернути увагу на те, що досліднику не слід
очікувати від «космічного права» тієї форми, в
якій люди звикли зазвичай сприймати «право»,
через винятковість того середовища, щодо якого
це нове «право» формувалося.
Ключові слова: космічне публічне право,
conventionalis stipulatio, принцип корисного кос-
мосу, принцип космічного руху, загальні принци-
пи космічної діяльності.
Marinich V.K., Myklush M.I., Yara O.S. Outer
Space Public Law: the 1958–1963 period. Part 2.
This is the fourth article in the study related
to analyzing the process of regulation of space
activities.
Considering the results of previous studies of
documents adopted by the international community
during the 1958–1963 period in the regulation
of space activities, this article continues the
presentation of the study of the process of Outer
Space Public Law development.
The article describes the initiatives of the
international community (including the UN General
Assembly) connected with the regulation of
relations among States in matters of the use of
outer space and celestial bodies.
УДК 34.01
DOI https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2023.05.113
OUTER SPACE PUBLIC LAW: THE 1958–1963 PERIOD. PART 2
Marinich V.,
Ph.D. candidate in Law
National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3206-1436
Myklush M.,
CEO, Law Firm “FOX” of Maryna Myklush”
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2202-9482
Yara O.,
Doctor of Law, Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Law,
Professor of the Department of Administrative and Financial Law,
the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7245-9158
РОЗДІЛ ХІ. МІЖНАРОДНЕ ПРАВО

640 Електронне наукове видання «Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство»
First of all, it describes the process of gradual
formation of one of the most important international
principles of Public Space Law, which can be
attributed to the group of General Principles of
Space Activities, namely, “The Principle of a Useful
Cosmos”. Also, legal conicts and diculties that
arose at the initial stage of the formation of this
principle as well as the consequences to which they
could lead are described.
In addition, the article describes the process
of formation of another very important principle
of Public Space Law that can also be included in
the group of General Principles of Space Activity,
namely, “The Principle of Space Trac”, which at that
time already consisted of three special principles
formed under the inuence of specic international
initiatives. Thus, the initiative to streamline space
vehicle launches into outer space formed “The
Principle of launch registration”. The initiative
to organize interaction among States regarding
astronauts and space vehicles launched into space
formed “The Principle of mutual assistance” In
turn, the initiative to organize the safety of space
activities formed “the Principle of Responsibility”.
At the same time, all these principles were
developed only in the form of Conventionalis
stipulatio, which were mainly set out in the
Resolutions and Declarations of the UN General
Assembly.
Considering the above, it is necessary to pay
attention again to the fact that the researcher
should not expect from the “Outer Space Law” the
form in which this “Law” is accustomed to consider,
due to the exclusivity of the environment to which
this new “Law” was formed.
Key words: Space Public Law, conventionalis
stipulatio, the Principle of a Useful Cosmos, the
Principle of Space Trac, General Principles of
Space Activity.
1. Introduction.
1.1. Problem Statement.
Based on the results of the study, published in
the articles “Regulation of space activities during
the 1958–1963 period» [13] and “Space Law,
Subjects and Jurisdictions: pre-1963 period” [14],
Marinich V.K. dened the concept of the Outer
Space Law and concluded that the Outer Space Law
is only one of the possible legal systems that may
be the elements of the global Outer Space Law.
At the same time, the Outer Space Public Law
may consist not only of international treaties drawn
up in the usual format but also of Resolutions and
Declarations of the UN as well as other similar
documents that are set out in the form of contractual
public promises of certain States (Conventionalis
stipulatio) [14, c. 575].
In the rst stage of the Outer Space Public
Law development (1958–1963), it was the
“Conventionalis stipulatio” that made up its main
part. The mentioned “Conventionalis stipulatio”
formed a kind of General Principles of Outer Space
Activities, which created the basis for the future
development of Outer Space Public Law.
