LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR SPACE-MADE PRODUCTS:
ADDRESSING JURISDICTION, LIABILITY AND LONG-TERM
SUSTAINABILITY IN OUTER SPACE

A. KARDAMAKI

Corresponding Author: Antonia Kardamaki, Advanced Studies (LLM) in Air and Space Law (IIASL – Leiden University, The Netherlands). Email: antkardamaki@gmail.com

Abstract

Space exploration increasingly focuses on utilising space resources for various purposes, including scientific research and commercial ventures. However, the legal framework governing space activities predominantly addresses objects launched from Earth into outer space, raising questions about the classification of products manufactured in space and the identification of launching States. That is highly relevant to ensuring the long-term sustainability of space activities, considering that the lack of clarity means uncertainty in determining jurisdiction and the application of any national legislation, and further impedes the enforcement of accountability and the encouragement of responsible behaviour through the application of liability regimes. In light of that, this paper examines the adequacy of space treaties and alternative legal mechanisms in accommodating space-made products concerning jurisdiction and liability. Through an analysis of space treaties and the hypothetical life cycle of space-made products, including production and operational phases, it explores the challenges in identifying space objects and launching States. Alternative jurisdictional links, such as ownership and effective control, are considered alongside liability regimes, including international responsibility and strict product liability. The paper concludes that the existing legal frameworks accommodate only partially space-made products and thus challenges remain in addressing jurisdictional and liability issues comprehensively. The paper underlines the necessity for amending the space treaties, adjusting national legislation and anticipating deficiencies in relevant intergovernmental agreements and private contracts.

Key words: outer space, long-term sustainability, space-made products, jurisdiction, liability.

 

Introduction

Long-term sustainability of outer space is defined as ‘the ability to maintain the conduct of space activities indefinitely into the future in a manner that realises the objectives of equitable access to the benefits of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes, in order to meet the needs of the present generations while preserving the outer space environment for future generations’ (1). Meanwhile, space resources and their utilisation have become a focal point due to their ability to be used for scientific, commercial and marketing purposes (2). This includes projects focused on building permanent structures using additive manufacturing (3), producing propellant (4), and more broadly, creating a new economy centred around space infrastructure (5). As a result, “space-made products”, namely products ‘made in outer space wholly or partially from space resources’ (6), have become central to the discussion.
The idea of extracting raw materials from celestial bodies, and then utilising them to produce, market and distribute such products is not new; the value and types of space-produced commodities, enabled by accessing space resources, were presented to the US Senate already during the 1970s (7). However, in the current era of advanced space exploration, the necessity of processing local resources, such as water, oxygen, titanium, and helium-3, has become crucial for sustaining a permanent human presence in outer space (8). It is essential not only for overcoming the inhospitable conditions of space but also for addressing the limitations imposed by the long distances that restrict the amount of supplies that can be transported from Earth (9). Additionally, utilising space resources aims to reduce the environmental impact of mining on Earth (10).
Examining those activities through the prism of long-term sustainability requires assessing whether and how producing items from extraterrestrial materials can be sustainable in the long run. If this were evaluated through the lens of the LTS Guidelines and in accordance with Article VI OST (11), it would be necessary to determine whether a State ensures that all governmental and non-governmental entities engaged in space activities have appropriate planning, procedures, and the means to comply with relevant regulatory frameworks (12). Additionally, it would be important to assess whether a State has adopted adequate policies and regulations that support harmonised and effective registration practices of space objects (13). Consideration would have to be given to whether a State has taken steps to implement its international obligations when ‘developing, revising or amending’ measures for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities (14). Finally, in analysing the above, it would be essential to evaluate the implementation of a long-term vision for sustainability in space (15), particularly assessing the role of national legislation in activating Article IX(2) OST and environmental law principles applicable in outer space activities under Article III OST (16).
However, when it comes to space-made products, in particular, it is worth questioning whether one should first take a step back to identify any legal gaps in the applicability of the space treaties (17). The hesitation arises because the space industry has historically focused on producing objects on Earth that are destined for outer space (18), a focus embedded in the current legal framework, which addresses “objects launched into outer space” and “launching States”. Therefore, any discussion on the sustainability of secondary utilisation of space resources should also tackle the fundamental question of whether space-made products, constructed in outer space, qualify as space objects, and which State would be considered the launching State in such cases.
Following the above, this paper aims to answer the following question:
To what extent are the space treaties and any alternative legal mechanisms adequate to accommodate space-made products in terms of jurisdiction and liability, particularly regarding their classification as space objects and the identification of launching States?
To address this question, the paper first defines space objects and launching States, and then seeks to identify these in the hypothetical life cycle of a space-made product, encompassing its production and operational phases. It also presents alternatives for handling space-made products that are not covered by the space treaties. The conclusion provides an answer to the research question.

