Space Transportation and International Air Transportation:
The Transition Towards a Common Legal System
by Francesco Gaspari Ph.D.
“Regulation of Emerging Modes of Aerospace
Transportation"
Manfred Lachs Conference
Montreal, Canada
May 24-25, 2013
1
AIR LAW AND SPACE LAW LEGAL REGIMES
• Air law and space law are currently subject to two different and separate
regimes:
• Air Law
1) the Chicago Convention and its Annexes
2) the Warsaw Convention
3) the Montreal Convention
• Space Law
1) the Outer Space Treaty
2) the Rescue Agreement
3) the Liability Convention
4) the Registration Convention
5) the Moon Agreement
• Air Law is basically based on the principle of sovereignty.
• Space Law is based on the free exploration and use of outer space, and
the non appropriation of outer space and the celestial bodies.
2
SUBORBITAL FLIGHTS
• The applicability of those rules to suborbital flights depends on a
preliminary question concerning the scope of application of air law and
space law, which in turn is linked to the matter of delimitation between
airspace and outer space.
• The problem of delimitation of the boundary between airspace and outer
space is yet far from a common solution.
• Differences in the legal status of airspace and outer space:
States have exclusive Jurisdiction.
The concept of airspace is strictly
linked to the principle of sovereignty.
There can be no exercise of sovereignty
and territorial Jurisdiction. The principle
of sovereignty is unrelated to outer space
(it can be deduced, a contrario, by
reading Article 1 of the Chicago
Convention and from the reading of
Articles I and II of the Outer Space Treaty
and Articles 4 and 11 of the Moon Treaty
).
3
THE LACK OF CODIFIED DEFINITIONS OF AIRSPACE AND OUTER SPACE
• The approaches and theories on the demarcation of the boundary of outer
space.
Chicago Convention
Outer Space Treaty
COPUOS
None of them contain any indication as regard to any vertical limit
of the airspace from where outer space would begin.
The issue of definition of outer space has also been discussed within the
COPUOS forum since the beginning of The Sixties, but no uncontroversial
conclusion has been reached till now.
Different approaches or theories on the delimitation of outer space:
1) The Spatial Theory
2) The Functional Theory
3) The International Customary Law Doctrine
4) The No Present Need Theory
4
THE SPATIAL THEORY OR SPATIALISM
•
•
•
•
Spatialism requires that a boundary has to be fixed to determine where airspace ends and
where outer space begins.
No consensus has been reached so far as to where to draw the line of that demarcation.
The legal regime applicable is determined by the location of the object, that is, where the
object at issue is (whether it is in airspace, or in outer space, or whether it traverses both).
According to this theory, an aerospace vehicle might be considered spacecraft while in space,
and an aircraft while in airspace.
Drawbacks:
• The Spatialist approach leads to the application of two different legal regimes to suborbital
flights to the same flights.
• Significant differences exist between air law and space law: as mentioned before, according
to Article 1 of the Chicago Convention, aerospace over the territory of a State is subject to its
complete and exclusive sovereignty, while Articles 1 and 2 of the Outer Space Treaty prohibit
State from exercising any form of territorial sovereignty in space.
• An aerospace vehicle may enter suborbital space for only a short time, while its primary
activity occurs in the airspace. Hence, air law should be applied to the entire movement.
• Certification problems: aerospace vehicles might be required to be certified under two
separate legal regimes (ICAO for air law, and another one for space navigation to be created).
5
THE FUNCTIONAL THEORY OR FUNCTIONALISM
•
•
•
According to Functionalism, to determine the applicable regime of law governing the movement
should be considered the type of vehicles, that is, whether the movement is operated by an
aircraft, or by a spacecraft, or by an aerospace vehicle.
No spatial delimitation is needed.
To identify the type of vehicle involved, it is generally referred to its purpose, or its activity, or its
destination.
If the main purpose of the vehicle
is to go into outer space to conduct, f.i.,
outer space activities,
the vehicle will be qualified as a space
object, and space law applies.
if the primary purpose of the vehicle is to provide
transportation from one point on Earth to another
(an Earth-to-Earth mission), the vehicle will be
qualified as an aircraft, and air law applies all
through the entire flight, irrespective of its location.
•
The Functional Theory uses also another criterion as to determine what kind of vehicle is at stake,
namely, the technical configuration and capabilities of it.