In the process of further research, the results
of which were presented in the article “Outer
Space Public Law: the 1958–1963 period. Part
1” [12, c. 350–354], two important principles of
Outer Space Public Law, formalized in the form of
Conventionalis stipulatio, were dened, namely,
“The Principle of a Free Cosmos” and “The Principle
of a Peaceful Cosmos”.
In this case, it should be understood that these
two principles are fundamental for the further
regulation of any space activity and all subsequent
provisions of Outer Space Public Law should be
formed only taking into account these principles.
Separately, it is necessary to underline that the
study mainly contains the term “Cosmos” instead of
the “Universe” to describe these and other principles
of space activity. This is not connected with the
astronomical or physical characteristics of space-
time-matter but with the everyday perception of the
average person. Historically speaking, most people
perceive the concept of “Universe” as the whole
world that surrounds a person. At the same time,
the person is perceived as one of the elements of
this world. Considering that the planet Earth, along
with the rules established on it, is also part of our
“Universe” (in the ordinary sense), the application
of this term to the space outside the planet Earth
becomes incorrect.
In turn, the concept of “Cosmos” is mainly
perceived as a denition of space beyond the planet
Earth, which includes both space objects and the
space between them. That is why the researcher
considered the use of this term to describe the
processes of regulating relations outside of planet
Earth to be the most correct.
1.2. The status of the issue.
As mentioned in the rst part of the study, many
scientists and lawyers studied the documents that
became part of Outer Space Public Law.
However, these studies concerned only global
international documents regulating 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 supercial analysis concerning
their insignicance.
This study attempts to address these
shortcomings and provide a new and more in-depth
analysis of Outer Space Public Law.
1.3. The article is aimed at presenting the
second part of the study of Outer Space Public Law
conducted on the basis of the following international
documents adopted during the period from 1958

641
to 1963, that formed the rst pool of Outer Space
Public Law documents:
– 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 reduction 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);
– 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);
– 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);
– 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
Resolution 1721);
– 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);
– Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the
Atmosphere, in outer space, and under water (No.
6964), signed at Moscow (the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, the United States of America, and
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland), 5 Aug. 1963 (the Treaty No. 6964);
– the UN General Assembly Resolution No.
1884 (XVIII) “Question of general and complete
disarmament”, adopted by the UN GA during its
18th session at the 1244th plenary meeting, 17
Oct. 1963 (the UN GA Resolution 1884);
– 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);
– 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 (the UN GA Resolution 1963).
2. The basic material. General principles of
space activities as part of Outer Space Public
Law.
2.1. Conventionalis stipulatio “The Principle
of a Useful Cosmos”.
It is probable that the most controversial
initiative that ever came before the UN General
Assembly was the Useful Cosmos initiative.
The reason for this was that although the issue
of the Useful Cosmos was resolved within the
framework of Outer Space Public Law due to its
natural characteristics it aected the interests of all
individuals, including humanity.
This was already obvious in the UN GA Resolution
1348, in which it was proposed to perform “the
exploitation of outer space for the benet of
mankind” [4]. At the same time, the preamble of
this Resolution also underlined the need “to avoid
the extension of present national rivalries into this
new eld” [4].
After the nuclear tests in outer space in 1962,
which almost destroyed the entire planet, the UN
General Assembly in the UN GA Resolution 1884
again emphasized “that the exploration and use of
outer space should be only for the betterment of
mankind” [6] (preamble).
Further, in 1963, the Declaration of Legal
Principles highlighted the existence of “the common
interest of all mankind in the progress of the
exploration and use of outer space” [7], and also
that “the exploration and use of outer space shall
be carried on for the benet and in the interests of
all mankind” [7].
Thus, the international community has come
to the need to form a new principle, which can
conditionally be called “The Principle of a Useful
Cosmos”. Naturally, as in the cases of “The Principle
of a Free Cosmos” and “The Principle of a Peaceful
Cosmos”, this principle was also developed in the
format of Conventionalis stipulatio (a contractual
public promise-obligation of the States that signed
the relevant UN Resolutions and Declarations).