Space objects and launching States

Defining space objects and launching states is a hurdle that is essential to overcome. Firstly, space is a res communis omnium (19), which, as expressed in Article II OST, means that the sovereignty and thus territory of States cannot extend to outer space. Thus, linking an object to a State, i.e. a subject of international law is necessary for the latter to exercise its quasi-territorial jurisdiction over the said object; otherwise, objects and persons would enter a legal vacuum while in outer space (20). Indeed, Article II(1) REG obligates one of the launching States to register space objects launched into earth orbit or beyond. This State of Registry then retains jurisdiction and control over the object according to Article VIII OST. Secondly, defining space objects and launching States is a prerequisite to applying the space liability regimes outlined in Article VII OST and the LIAB, considering that both establish the liability of a launching State when damage is caused to a space object by another space object.
Consequently, long-term sustainability hinges on clearly defining space objects and launching States. Without a designated launching State to register a space object and a clearly defined space object to be registered, it becomes unclear which State has jurisdiction over the object. This ambiguity complicates the application of national legislation and the LTS Guidelines, which, among others, provide for the exchange of information on space objects (21), for performing conjunction assessments (22), and for ensuring that the design of an object ensures its trackability (23). Similarly, it complicates the implementation of the twofold liability regime under Article VII OST and the LIAB. Liability regimes are essential for enforcing accountability, as they encourage responsible behaviour and deter negligent practices. They also promote the engagement of competent entities capable of anticipating and managing risks in space activities. Therefore, any lack of clarity does not mitigate the risk of a tragedy of the commons in space operations; instead, it heightens that risk.
Having commented on the importance of defining space objects and launching States, and shifting the focus to the definitions provided in the space treaties and their interpretation in the literature, a launching State is defined as one that ‘launches or procures the launching of a space object’ or ‘from whose territory or facility a space object is launched’ (24). Meanwhile, defining space objects is more difficult as there is no comprehensive definition of the term within the space treaties (25). In particular, space objects are defined to include ‘component parts of a space object as well as its launch vehicle and parts thereof’ (26), a definition, which, however, aims to exclude restricted interpretations and registration gaps and as such serves more as a clarification (27). In addition, specific references to certain space objects can be found in Articles 3 (2) and 12 MOON (28). It is also noteworthy that the space treaties use the terms “space objects” and “objects launched into outer space” interchangeably, without a change in the meaning (29). Finally, in practice, what qualifies as a space object depends on how the national law of the State of registry or the State authorising the operation defines it. This definition may vary widely, from comprehensive to non-existent (30), and could potentially include space-made products under the term “space object” (31).
In light of this fragmented definitional approach, it is more practical to examine space-made products through what is perceived as a common understanding of the term: space objects are the human-made artefacts either launched into outer space or intended for such launches, designed for utilisation in space exploration and related activities (32). The following section applies this general understanding to the hypothetical life cycle of a space-made product to identify “space objects” and “launching States” during the production and operational stages of such products, allowing thus for the application of the traditional jurisdictional link by registration and of the space liability regimes of Article VII OST and the LIAB.

Identifying Space Objects and Launching States in the Life Cycle of Space-Made Products

Production phase

In line with the aforementioned relevant provisions and interpretation, naming a space-made product “space object” and identifying its launching State requires a launch. That is not possible for a space-made product under construction. However, according to Article VIII OST, States retain jurisdiction and control over an object launched into outer space. A result of this “quasi-territoriality” is that not only the craft itself but also the objects on board remain under the jurisdiction and control of the State (33). That is also the case when an item is linked to a space object and remains under the control of the original State, even if temporarily separated from it (34); equipment, vehicles and other structures or supplies linked to a station, which is registered as a space object fall under its registration and jurisdiction (35).
The same can apply to space-made products during their production phase. These will not be registered separately but will fall under the jurisdiction of the State that has registered the production -manufacturing- station. Likewise, the liability rights and obligations of the launching States of the station will apply (36). This solution provides certainty, mirroring the jurisdiction regime onboard the International Space Station (hereinafter “ISS”) (37). However, a potential drawback of this theory is the possibility that the production station may not be registered. While this concern may not apply when there is a prior agreement, as is the case with the ISS, or when the station is a launched space object (38), it becomes relevant if the station is constructed in outer space and assembled from registered space objects if these cannot be identified separately anymore. In such cases, questions arise regarding whether this constructed station shall be registered separately from its component parts according to Article II(1) REG (39), and when this registration would occur, given REG’s vagueness concerning the timing and specifics of registration (40).

Post-production phase

Having identified a possible solution for space-made products in production, the next step is to address their operational phase. This post-production phase appears to be contingent upon the product’s functionality and can be categorised into two types. The first type includes space-made products intended to leave the space station or depart from the celestial body where they are manufactured. The second type consists of products designed to remain on site.

