Territorial sovereignty is an important aspect of Statehood. A State cannot be called as sovereign if it does not have absolute control over its territory. Under this domain, the State can exercise exclusive jurisdiction over persons and objects. Other States have no right to interfere. Territorial sovereignty of a State can be violated by the unauthorized landing made by an spacecraft. However the liability can be evaded by taking the plea of certain things like right to innocent passage, customary international law, etc. Here, Chicago Convention and the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea play a very important role in deciding the liability of the State as regards violation of territorial sovereignty of another State.
It is a space law obligation to treat astronauts as envoys of mankind. Rescue Agreement specifically provides for this. Many articles in the Treaty on Principles Governing Activities of States in Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including Moon and other Celestial Bodies substantiate the same point. Also, non-prosecution of the astronauts is an obligation erga-omnes. ‘Envoys of mankind’ is rather an ornate term. It has, however not been used as such in any of the case by the International Court of Justice. However, emphasis is given to the assisting astronauts in times of need.
TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY
One of the essential elements of Statehood is the occupation of a territorial area, within which the state law operates. The term ‘territorial sovereignty’ signifies that within this territorial domain jurisdiction is exercised by the state over the persons and property to the exclusion of other states. This concept bears some resemblance to the patrimonial notions of ownership under private law, and in fact the early writers on international law adopted many of the civil principles of the property in their treatment of state territorial sovereignty. To this day, their influence has persisted so that in particular the rules as to acquisition and loss of territorial sovereignty plainly reflect the influences of civil law.
Judge Huber in the case of Island of Palmas Arbitration between Netherlands and United States briefly defined territorial sovereignty in terms of the existence of rights over territory rather than the independence of the state itself or the relation of persons to persons. In this case it was held that:
“Sovereignty in the relation between the States signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State.”
He further went on to say that:
The development of national organization of States during the last few centuries and, as corollary, the development of international law, have established this principle of the exclusive competence of the State in regard to its own territory in such a way as to make it a point of departure in settling most questions that concern international relations.
In Corfu Channel case, territorial sovereignty was defined as something which involves the exclusive right to display the activities of a State. This right has a corollary duty: the obligation to protect within the territory the rights of other states, in particular their right to integrity and inviolability. It is a way of contrasting ‘the fullest rights over territory known to the law’ with certain minor territorial rights.
Territorial sovereignty has a positive and a negative aspect. The former relates to the exclusively of the competence of the state regarding its own territory, while the latter refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other states. The essence of territorial sovereignty is contained in the notion of the title. This term relates to both the factual and legal conditions under which territory is deemed to belong to one particular authority or another. In other words, it refers to the existence of those facts required under international law to entail the legal consequences of the change in the judicial status of a particular territory. International law prohibits a State from exercising its power in any form in the territory of another state.
VIOLATION OF TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY VIS-À-VIS UNAUTHORIZED LANDING
Article VI of the Treaty Governing the Activities of States in Exploration and use of Outer Space, including Moon and Other Celestial Bodies states that:
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non- governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization.
State sovereignty over airspace and territorial waters is a fundamental principle of international law. In certain circumstances States agree to relax their claim to sovereignty. However if none of the conditions are satisfied, there is violation of the State’s sovereignty. If the violation of a State’s sovereignty is because of ‘national activities of another State, then that State whose activities have violated the sovereignty is held responsible under international law.
(i)LANDING MADE IN PURSUANT TO ANY EXPRESS RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE
If a State does not have any express right of innocent passage under the Chicago Convention, the United Nations Convention on Law of Sea or under Space Treaties and it makes an unauthorized landing, it is held liable to the State in which it has made unauthorized landing.
a) RIGHT UNDER CHICAGO CONVENTION
Article 5 of the Chicago Convention provides that an aircraft engaged in ‘non-scheduled’ flights may traverse the airspace of, or land in the territory of another State for ‘non-traffic-purposes’. This article applies only to aircraft. An aircraft is any machine that can derive support from the atmosphere, other than the reactions of the air against the earth’s surface. It does not include surface-to-orbit space planes or machines propelled into outer space by a rocket. If an unauthorized landing is made and the object so landed is a ‘space object’ as defined and regulated by Space Treaties, then Article 5 of the Chicago Convention will not apply and the territorial sovereignty of the State is violated.
b) RIGHT UNDER LAW OF SEA
Article 18 of the United Nation Convention on Law of Sea provides that a ship may anchor in the territorial waters of another State if it is in distress, or traverse the territorial waters of another State for navigational purposes. This right of passage is limited to ships or water craft. It does not extend to aircraft or spacecraft. If the object has made an unauthorized landing in the territorial sea of a State, then it will not have the benefit of Article 19 of the Law of Sea. Consequently the territorial sovereignty is violated.
c) RIGHT UNDER SPACE TREATIES
The Space Treaties do not expressly permit space objects to pass through the territory of other States or to make an unauthorized landing. The fact that the Outer Space Treaty is premised on equality of access to outer space is insufficient to prove that territorial sovereignty has been relaxed to cater for the over flight of space objects. Additionally, Article 4 of the Rescue Agreement only imposes an obligation to rescue and return downed astronauts. It does not preclude the State from obtaining reparation for a violation of sovereignty.
(ii)LANDING MADE PURSUANT TO RIGHT OF PASSAGE UNDER CUSTOAMRY INTERNATIONAL LAW
If there is no express right of passage for a spacecraft under international law i.e. under Chicago Convention, Law of Sea and Space Treaties, then the State who has made unauthorized landing must establish this right through custom. Custom exists if there is consistent State practice and recognition of this practice as a legal obligation (opinion juris sive necessitatis). Further, where a customary principle takes away a right, express agreement is needed for the custom to be established.