At the same time, as in many other cases, this
initiative did not consider activities on celestial
bodies for unknown reasons. Perhaps the UN
General Assembly did not envisage the rapid
technological progress of mankind and its ability to
achieve “celestial bodies” shortly.
Considering “The Principle of a Useful Cosmos”
is part of Outer Space Public Law and extends its
inuence only to States, it could be formulated as
follows:
“All states can explore and use outer space
exclusively for the benet and interests of humanity,
avoiding national rivalries into this eld”.
Considering the current political situation, it
becomes obvious that without external control,
States would act only in their interests and not in
the interests of humanity.
Accordingly, to exercise such control, each space
initiative of any Member State of the Organization,
before its implementation, would have to undergo
peer review in the Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of Outer Space to coordinate its goals for the
benet of humanity. That is how this principle was
originally considered by the UN General Assembly
[1, c. 135].
РОЗДІЛ ХІ. МІЖНАРОДНЕ ПРАВО

642 Електронне наукове видання «Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство»
Ultimately, space activities were supposed
to lead to environmental protection, increased
education (increasing access to scientic data
around the world), poverty reduction, and increased
well-being, freedom, and security of people.
Only in environmental matters, the space
activities of States more or less justied themselves
and then only because it was in the interests of the
States. In all other matters, such activities for the
“good of humanity” were very doubtful.
At the same time, the UN General Assembly
gave states grounds for such behavior when in
the UN GA Resolution 1472 was stated that “the
exploration and use of outer space should be only
for the betterment of mankind and to the benet of
States” [5].
Thus, the UN General Assembly for the rst
time ocially mentioned the aim of “the benet of
States” about space activities.
At the same time, this goal was announced in a
veiled manner, in the context of a general proposal
to use outer space only for the benet of humanity.
However, instead of reconsidering its position, the
UN General Assembly, on the contrary, continued to
tip the scales of space activities in favor of States.
Thus, in the UN GA Resolution 1721 was stated
that “Outer space and celestial bodies are free for
use by all States in conformity with international
law” [9]. Moreover, the UN GA Resolution 1884 no
longer refers to all states on the planet, but only to
Member States as follows “benet which all Member
States would enjoy by participation in international
programs of co-operation in this eld” [6].
Further, in the Declaration of Legal Principles, it
was again underlined that “the exploration and use
of outer space should be carried on for … the benet
of States regardless of their degree of economic or
scientic development” [7] and subsequently this
position was enshrined as one of the legal principles,
namely: “Outer space and celestial bodies are free
for ... use by all States on a basis of equality and in
accordance with international law” [7].
That is, as of the end of 1963, provisions
appeared in the Resolutions and Declarations of
the UN General Assembly that assumed that States
had the opportunity to use outer space and celestial
bodies for their benet.
Thus, the following situation arose in Outer
Space Public Law.
On the one hand, there is the established
“Principle of a Free Cosmos” and one of its most
important conditions of “Res Nullius Civitatis”,
which was also enshrined in the provisions of the
Declaration of Legal Principles, namely: “Outer
space and celestial bodies are not subject to
national appropriation... by means of use” [7].
On the other hand, provisions have emerged
according to which “Outer space and celestial
bodies are free for ... use by all States” [7], and
the purpose of such use may be “the benet of
States” [5].
In turn, the fact that “actions for the benet of
certain States” very rarely coincide with “actions
for the benet of all mankind” does not require
scientic justication.
Thus, we can talk about the emergence of the
following essentially opposite legal provisions:
1. “not subject to national appropriation ... by
means of use” and “free for use by all States”,
2. “for the benet and in the interests of all
mankind” and “for the benet of States”.
That is attempts by States to expropriate
the Cosmos through legal manipulations led to
the emergence of obvious legal contradictions
(collisions). At the same time, to avoid conicts,
the resolution of these conicts had to be carried
out taking into account “The Principle of a Free
Cosmos” and based on the jurisdictional principles
of “home room” and “alien room” [12, c. 350-351].
According to these principles, the Cosmos can be
free for its use only by people and cannot be free
for its use by States, especially for their benet.