Products leaving the manufacturing station/celestial body

Products leaving the space station or departing the celestial body shall be further divided into two subcategories: those that will serve as component parts of another space object departing, and those designed to autonomously leave the celestial body.
For the former subcategory, although there exists no authoritative definition, component parts are understood to include those elements without which a space object would be deemed incomplete (41). For instance, if the space-made product is propellant, it serves to fuel a space object, thereby qualifying as a component part (42). This scenario mirrors the production phase; similarly to what was analysed in the previous section, the component part will fall under the jurisdiction of the State of Registry of the space object. In that context, it is important to note that in that case the initial launching States will also be held liable for any damage caused by the space-made product, an aspect that should be addressed in liability apportionment agreements among launching States, as regulated by Article V(2) LIAB and encouraged by UN A/Res59/115.
In the case of the second subcategory, the question arising is whether “launching” necessitates the ignition of the launch occurring from Earth. While this has been supported in the past (43), it remains a topic that is rarely explored in the literature, leaving it open for discussion. Any interpretation shall be based on an objective threefold interpretation -verbal, systematic and teleological, grounded in the principle of “good faith”, as required by Article 31 VCLT (44). In particular, “into” means ‘to the inside or middle of a place, container, area etc’ (45). Even though outer space lacks a clearly defined “inside” or “middle”, the word “into” can be used to indicate movement between bodies in outer space. Similarly, the term “to launch” means ‘to release, catapult, or send off’ (46), suggesting that it is not exclusive to launches igniting from Earth and may also include releasing an object in outer space (47). Besides, the ratio legis of Article VIII OST and the REG supports the need for an inclusive interpretation, as evidenced by the application of the space treaties to space debris, which is neither launched nor intended to be launched into outer space (48).
Additionally, a launching State can be readily identified by adjusting the application of Articles VII OST, I(a) REG and I(c) LIAB, specifically excluding the category of the State from whose territory a space-made product is launched. Thus, either the state that launches or procures the launching, or the State from whose facilities the space-made product is launched will register the space-made product, while all States that fall under these three categories will be held liable for the damage caused by that space-made product and be entitled to claim compensation for the damage caused to it.


Products remaining in the manufacturing station/on celestial body

Finally, regarding products designed to remain onboard the manufacturing station or on the same celestial body, they will fall under the jurisdiction of a specific State only if they are linked to a registered installation or station, as previously analysed in the context of space-made products during their production phase. For instance, this could apply to 3D-printed equipment used in facilities registered by a State. However, if such a facility is not registered, or if the space-made product is not connected to another space object, such as a 3D-printed station intended to function as a human settlement, the existing provisions are inadequate to cover them. This situation highlights the need to identify alternative legal frameworks aimed at establishing jurisdiction and liability for space-made products, which is discussed in the following section.

Alternative Jurisdictional Links and Liability Regimes for Space-Made Products

Alternative jurisdictional links

Considering the possible alternatives concerning jurisdiction, de lege ferenda it has been suggested that Article II(1) REG could be expanded to include space objects installed or constructed in outer space, regardless of the origin of the materials used. These objects could then be registered by the State ‘which procure, finance, or carry out the construction […] or own or operate them‘ (49). Another suggestion is for States to adopt provisions allowing for jurisdiction and control on the grounds of responsibility (50).
Meanwhile, de lege lata, Article VIII(1) OST provides that a State ‘retains’ jurisdiction, which has been interpreted as indicating a pre-existing jurisdictional link between the State and the object, independent of registration, thus allowing for alternative jurisdictional connections (51). Two potential links can be identified: ownership and effective control.
Ownership is suggested as a jurisdictional link, based partly on the use of the pronoun ‘their’ in Article 12(1) MOON and partly on the provisions in Articles VIII(2) OST and 12(2) MOON, which state that ownership of space objects remains intact despite their presence in outer space (52). This approach aligns with customary international law, which requires a ‘genuine’ connection to establish jurisdiction (53). However, a key challenge lies in the fact that ownership of space-made products also depends on whether the ownership of space resources is recognised as lawful and permitted under OST (54), the core issue being whether these activities amount to prohibited “appropriation” (55), or they constitute a lawful use of outer space (56). One perspective adopts a preclusive stance, arguing that activities not explicitly allowed by law are prohibited, whereas, a more flexible view promotes a case-by-case assessment of whether such exploitation is permissible (57).
Effective control over an object, on the other hand, provides an alternative jurisdictional link, grounded in the principle that ‘jurisdiction should induce control, and control should be based on jurisdiction’ (58). This theory draws an analogy from human rights jurisprudence, suggesting that States assume obligations extraterritorially when they exercise authority and control (59). Relevant criteria include the terms “control” (60), “effective control” and “decisive influence” (61). In the context of space-made products, States already exercise personal jurisdiction extraterritorially over the activities of their nationals, as outlined in Article VI OST, by authorising and supervising them (62), essentially acting as if they already hold jurisdiction over the object (63). According to this approach, which closely aligns with the Hague Building Blocks proposal (64), such actions can constitute effective control over the space object, i.e. the space-made product, thereby establishing a valid jurisdictional link.
The adequacy of these theories to address the challenges of space-made products remains uncertain. Regarding ownership, besides the challenge of whether it is permitted in the first place, the basis of the theory lies in the MOON, which has limited acceptance, with only 17 ratifying States, not including major space powers. Even if this were not an issue, its scope is restricted to the Moon and other celestial bodies, leaving space-made products in the void of outer space unaddressed (65). Additionally, if a market for space-made products is anticipated in the long term, the practicality of jurisdiction based solely on ownership becomes questionable. As for effective control, this jurisdictional link originates from jurisprudence in a different legal domain. While this concept may apply to rights that States can enforce through national legislation, its applicability to obligations imposed on States can only be determined through judicial proceedings, if and when such cases are litigated.