Benefits:
•
The functionalist approach presents the advantage that a single legal regime would be
applicable throughout the flight.
• This approach can adequately deal with the problem of the applicable legal regime to
suborbital flights, as it is clear that:
 Air law always applies during the entire journey when a suborbital vehicle merely passes
through outer space in the course of Earth-to-Earth transportation.
 Space law applies during its entire journey when a vehicle passes through airspace in the
course of an Earth-to-Space transportation.
6
THE INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMARY LAW DOCTRINE
• According to this Doctrine, some aspects of the issue have already been
solved by an international customary law
The content of the customary law
The lowest altitude at which a satellite could orbit the Earth, about 100 km above the sea level, is not subject to national
sovereignty rights and is governed by space law. According to this view, below 100 km lies airspace, and above 100 km
begins outer space. As a consequence, this altitude would represent the boundary between airspace and outer space
set up by an international custom.
•
•
Drawbacks:
The existence of such a (numerical) limit regarding the delimitation of outer space is not
accepted by most States and scholars.
•
Although the existence of an international customary rule that recognizes that the lowest
altitude of orbiting satellite, about 100 km above sea level, belongs to outer space, no
international custom recognizing this altitude as the boundary between outer space and
airspace has been established.
7
THE NO PRESENT NEED THEORY
• This view requires that:
 a delimitation line should be drawn somewhere in Space, (but)
 the definition of this line is not a priority.
Different views have been expressed to support this theory.
Setting a boundary might
fetter Space activities or
needlessly interfere with
the existing regime of
international aviation
•
The need for such
delimitation is fast
growing, but it is
not of crucial
importance
The delimitation
boundary
is
scientific matter,
with
the
consequence that
it has to be left to
scientists to solve
The demarcation issue
has basically political
nature, with the law only
rendering the possibility
of assisting in the
formulation of a solution
All these reasons are no longer valid to hinder the delimitation of outer space. Even the
scientific and technical data – gathered in the past decades – are considered to be sufficient
to provide an objective basis for the establishment of a specific altitude above sea level as a
boundary between air space and outer space.
8
THE EMERGING MODES OF AEROSPACE TRANSPORTATION AND THE NEED FOR A HARMONIZED LEGAL REGIME
•
•
•
Aerospace transportation systems will be highly influenced by the legal regime in which they
are developed.
The regulation of those new modes of transportation may be imagined only within the UN
umbrella, as it involves a global dimension.
There are (at least) two ways through which the aerospace regulation under the UN could be
implemented:
by extending the ICAO mandate
to aerospace transportation and
suborbital flights
Under the ICAO perspective, two different hypotheses can be made:
or amending the existing
ICAO Annexes to the
Chicago Convention
or promulgating a new Annex
on “Space Standards”
by creating a new international
convention (even under COPUOS) to
regulate space vehicles
Although over the last 35 years
COPUOS has been involved in
drafting guidelines and principles, to
date it has been unable to
promulgate any multilateral legal
instrument for ratification by States
9
THE EMERGING MODES OF AEROSPACE TRANSPORTATION AND THE NEED FOR A HARMONIZED LEGAL REGIME
 The first sub-hypothesis would consist in redefining aircraft to include aerospace vehicles,
“so that when they fly in the airspace used by civil aircraft, the rules of safety and navigation
are the same”.
• That solution requires the amending of the “aircraft” definition in order to include
“aerospace vehicles” in the scope of the former.
• Moreover, it has been suggested that ICAO should amend its Annexes to make clear that
suborbital vehicles are included in the definition of aircraft.
• As regard liability, ICAO could ascertain whether the Montreal Convention (1999) provisions –
as well as the provisions contained in other aviation security conventions – are applicable to
aerospace vehicles.
 The second sub-hypothesis would consist in promulgating a new Annex on “Space
Standards”, on the basis of Article 37 of the Chicago Convention.
• Although this provision lists eleven areas to which ICAO has the authority to promulgate
Standards and Recommended Practices as Annexes to the Convention, that list is considered
not stringent, as ICAO, since its creation, has focused on other areas not explicitly listed in
Article 37.