However, instead of resolving these collisions,
the UN General Assembly in the next UN GA
Resolution 1963 underlined the need “to continue
and to extend co-operative arrangements so that
all Member States can benet from the peacefull
exploration and use of outer space” [8].
That is, there is a purposeful discriminatory shift
from “betterment of mankind” towards “benet
for certain UN Member States,” namely those that
participate in international space programs.
Thus, the UN General Assembly has driven a
“discriminatory wedge” not only between humanity
and States but also among states that take
part in space programs and other states. Such
discrimination may lead to the fact that stronger
and more technologically advanced states that
can launch their space vehicles into space would
be enriched even more through outer space and
celestial bodies use. At the same time, small states
that do not have such an opportunity may become
even poorer. That is, in this case, we are talking
about a global violation of one of the basic principles
of the UN, namely, the equality of all states on the
planet.
Perhaps legal conicts could have been avoided
provided the UN General Assembly claried the
concept of “use” of outer space and celestial
bodies for all cases (for research, for the benet of
humanity, for the benet of states, etc.).
For example, according to the provisions of
“The Principle of a Free Cosmos”, states have the
right to free exploration of the Cosmos. However,
no substantial external research of the Universe
can not be performed without the physical use by
states of outer space and celestial bodies, since it is
dicult to carry out such research without launching

643
a space vehicle into outer space (including celestial
bodies) and placing satellites in orbit.
In turn, the presence in outer space or on a
celestial body of any objects launched by states
would always be considered at least a temporary
use of outer space and celestial bodies. Thus, it is
logical to allow the temporary use of outer space by
states. At the same time, the purpose of such use
can only be space exploration in the interests and
benet of humanity.
All other options for the use of outer space and
celestial bodies by states (including permanent
use) will contradict “The Principle of a Free Cosmos”
and one of its most important conditions, namely
the condition of “Res Nullius Civitatis” [12, c. 351],
which is the natural legal state of the Cosmos and
which States have pledged to comply with.
However, technologically developed states
carry out activities mainly only for their benet
(often without a research value for humanity).
Independently or through controlled private
companies, they launch objects into celestial bodies
and place “satellites” in outer space, which freely
occupy near-Earth orbits, thus appropriating part
of outer space.
For example, it is dicult to identify space
satellites used by States to track people as those
that function for the benet of humanity that
has never permitted States to act in such a way.
Naturally, both military satellites and other options
for the militarization of space serve not in the
interests but against the interests of humanity and
peaceful purposes [11, c. 337].
The results of scientic research obtained by
States using space activities also do not go to
humanity and are most often used only in the
interests and for the benet of certain States that
received them (especially if such achievements
allow some State to take a leading position in the
military or economic eld).
Moreover, space has already begun to be
considered by many States not as a neutral
territory, but as “a contested operational domain”
[11, c. 338].
We can say that from that moment, acting under
the auspices of the UN, States began an undeclared
confrontation with humanity and rivalry among
themselves in space.
At the same time, acting “Fraus legi t”, States
interpret the provisions on the use of Space in such
a way as to circumvent “The Principle of a Free
Cosmos” and obtain the right to use outer space
and celestial bodies without the need to obtain
separate property rights to them.
However, this is just “Fraus legi t”. In reality,
whenever anyone uses outer space and celestial
bodies to one’s advantage, their appropriation
would occur. After all, any subject, receiving the
right to freely use anything without announcing
ownership rights, would receive “their functional
equivalent” [2, c. 90]. Accordingly, such use of
outer space and celestial bodies appears to be
contrary to the conditions of “Res Nullius Civitatis”
and “The Principle of a Free Cosmos”.
However, despite this, some States (such as
the USA) are already declaring their rights to use
the material resources of outer space and celestial
bodies only to its benet by the right of the stronger
regardless of the opinions of other States.
That is, in fact, the above provisions of
international documents establishing the right of
States to freely use outer space and celestial bodies
for their benet, created the preconditions for
discriminatory attempts to colonize and expropriate
outer space and celestial bodies by certain States.