Alternative liability schemes

Considering the possible alternatives concerning liability, de lege lata the only option arises from public international law, specifically the responsibility of States for their internationally wrongful acts. This is rooted in Articles I(2) and III OST, which establish that international law is applicable to space activities. In essence, as outlined in Articles 1, 2, and 12 ARSIWA (66), States are accountable for any internationally wrongful acts or omissions attributable to them if they breach their international obligations. Additionally, Chapter II ARSIWA entitles States to seek cessation, restitution in kind, or reparation for damages under international responsibility. Consequently, in the context of space-made products, harm caused by such an object can be compensated if there is improper authorisation or inadequate supervision of the space activity, or if a non-governmental entity has violated a specific obligation, with such violations being attributed to the State.
Meanwhile, de lege ferenda it is worth exploring whether a product liability regime could serve as a suitable alternative for addressing damage caused by space-made products over the long term, particularly in light of the aim of eventually creating a market. Unlike the current framework, such product liability regimes would not hold States accountable, but would instead place liability on the manufacturer of the space-made product or its components, as well as those involved in its supply or distribution, under a strict liability regime (67). While a detailed analysis of product liability laws in various jurisdictions is beyond the scope of this paper, it is noteworthy that the EU Dir 85/374/EEC introduced a similar regime, based on the idea that holding producers and importers accountable aligns with the ‘increasing technicality’ of production and represents a ‘fair apportionment of the risks inherent in modern technological production’, while also protecting fair competition (68). These principles are also relevant in the context of space-made products. Therefore, applying a product liability regime could provide an effective approach for space-made products, counterbalancing the need to prove fault for damage caused in outer space under Article III LIAB, the need for pursuing claims through diplomatic channels under Article IX LIAB, the inherent complexity of space-made products, and the potential public hazards involved (69). Besides, the introduction of additional liability regimes is not precluded as per Article XI LIAB, especially considering the treaty’s limited scope (70).
Regarding the adequacy of these two alternative liability regimes, international responsibility could offer a more effective approach compared to the LIAB, as it can address the latter’s limited scope and definitional ambiguities. However, the absence of binding regulations specifically covering space-made products creates a significant gap in the legal framework for addressing liability comprehensively. In contrast, implementing a product liability regime could align well with the complexities of space activities in the long term. Nevertheless, this approach appears better suited to a mature space market -and an equally developed space insurance market- rather than to experimental technologies, where even the existing product liability frameworks often provide grounds for exoneration of liability (71).

Conclusion

Identifying “space objects” and “launching States” in the case of space-made products is essential for ensuring long-term sustainability in space activities. Without clear definitions, determining jurisdiction, applying any national legislation and enforcing accountability through liability regimes become uncertain, which undermines responsible behaviour.
This paper concludes that the current legal framework for establishing jurisdiction and liability in space activities accommodates space-made products only partly. In particular, during the production phase, space-made products share the same launching States and jurisdiction -via registration- with their manufacturing station. Similarly, during the operational phase, this holds true for space-made products that become component parts of another registered space object. For space-made products that operate autonomously and depart from their manufacturing space station or celestial body, the space treaties remain applicable, as these products can be classified as space objects through an inclusive interpretation of the wording ‘to launch into outer space’, except that there is no launching State from whose territory a launch takes place. However, space-made products that remain on their manufacturing space station or celestial body, or those that become part of an unregistered space object fall outside the scope of the space treaties. To address these gaps, alternative jurisdictional links -ownership and effective control- and liability regimes -international responsibility and product liability- were explored. While these present potential solutions, they remain inadequate or premature for comprehensive application.
Given the connection between a well-defined legal framework for jurisdiction and liability for space-made products and long-term sustainability, it is clear that there is an urgent need to reassess the provisions of the space treaties. This is especially relevant given the anticipated growing involvement of the private sector in space resource utilisation and the production of space-made products. In the interest of long-term sustainability, space stakeholders must, in the interim, recognise the limitations of existing legal frameworks. Space actors should proactively address deficiencies in both intergovernmental agreements and private contracts related to space activities involving space-made products. Such agreements should explicitly identify space-made products as space objects and designate at least one State as the launching State. This approach can push States to update their national legislation, incorporating comprehensive definitions that encompass space-made products and ensuring accountability through their national licensing requirements.
The sustainability of outer space activities requires a legally coherent and coordinated effort involving international cooperation, legal reform and proactive policy-making. As the production of space-made products becomes more feasible, all space actors must rise to the challenge of identifying and bridging legal gaps through a multi-level approach, both nationally and internationally. This strategy will help protect national space industries and safeguard the prospect and viability of space activities, ensuring they remain sustainable, equitable and beneficial for all humanity.