• The authority of ICAO as codified in Article 37 is very similar to the Theory of Implied Powers
developed by the EU Court of Justice. According to that theory, the EU has powers not only
expressly laid down in the Treaty, but also to be implied from express provisions. Within the
EU legal order, another extension of competence is set out in Article 352 (Flexibility Clause)
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
10
THE EMERGING MODES OF AEROSPACE TRANSPORTATION AND THE NEED FOR A HARMONIZED LEGAL REGIME
•
•
•
However, before promulgating such an Annex, ICAO, by virtue of its global vocation, could
launch a survey – similar to that recommended by the Air Transport Regulation Panel
(ATRP/11) – by which States (and other interested parties, admitted to vote at the survey at
stake) would be requested to assess the feasibility of a new Annex for the implementation of
a global regulatory system in aerospace.
The possible reached consensus by responding States (as well as other interested parties) on
the core substance of such an Annex would make the enactment of the proposed Annex
more pursuable, so as to secure the highest practicable degree of harmonization in
regulations, standards, procedures, and organization (Article 37 of the Chicago Convention
refers).
Waiting for multilateral legal instruments, we believe that the simplest and most viable
solution to address the issue in this specific historic phase of transition from air law and
space law to aerospace law is to extend the ICAO authority to space law (the first subhypothesis above mentioned under the ICAO perspective).
11
THE ICAO ROLE IN THE TRANSITIONAL PHASE AND THE WAY FORWARD
• Pros and Cons of the ICAO involvement:
ICAO as a global forum
In that phase, what States need is a global
forum to discuss issues related to the
emerging modes of transportation
(aerospace) and an organization that
leads the current transitional stage
towards a codification and regulation of a
unique aerospace legal regime accepted
by all the interested parties (coming from
both air law and space law sectors).
From this perspective, ICAO represents the
proper global forum to deal with those
issues, as it is not questionable the
importance of the ICAO policies and
guidance in the field of air transport (at
least with respect to flights in the Earth’s
atmosphere) on issues like safety and
security, navigation, liability.
ICAO safety and security policies
As ICAO pointed out, safety (and
security) is one of the most
important goals in the field of air
transport, and it has to be
reached irrespective of any
change in economic regulatory
arrangements.
ICAO and harmonization measures
Moreover, ICAO would be the
proper global forum to deal with
the building of the aerospace legal
regime for other reasons, such as
global regulation and
harmonization measures.
12
THE ICAO ROLE IN THE TRANSITIONAL PHASE AND THE WAY FORWARD
 The weakness of that solution (ICAO as a global regulator):
• SARPs are non binding for States. In particular, SARPs “imply a moral obligation for State
compliance, the policies are not mandatory; application, implementation or compliance are
at the States’ discretion”.
•
However, according to a school of thought, the non binding nature of ICAO SARPs could be
overcome:
by the consideration according to which
States that have not notified ICAO of
differences between their national
regulation and the contents of SARPs bear
responsibility for implementing SARPs
once they become effective;
through the combined
reading of Articles 12, 37
and 38 of the Chicago
Convention, it is assumed
that Contracting States
would be obliged to follow
those
harmonization
measures.
13
CONCLUSIONS
•
De iure condendo, we believe that ICAO could be the proper international Organization,
not only to lead this transitional phase from air law and space law to airspace law, but
also to regulate the entire aerospace sector in the (near) future.
•
In this regard, ICAO has the authority to both promulgate a new Annex on “Space
Standards”, and amend an existing one.
•
Both those solutions will allow aerospace vehicles to operate under a UN specialized
agency and to apply all regulation concerning safety, security, liability, as well as all
other relevant rules in a harmonious and well experienced way.
•
Operating within such a single legal regime in aerospace would, also, make possible
avoid the increasing of the danger of aircraft and aerospace vehicle collisions, and will
attract investments in commercial space transportation systems.
•
In conclusion, we believe that not many bodies could guarantee the fulfillment of those
priorities like ICAO is likely to do.
14
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dr Francesco Gaspari, SSPL, PhD, MRAeS
Attorney at Law – Rome
Research Fellow and Adjunct Professor at Università G. Marconi, Rome
Research Fellow at Demetra Research Center, Rome
Fellowship Holder at the Italian Space Agency (ASI), Rome
International Bar Association (IBA)
European Centre for Space Law (ECSL)
Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS)
Email: fran.gaspari@libero.it f.gaspari@unimarconi.it
15