Through the ambiguous interpretation of these
provisions, certain States are trying to act according
to the principles of “Jus primae occupatiōnis” (the
right of rst seizure) and “Qui prior est tempŏre,
potior est jure” (one who is rst in time is preferred
in right).
In this regard, there is a strong possibility
that States possessing space technologies may
eventually organize a space race among themselves
for control of space objects, which in the end would
contradict the UN initiative “to avoid the expansion
of present national rivalries into this new eld”
[4] (preamble to the UN GA Resolution 1348) and
could lead to space war.
However, we should not forget that the only
correct formulation of “The Principle of a Useful
Cosmos”, which corresponds to “The Principle of
a Free Cosmos” and the condition of “Res Nullius
Civitatis”, is the following formulation:
“All states can explore and use outer space
exclusively for the benet and interests of humanity,
avoiding national rivalries into this eld”.
Thus, any other provisions of international
documents that grant States any rights to use
outer space and celestial bodies can only be applied
within the framework of the above formulation
of “The Principle of a Useful Cosmos” and to the
extent that does not contradict “The Principle of
a Free Cosmos” and the condition of “Res Nullius
Civitatis”.
That is, any space activity of States can also be
carried out only within the framework of the above
formulation of “The Principle of a Useful Cosmos”
and in that part that does not contradict “The
Principle of a Free Cosmos” and the condition of
“Res Nullius Civitatis”.
Accordingly, any actions of States to use outer
space and celestial bodies for their benet (if this
benet is not an integral part of the benet of all
humanity) would be actions that contradict the
interests of humanity and do not comply with “The
Principle of a Useful Cosmos” and “The Principle of
a Free Cosmos”.
РОЗДІЛ ХІ. МІЖНАРОДНЕ ПРАВО

644 Електронне наукове видання «Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство»
Although all this is quite clear, nevertheless, to
avoid contradictions and to eliminate the desire
of some States to apply “Fraus legi t” in space
activities, the UN General Assembly had to nalize
the provisions of Outer Space Public Law and bring
all principles into strictly denite correspondence
to each other.
And rst of all, it was necessary to clarify
the concept of “use of outer space and celestial
bodies,” with particular emphasis on the possibility
of only temporary use by States of outer space and
celestial bodies, and only for research purposes or
for “the benet of mankind”.
Also, it was necessary to clarify the concept of
“the benet of States”, with particular emphasis on
the possibility of States receiving benets only as
part of “the benet of mankind”.
At the same time, it was necessary to establish
that any interpretation by States of international
rules bypassing “the benet of mankind” or
research purposes would contradict the condition of
“Res Nullius Civitatis” and other provisions of “The
Principle of a Useful Cosmos” and “The Principle of
a Free Cosmos”.
Provided the UN General Assembly fails to
resolve these issues, then over time, “The Principle
of a Free Cosmos” will become only a declarative
principle, and the UN will only observe the space
race and the outbreak of a space war without the
ability to stop this conict.
2.2. Conventionalis stipulatio “The Principle
of Space Trac”.
2.2.1. The Principle of registration of
launches (the 1st Principle).
Everyone understands that a lack of trac
regulation can result in a transport collapse. The
same situation arose with space launches already
at the initial stage of space activity.
Realizing this, under the UN GA Resolution 1721
the UN General Assembly outlined an initiative to
register in “The Committee on the Peaceful Uses
of Outer Space” launching objects into outer space
performed by States, specically it “Calls upon
States launching objects into orbit or beyond to
furnish information promptly to the Committee
on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, through
the Secretary-General, for the registration of
launchings” [9].
The importance of this rule was that the
registration of such launches automatically secured
a legal connection between the object and the
State launching it to regulate the consequences of
such a launch [15, c. 131].
It can be considered that it was from this moment
that the international process of regulating space
activities began, which created the basic “Principles
of Space Trac”.
Formally, this initiative was just a conventionalis
stipulatio and not a specic rule. However, gradually,
all States voluntarily began to implement this
initiative and over time, naturally, it turned into
an international custom, which became the First
Principle of Space Trac.