References

  1. Report of the sixty-second session of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (12-21 Jun. 2019), UN General Assembly document A/74/20, Annex II (hereinafter “LTS Guidelines”), section I para. 5.
  2. Olavo de Oliveira Bittencourt Neto and others (eds), Building Blocks for the Development of an International Framework for the Governance of Space Resource Activities: A Commentary (Eleven International Publishing 2020) 24.
  3. N Labeaga-Martínez and others, ‘Additive Manufacturing for a Moon Village’ (2017) 13 Procedia Manufacturing 794, 800.
  4. Nicholas James Bennett, Damon Ellender and Andrew G Dempster, ‘Commercial Viability of Lunar In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)’ (2020) 182 Planetary and Space Science 104842.
  5. Ispace, ‘About Us | Ispace’ https://ispace-inc.com/aboutus accessed 13 October 2024.
  6. The International Space Resources Governance Working Group, ‘Building Blocks for the Developments of an International Framework on Space Resource Activities’ (11.2019) < https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/rechtsgeleerdheid/instituut-voor-publiekrecht/lucht–en-ruimterecht/space-resources/bb-thissrwg–cover.pdf>, 2.
  7. Kamil Muzyka, ‘Space Manufacturing and Trade: Addressing Regulatory Issues’ (2019) 17 Astropolitics 141, 142–143.
  8. M Anand and others, ‘A Brief Review of Chemical and Mineralogical Resources on the Moon and Likely Initial in Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Applications’ (2012) 74 Planetary and Space Science 42, 42; Namrata Goswami, ‘China in Space’ (2018) 12 Strategic Studies Quarterly 74, 84–85.
  9. Joel O Wooten and Christopher S Tang, ‘Operations in Space: Exploring a New Industry’ (2018) 49 Decision Sciences 999, 1009.
  10. Hope M. Babcock, ‘The Public Trust Doctrine, Outer Space, and the Global Commons: Time to Call Home ET’ (2019) 69 Syracuse Law Review, 198.
  11. Convention on the Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1975), 1023 UNTS 15 (hereinafter “OST”)
  12. Guideline A.3 LTS Guidelines (n 1).
  13. Guideline A.5 ibid.
  14. Guideline A.2 ibid.
  15. G Petrovici and U M. Bohlmann, ‘NewSpace and Ensuring Long-Term Sustainability of the Space Environment’ in Lesley Jane Smith, Ingo Baumann and Susan-Gale Wintermuth (eds) Routledge Handbook of Commercial Space Law (Routledge 2024), 515 ff.
  16. I Baumann and E Pellander, ‘Ensuring Space Sustainability through National Space Legislation’ in Lesley Jane Smith, Ingo Baumann and Susan-Gale Wintermuth (eds) Routledge Handbook of Commercial Space Law (Routledge 2024), 533 ff.
  17. For the purposes of this paper the adopted legal framework or “space treaties” refers to the space treaties which are relevant to jurisdiction and liability, namely the Convention on the Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1975), 1023 UNTS 15 (hereinafter “OST”), Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1972), 961 UNTS 2389 (hereinafter “LIAB”) and Convention on the Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1976), 1023 UNTS 15 (hereinafter “REG”).
  18. Wooten and Tang (n 9) 1000.
  19. Stephan Hobe, ‘Article I’ in Stephan Hobe, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd and Kai-Uwe Schrogl (eds), Cologne Commentary on Space Law – Outer Space Treaty, vol I (Carl Heymanns Verlag 2009) 25–44.
  20. Bin Cheng, ‘Outer Space: The International Legal Framework—the International Legal Status of Outer Space, Space Objects, and Spacemen’, Studies in International Space Law (Oxford University Press 1997) 415.
  21. Guideline B.2 LTS Guidelines (n 1).
  22. Guideline B.4 ibid.
  23. Guideline B.8 ibid.
  24. Article VII OST, Article I(b) LIAB, Article I(a) REG.
  25. Bin Cheng, ‘International Responsibility and Liability for Launch Activities’, Studies in International Space Law (Oxford University Press 1997) 599.
  26. Article I(b) REG, Article I(d) LIAB.
  27. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd, ‘Article I’ in Stephan Hobe, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd and Kai-Uwe Schrogl (eds), Cologne Commentary on Space Law – Volume II-Registration Convention (Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbH 2013), para 27.
  28. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1984), 1363 UNTS 3 (hereinafter “MOON”).
  29. Bin Cheng, ‘Definitional Issues in Space Law: “Space Objects”, “Astronauts”, and Related Expressions’, Studies in International Space Law (Oxford University Press 1997) 495.
  30. Christopher M Hearsey, ‘Comparative Study of the Definition of Space Object in National Space Laws and Its Legal Effect Under International Law’ [2012] SSRN Electronic Journal 14–18 http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2072514 accessed 13 October 2024.
  31. See for instance the draft American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act (HR 3610, 2019), §80101(11)(Β)(i).
  32. Manfred Hintz, ‘Weltraumgegenstände’ in Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel and Marietta Benkö (eds), Handbuch des Weltraumrechts (Heymann 1991) 160; Frans von der Dunk, ‘International Space Law’ in Frans von der Dunk and Fabio Tronchetti (eds), Handbook of Space Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2015) 86.
  33. Bin Cheng, ‘Nationality for Spacecraft?’, Studies in International Space Law (Oxford University Press 1997) 479.
  34. Hearsey (n 30) 503.
  35. Cheng, ‘Definitional Issues’ (n 29) 504.
  36. A further issue is whether these products would be declared as additional information under Article IV(2) REG, as encouraged by A/RES/62/101, or in a separate newly established Registry, including only space-made products, as proposed by the Hague Building Blocks (n 6), p 6.
  37. Agreement among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station, Washington, done 29 January 1998 (2001) Space Law-Basic Legal Documents, D.II.4, (hereinafter “IGA”). Particular attention is drawn to Article 5 IGA, according to which each State providing a flight element shall register it as a space object and Article 21(2) IGA on intellectual property rights, according to which activities occurring on board an ISS element are considered to have occurred in the territory of the State of Registry.
  38. See examples of 3-D printing stations in NASA, ‘On-Orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing 2 (OSAM-2)’ https://www.nasa.gov/mission/on-orbit-servicing-assembly-and-manufacturing-2-osam-2/ accessed 13 October 2024.; Mike Wall, ‘Archinaut, a Construction Robot for Space, Could Launch a Test Flight in 2022’ (SPACE.com, 13 July 2019) https://www.space.com/made-in-space-archinaut-flight-test-2022.html accessed 13 October 2024.
  39. Bin Cheng, ‘Space Objects and Their Various Connecting Factors’ in Daphné Crowther (ed), Gabriel Lafferranderie, Outlook on Space Law Over the Next 30 Years (Brill | Nijhoff 1997) 205.
  40. Tanja L Masson-Zwaan and Mahulena Hofmann, Introduction to Space Law (Wolters Kluwer 2019) 112–113.
  41. Stephen Gorove, ‘The Recovery and Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space: A Legal Analysis and Interpretation’ 4 International Lawyer 686.
  42. ibid.
  43. Stephen Gorove, ‘Toward a Clarification of the Term Space Object – An International Legal and Policy Imperative’ 21 Journal of Space Law 11, 18.
  44. Oliver Dörr, ‘Article 31’ in: O. Dörr and K. Schmalenbach (eds), The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A Commentary, Springer (2012), 541-548
  45. ‘Into’ (Cambridge Dictionary) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/into accessed 13 October 2024.
  46. ‘Launch’ (Merriam-Webster dictionary) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/launch accessed 13 October 2024.
  47. This could be useful if a 3-D printing space station like Archinaut (n 38) released a space-made product into outer space, without requiring initial propulsion.
  48. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd and Stephan Mick, ‘Article VIII’ in Stephan Hobe, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd and Kai-Uwe Schrogl (eds), Cologne Commentary on Space Law – Outer Space Treaty, vol I (Carl Heymanns Verlag 2009), para 34.
  49. Cheng, ‘Definitional Issues’ (n 29) 504.
  50. Bittencourt Neto and others (n 2) 43 ff.
  51. Bin Cheng, ‘The Commercial Development of Space: The Need for New Treaties’, Studies in International Space Law (Oxford University Press 1997) 655.
  52. Bin Cheng, ‘Space Objects and Their Various Connecting Factors’ in Daphné Crowther (ed), Gabriel Lafferranderie, Outlook on Space Law Over the Next 30 Years (Brill | Nijhoff 1997) 208–210.
  53. Nottebohm, Liechtenstein v Guatemala [1955] ICJ Rep 4, p 23
  54. Fabio Tronchetti, The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime (Brill | Nijhoff 2009) 194.
  55. See e.g. Olga Volynskaya, ‘Space Resources Exploitation from the International and Domestic Law Perspectives, the Russian Approach’ in PJ Blount and others (eds), Proceedings of the International Institute of Space Law 2016 (Eleven International Publishing 2017).
  56. Shimpei Ishido, Atsushi Mizushima and Kojiro Fujii, ‘What Is an Appropriate Interaction Between International Law and Domestic Legal Systems to Promote Space Resources Development?’ (2017) 42 Air and Space Law 543, 548–551.
  57. Brian R Israel, ‘Space Resources in the Evolutionary Course of Space Lawmaking’ (2019) 113 AJIL Unbound 114, 117.
  58. Gabriel Lafferranderie, ‘Jurisdiction and Control of Space Objects and the Case of an International Intergovernmental Organisation (ESA)’ (2005) 54 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 228, 231.
  59. Wanlu ‘Laura’ Zhang, ‘Extraterritorial Jurisdiction on Celestial Bodies’ (2019) 47 Space Policy 148, 152.
  60. Loizidou v Turkey [1995] ECtHR, Application no. 15318/89, para 62.
  61. Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and the Russian Federation [2004] ECtHR, Appl. No. 48797/99, paras 5, 392.
  62. Zhang, (n 59) 150
  63. Jean-François Mayence, ‘Harmful Interference in Telecommunications under International and National Space Law’ in Mahulena Hofmann (ed), Harmful interference in regulatory perspective: legal rules for interference-free radio communication (Routledge 2015) 115.
  64. Hague Building Blocks (n 6), 3.
  65. On the non-application of MOON off celestial bodies and the negotiations of MOON see Eilene Galloway, ‘Space Manufacturing and the Proposed Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies’, 4th Space manufacturing; Proceedings of the Fifth Conference (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1981) 56.
  66. International Law Commission Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Official Record of the General Assembly, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, UN Doc A/56/10 (2001).
  67. Nicolas Mateesco Matte, ‘Product Liability of the Manufacturer of Space Objects’ (1977) 2 Annals of Air and Space Law 375, 378.
  68. Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products [1985] OJ L 210, preambular clauses 5, 6.
  69. Matte (n 67) 380–381.
  70. Brian Abrams, ‘First Contact: Establishing Jurisdiction over Activities in Outer Space’ (2014) 42 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 797, 806–807.
  71. e.g. EU Dir 85/374/EEC, Article 7(3).