At the same time, since the UN GA Resolution
1721 did not contain clear information necessary
for the registration, in 1962 the Committee on
Space Research (COSPAR) additionally prepared
rules for organizing launches and standardizing
basic data for transfer and inclusion in the register
[3, c. 173].
In this regard, the First Principle of Cosmic
Movement could be stated as follows:
“States launching objects into orbit or beyond
undertake to register such launches to the
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
under the rules established by this Committee”.
2.2.2. The Principle of mutual assistance
(the 2nd Principle).
After resolving the issue related to the launch
of a space vehicle into outer space, another aspect
associated with the landing of space vehicles and
astronauts appeared, namely, the need to create a
certain Model of mutual assistance among States
when carrying out space activities in this area [13,
c. 594].
The rst important element was the development
of a formula for the return of astronauts who land
on the territory of a foreign country, which was
set out in the Declaration of Legal Principles as
follows: “States shall regard astronauts as envoys
of mankind in outer space, and shall render to them
all possible assistance in the event of accident,
distress, or emergency landing on the territory of a
foreign State or on the high seas. Astronauts who
make such a landing shall be safely and promptly
returned to the State of registry of their space
vehicle” [7].
The second important element was the creation
of a formula for the return of space vehicles and
their parts that land on the territory of a foreign
state that was also set out in the Declaration of
Legal Principles for the “objects launched into outer
space”, namely: “Such objects or component parts
found beyond the limits of the State of registry
shall be returned to that State, which shall furnish
identifying data upon request prior to return” [7].
However, this is all that has been done on this
topic by the end of 1963. At the same time, the
terms of mutual assistance were not developed in
the form of contracts and had neither an execution
mechanism, nor deadlines for execution, nor a
mechanism for compensating the costs of such
execution. These statements sounded more like
wishes and promises, rather than specic terms of
cooperation, and assumed only voluntary assistance
without observing any procedures or deadlines.
That is, these conditions of mutual assistance were
performed in the form of conventionalis stipulatio

645
like other principles of space activity during this
period.
At the same time, this principle assumed the
need for mutual assistance only among States and
only concerning “objects launched into outer space
or component parts” and “astronauts” that land on
the territory of other states or the high seas. That
is, it did not provide for the processes of interaction
and mutual assistance among States in outer space
concerning the same “objects launched into outer
space” and “astronauts”, and also did not provide
for the process of interaction and mutual assistance
among astronauts. Moreover, this principle did not
address the issue of participation in interaction and
mutual assistance of private and non-governmental
actors in space activities.
Thus, as of the end of 1963, this Principle of
Mutual Assistance could be formulated as follows:
“States shall render to astronauts all possible
assistance in the event of accident, distress, or
emergency landing on the territory of a foreign
State or the high seas. Astronauts who make such
a landing shall be safely and promptly returned to
the State of registry of their space vehicle. Objects
launched into outer space or component parts found
beyond the limits of the State of registry shall be
returned to the relevant State, which shall furnish
identifying data upon request prior to return”.
2.2.3. The Principle of responsibility (the
3rd Principle).
Naturally, after establishing the legal connection
of States with launched objects, the need to
prevent dangerous space activities and to establish
the responsibility of States for the negative
consequences of space vehicle launches appeared.
That is, it was necessary to establish a certain
Principle of responsibility for space activities.
Thus, for example, the Declaration of Legal
Principles included hesitant attempts to prevent
undesirable consequences from space activities
that could be carried out to the detriment of
the principles of peaceful exploration and use of
outer space, namely: «If a State has reason to
believe that an outer space activity or experiment
planned by it or its nationals would cause
potentially harmful interference with activities of
other States in the peaceful exploration and use
of outer space, it shall undertake appropriate
international consultations before proceeding with
any such activity or experiment. A State which has
reason to believe that an outer space activity or
experiment planned by another State would cause
potentially harmful interference with activities in
the peaceful exploration and use of outer space
may request consultation concerning the activity
or experiment” [7].