Bibliography

Legislation

• Agreement among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station, Washington, done 29 January 1998 (2001) Space Law-Basic Legal Documents, D.II.4
• Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1984), 1363 UNTS 3
• Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1972), 961 UNTS 2389
• Convention on the Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1976), 1023 UNTS 15
• Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products [1985] OJ L 210
• Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1967), 610 UNTS 205
• Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties (1969), 1155 UNTS 331

Cases

• Nottebohm, Liechtenstein v Guatemala [1955] ICJ Rep 4
• Loizidou v Turkey [1995] ECtHR, Application no. 15318/89
• Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and the Russian Federation [2004] ECtHR, Appl. No. 48797/99

UN Documents

• ILC Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Official Record of the General Assembly, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, UN Doc A/56/10 (2001)
• UN Report of the sixty-second session of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (12-21 Jun. 2019), UN General Assembly document A/74/20
• UN Res 59/115 of 10 Dec. 2004
• UN Res 62/101 of 17 Dec. 2007

Books

• Baumann I and Pellander E, ‘Ensuring Space Sustainability through National Space Legislation’ in Smith L J, Baumann I and Wintermuth S-G (eds), Routledge Handbook of Commercial Space Law (Routledge 2024), 533 ff
• Bittencourt Neto O de O and others (eds), Building Blocks for the Development of an International Framework for the Governance of Space Resource Activities: A Commentary (Eleven International Publishing 2020)
• Cheng B, ‘Definitional Issues in Space Law: “Space Objects”, “Astronauts”, and Related Expressions’, Studies in International Space Law (Oxford University Press 1997)
• ——, ‘International Responsibility and Liability for Launch Activities’, Studies in International Space Law (Oxford University Press 1997)
• ——, ‘Nationality for Spacecraft?’, Studies in International Space Law (Oxford University Press 1997)
• ——, ‘Outer Space: The International Legal Framework—the International Legal Status of Outer Space, Space Objects, and Spacemen’, Studies in International Space Law (Oxford University Press 1997)
• ——, ‘Space Objects and Their Various Connecting Factors’ in Daphné Crowther (ed), Gabriel Lafferranderie, Outlook on Space Law Over the Next 30 Years (Brill | Nijhoff 1997)
• ——, ‘The Commercial Development of Space: The Need for New Treaties’, Studies in International Space Law (Oxford University Press 1997)
• Dörr O, ‘Article 31’ in: O. Dörr and K. Schmalenbach (eds), The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A Commentary, Springer (2012)
• Galloway E, ‘Space Manufacturing and the Proposed Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies’ (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1981)
• Hintz M, ‘Weltraumgegenstände’ in Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel and Marietta Benkö (eds), Handbuch des Weltraumrechts (Heymann 1991)
• Hobe S, ‘Article I’ in Stephan Hobe, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd and Kai-Uwe Schrogl (eds), Cologne Commentary on Space Law – Outer Space Treaty, vol I (Carl Heymanns Verlag 2009)
• Masson-Zwaan T and Hoffmann Mahulena, Introduction to Space Law (Wolters Kluwer 2019)
• Mayence J-F, ‘Harmful Interference in Telecommunications under International and National Space Law’ in Mahulena Hofmann (ed), Harmful interference in regulatory perspective: legal rules for interference-free radio communication (Routledge 2015)
• Petrovici G and Bohlmann U M., ‘NewSpace and Ensuring Long-Term Sustainability of the Space Environment’ in Smith L J, Baumann I and Wintermuth S-G (eds), Routledge Handbook of Commercial Space Law (Routledge 2024), 515 ff.
• Schmidt-Tedd B, ‘Article I’ in Stephan Hobe, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd and Kai-Uwe Schrogl (eds), Cologne Commentary on Space Law – Volume II-Registration Convention (Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbH 2013)
• Schmidt-Tedd B and Mick S, ‘Article VIII’ in Stephan Hobe, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd and Kai-Uwe Schrogl (eds), Cologne Commentary on Space Law – Outer Space Treaty, vol I (Carl Heymanns Verlag 2009)
• Tronchetti F, The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime (Brill | Nijhoff 2009)
• Volynskaya O, ‘Space Resources Exploitation from the International and Domestic Law Perspectives, the Russian Approach’ in PJ Blount and others (eds), Proceedings of the International Institute of Space Law 2016 (Eleven International Publishing 2017)
• von der Dunk F, ‘International Space Law’ in Frans von der Dunk and Fabio Tronchetti (eds), Handbook of Space Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2015) 86.

Journals

• Abrams B, ‘First Contact: Establishing Jurisdiction over Activities in Outer Space’ (2014) 42 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 797
• Anand M and others, ‘A Brief Review of Chemical and Mineralogical Resources on the Moon and Likely Initial in Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Applications’ (2012) 74 Planetary and Space Science 42
• Babcock H M, ‘The Public Trust Doctrine, Outer Space, and the Global Commons: Time to Call Home ET’ (2019) 69 Syracuse Law Review
• Bennett NJ, Ellender D and Dempster AG, ‘Commercial Viability of Lunar In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)’ (2020) 182 Planetary and Space Science 104842
• Gorove S, ‘The Recovery and Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space: A Legal Analysis and Interpretation’ 4 International Lawyer 682
• ——, ‘Toward a Clarification of the Term Space Object – An International Legal and Policy Imperative’ 21 Journal of Space Law 11
• Goswami N, ‘China in Space’ (2018) 12 Strategic Studies Quarterly 74
• Hearsey CM, ‘Comparative Study of the Definition of Space Object in National Space Laws and Its Legal Effect Under International Law’ [2012] SSRN Electronic Journal http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2072514 accesssed 13 October 2024
• Ishido S, Mizushima A and Fujii K, ‘What Is an Appropriate Interaction Between International Law and Domestic Legal Systems to Promote Space Resources Development?’ (2017) 42 Air and Space Law 543
• Israel BR, ‘Space Resources in the Evolutionary Course of Space Lawmaking’ (2019) 113 AJIL Unbound 114
• Labeaga-Martínez N and others, ‘Additive Manufacturing for a Moon Village’ (2017) 13 Procedia Manufacturing 794
• Lafferranderie G, ‘Jurisdiction and Control of Space Objects and the Case of an International Intergovernmental Organisation (ESA)’ (2005) 54 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 228
• Mateesco Matte N, ‘Product Liability of the Manufacturer of Space Objects’ (1977) 2 Annals of Air and Space Law 375
• Muzyka K, ‘Space Manufacturing and Trade: Addressing Regulatory Issues’ (2019) 17 Astropolitics 141
• The International Space Resources Governance Working Group, ‘Building Blocks for the Developments of an International Framework on Space Resource Activities’ (11.2019) https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/rechtsgeleerdheid/instituut-voor-publiekrecht/lucht–en-ruimterecht/space-resources/bb-thissrwg–cover.pdf
• Wooten JO and Tang CS, ‘Operations in Space: Exploring a New Industry’ (2018) 49 Decision Sciences 999
• Zhang W ‘Laura’, ‘Extraterritorial Jurisdiction on Celestial Bodies’ (2019) 47 Space Policy 148

Miscellaneous

• Ispace, ‘About Us | Ispace’ https://ispace-inc.com/aboutus accesssed 13 October 2024’
• Draft American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act (HR 3610, 2019)
• ‘Into’ (Cambridge Dictionary) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/into accesssed 13 October 2024
• ‘Launch’ (Merriam-Webster dictionary) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/launch accesssed 13 October 2024
• NASA, ‘On-Orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing 2 (OSAM-2)’ https://www.nasa.gov/mission/on-orbit-servicing-assembly-and-manufacturing-2-osam-2/ accesssed 13 October 2024
• Wall M, ‘Archinaut, a Construction Robot for Space, Could Launch a Test Flight in 2022’ (SPACE.com, 13 July 2019) https://www.space.com/made-in-space-archinaut-flight-test-2022.html accesssed 13 October 2024