However, the scope of such international
consultations and the procedure for their conduct
were not established, and their results did not have
legal force. This means that this control rule would
only work provided all States report openly and
honestly about their space activities and voluntarily
take into account the views of other States. However,
in the conditions of space competition, there is no
discussion of the honesty and openness of States.
In addition, a major drawback of this rule was
that the right to control space activities was granted
only to States. Non-governmental organizations
and individuals were deprived of this opportunity.
Accordingly, this put at risk any private individuals
and non-governmental organizations who wished
to interfere with harmful space activities. Moreover,
they could be accused of harming national security
and brought to criminal liability.
Thus, it can be assumed that this rule could
work for Animal Rationale, but in the conditions
of the space race among Animal capax rationis,
compliance with this rule is highly unlikely.
However, in addition to this rule, the UN General
Assembly also attempted to establish direct
responsibility for States for the consequences of
space activities.
Thus, in the UN GA Resolution 1802 it was
proposed to establish “liability for space vehicle
accidents” [10].
Subsequently, in the Declaration of Legal
Principles (paragraphs 5 and 8), this Principle was
described more specically, namely:
“States bear international responsibility for
national activities in outer space, whether carried on
by governmental agencies or by non-governmental
entities, and for assuring that national activities
are carried on in conformity with the principles set
forth in the present Declaration… When activities
are carried on in outer space by an international
organization, responsibility for compliance with
the principles set forth in this Declaration shall be
borne by the international organization and by the
States participating in it…
Each State which launches or procures the
launching of an object into outer space, and each
State from whose territory or facility an object is
launched, is internationally liable for damage to a
foreign State or to its natural or judicial persons by
such object or its component parts on the earth, in
air space, or in outer space” [7].
In fact, in this way, an attempt was made to
establish the responsibility of States for the space
activities they carry out and for the space activities
of entities that they control, as well as an attempt
to establish the responsibility of international
organizations for their space activities.
However, as of the end of 1963, all these
initiatives were not formalized by agreements and
had only the form of public promises (conventionalis
stipulatio).
At the same time, this responsibility was
established only for the activities of States and
РОЗДІЛ ХІ. МІЖНАРОДНЕ ПРАВО

646 Електронне наукове видання «Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство»
international organizations in outer space. That
is, this rule does not contain any liability for
space activities related to celestial bodies, nor for
activities of astronauts of a State directed against
the property and astronauts of another State [1,
c. 151].
In addition, this liability does not extend to
damage caused on the surface of the Earth but
provides only for liability for damage caused by
parts of a space object in air or outer space.
However, the main drawback of this rule was that
international liability is established only for non-
compliance with the provisions of the Declaration
of Legal Principles. In turn, it is very dicult to
determine a violation of the principles of the
mentioned Declaration, because these principles
are unclear and non-specic (for example, even the
denition of “a launching state” does not have an
unambiguous interpretation). In addition, there are
no established boundaries of air and outer space, and
there are no procedures for determining damage,
establishing guilt, and distributing responsibility
among all participants in space activities. All this
leads to the impossibility of holding the violating
State accountable. At the same time, most of the
listed issues were voiced by the ad hoc Committee
but have never been resolved [1, c. 153, 155].
Thus, we can say that formal responsibility for
violating the rules of space activities has been
established, but bringing the relevant State or
international organization to such a responsibility
would be a dicult process to implement.
However, despite these shortcomings, during
this period we can talk about the emergence
and formation of a very important and necessary
Principle of Responsibility, which could be stated
as follows:
“All States that carry national activities in outer
space (including States which launch or procure
the launching of an object into outer space, and
each State from whose territory or facility an
object is launched) bear international responsibility
for national activities in outer space (including for
the activities of governmental agencies or by non-
governmental entities), for assuring that national
activities are carried on in conformity with the
principles set forth in the Declaration of Legal
Principles, and for damage to a foreign State or
to its natural or judicial persons by such object or
its component parts on the earth, in air space, or
outer space.
International organizations bear international
responsibility for activities in outer space to ensure
that activities are carried on in conformity with
the principles set forth in the Declaration of Legal
Principles.
The implementation by States or its nationals
of space activities (including experiments) that
would cause potentially harmful interference with
activities of other States in the peaceful exploration
and use of outer space is possible only after an
international consultation concerning the activity
or experiment”.
3. Conclusion. Summing up the results of
the study of international documents during the
1958–1963 period, set out in this article and the
article “Outer Space Public Law: the 1958–1963
period. Part 1” [12, c. 249–254], we can say
that already during this period the first General
Principles of Space Activities were established,
which led to the emergence and development of a
completely new system of law, namely the Outer
Space Public Law.
At the same time, at the end of 1963, there were
already four General Principles of Space Activities,
which had the form of Conventionalis stipulatio and
were mainly set out in Resolutions and Declarations
of the UN General Assembly.
These Principles include “The Principle of a Free
Cosmos”, “The Principle of a Peaceful Cosmos”, “The
Principle of a Useful Cosmos”, and “The Principle
of Space Trac” (which consists of the following
three specic principles: the Principle of launch
registration, the Principle of mutual assistance, and
the Principle of Responsibility).
Certainly, it should be recognized that at an early
stage of its development, the Outer Space Public
Law had many gaps, shortcomings, and unresolved
issues. However, it is precisely these nuances that
today make it possible to understand how this area
of law shall be further developed.
REFERENCES:
1. Asamoah O.Y. Declaration of Legal Principles
Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space. The
Legal Signicance of the Declarations of the
General Assembly of the United Nations.
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1966.
P. 129–160. DOI:10.1007/978-94-011-
9495-2_12.
2. Galloway J. F. Game theory and the law
and policy of outer space. Space Policy.
Issue 20, № 2. P. 87–90. DOI:10.1016/j.
spacepol.2004.02.006.
3. Lissitzyn O.J. Manual on Space Law. Volumes
I and II. Compiled and edited by Nandasiri
Jasentuliyana and Roy S.K. Lee. (Dobbs
Ferry: Oceana Publications, Inc.; Alphen aan
den Rijn: Sijtho & Noordho, 1979. Vol. I:
pp. xv, 479; Vol. II: pp. xii, 550.). American
Journal of International Law. Issue. 75,
№ 2. P. 413–414. DOI:10.2307/2201282.
4. 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.

647
5. The United Nations General Assembly (14th.
Sess. 856th plenary meeting). International
co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer
space. Resolution. № 1472. URL: https://
digitallibrary.un.org/record/206356.
6. The United Nations General Assembly (18th.
Sess. 1244th plenary meeting). Question
of general and complete disarmament.
Resolution. № 1884. URL: https://
digitallibrary.un.org/record/203960.
7. 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.
8. The United Nations General Assembly (18th.
Sess. 1280th plenary meeting). International
Co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer
space. Resolution. № 1963. URL: https://
digitallibrary.un.org/record/203966.
9. 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.
10. The United Nations General Assembly (17th.
Sess. 1192nd plenary meeting). International
co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer
space. Resolution. № 1802. URL: https://
digitallibrary.un.org/record/204272.
11. 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.
12. Marinich V.K., Myklush M.I., Yara O.S. Outer
Space Public Law: the 1958–1963 period.
Part 1. The collection of «Uzhhorod National
University Herald. Series: Law». Vol. 2,
Issue 79. P. 347–355, DOI: https://doi.
org/10.24144/2307-3322.2023.79.2.54.
13. Marinich V.K., Myklush M.I., Yara O.S.
Regulation of space activities
during1958-1963. Analytical and
Comparative Jurisprudence. Issue 4. P. 582–
595. DOI:10.24144/2788-6018.2023.04.91.
14. Marinich V.K., Myklush M.I. Space Law,
Subjects and Jurisdictions: pre-1963 period.
Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence.
Issue 4. P. 569–581. DOI:10.24144/2788-
6018.2023.04.90.
15. 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.
РОЗДІЛ ХІ. МІЖНАРОДНЕ ПРАВО