Currently there is no customary right of innocent passage for spacecraft over the airspace and territorial waters of sovereign States. It has been suggested that the failure of States to protest against the flight of spacecraft through their territory has established a right of innocent passage. Although States have failed to protest against such overflight in the past, such intrusions were generally at a height deemed to be outer space and thus subject to the sovereignty of no state. There is therefore no opinion juris sive necessitates to show that the lack of protest has established a customary right of passage.
In fact, opinion juris sive necessitates actually suggests that there is no such right. In the COSMOS-954 incident, Canada stated that the crash landing of the satellite in its territory was the violation of its territorial sovereignty. Similarly, states involved in space activities often enter into bilateral agreements to waive any liabilities that may arise from the launching and landing of space objects.
If there is no customary right of innocent passage for spacecraft, consent is required before foreign spacecraft can enter the airspace or territorial waters of another State. If the consent is not there and landing is made, there is violation of territorial sovereignty of the State.
(iii)WARNING BEFORE ENTRY INTO AIRSPACE AND TERRITORIAL WATERS
If a spacecraft is in distress, and a right of innocent passage does exist at the relevant time, the State practice requires prior authorization before entering the foreign airspace. States are also under general duty to warn other States about dangers within their jurisdiction or control. If the spacecraft does not seek authorization from or forewarn the State in whose territory it is about to land, it will be violation of the territorial sovereignty of the State.
(iv)TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
The Charter of United Nations recognizes the principle of territorial sovereignty in Article 2(4). This Article reads as follows: “All members shall refrain in their international relations form the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of United Nations.” Any State, if makes an unauthorized landing, in the territory of another State can be said to use force against the territorial integrity of the State in which it has landed. Hence, it can be concluded that the State which has made unauthorized landing has violated the territorial sovereignty of the said State.
CASES WHERE LANDING CAN BE MADE
a) AIRSPACE LAW HAS LIMITED APPLICABILITY WITH REGARD TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF A STATE
Article 1 of the Chicago Convention boldly declares that “every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. While this statement seems to give a State absolute rights over its airspace, the article is not without its exceptions. Further, as indicated in Article 1, a State only has exclusive sovereignty “over the airspace” above its territory. If the landing is made at the sea, then the territorial sovereignty of the State is not violated. For a State to prove the violation of its territorial sovereignty, it is necessary to show that the spacecraft landed in the territorial waters of the State.
b) CHICAGO CONVENTION PROVIDES AN EXCEPTION SIMILAR TO SAFE PASSAGE
The Chicago Convention provides contracting parties the right of non-scheduled flights over each other’s territory without prior permission. Also, Article 25 provides justification for landing of a spacecraft in case of emergency landing. It provides that contracting parties will “provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable.” Denying an aircraft in distress access to your “territorial waters” is certainly not in measure with a “practicable measure of assistance.” It is the legal duty of a State to provide at least access to a place for emergency landing over its territorial sea.
Additionally, the Chicago Convention has been amended to soften a State’s potential responses to allegations of a breach of sovereignty. Considering this amendment, it is clear that inadvertence or an emergency entrance into the airspace of another country is not treated in the same fashion as an international violation of sovereignty.
In the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities, the International Court of Justice determined that a investigation flight by the United States into Nicaragua constituted a violation of sovereignty. Nevertheless this finding was due in large part because of the intentional and intrusive nature of spying. If it can be proved that the unauthorized landing was made in furtherance of the goal of spying, then the concerned State is liable for the violation of the territorial sovereignty.
c) CHICAGO CONVENTION DOES NOT APPLY TO SPACECRAFT
Sputnik I solidified the inapplicability of the Chicago Convention to space. As Professor DeSaussure explained:
No nation protested the orbiting of Sputnik over its territory and the first freedom, the freedom of overflight became established with that launch. The absence of any objection from the other States meant that the orbiting of satellites around the earth was not a privilege but a right given to all nations.
The concept of no claim of sovereignty in outer space was solidified by the Outer Space Treaty. It states unequivocally that “outer space…..is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. Airspace differs from outer space where international law generally forbids a subjacent country from asserting sovereign authority.
Thus by very nature of space travel, the Chicago Convention is not applicable. Hence, a State violating the Chicago convention will not be held liable for the violation of the territorial sovereignty.
d) RIGHT OF SAFE PASSAGE UNDER CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW
As one commentator suggests: “The Law of the Sea Convention should be adapted to govern the vaccum of outer space.” Article 19(2) of the Law of Sea Convention provides that vessels may transit through territorial waters if the transit is considered “innocent passage”. Generally, innocent passage is any continuous and expeditious passage that does not adversely affect the ‘peace, good order or security’ of the coastal State. While this definition is broad, the Law of Convention of Sea does its best to list the categories of activities that are not considered innocent passage. If a spacecraft which has made unauthorized landing did not perform mat of these types of passages, it cannot be said to violate the territorial sovereignty of other State.
ASTRONAUTS AS ENVOYS OF MANKIND
(i)OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF RESCUE AGREEMENT
Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties object and purpose is given utmost importance while interpreting a treaty. Object and purpose have also been given due importance by this court. Now, this court has also identified that object and purpose of a treaty can be very appropriately found in the preamble of a treaty. Preamble to this Agreement states ‘rendering of all possible assistance’. The entire jurisprudence behind the rescue agreement aims at the safe and prompt return of astronauts. Further, they should be treated as envoys of mankind. Conclusively, it can be said the entire objective is the benefit of the astronauts. Such benefits clearly stand upheld if the state of nationality of the astronauts is granted locus standi to ask for the astronauts.
(ii)NON-PROSECUTION OF ASTRONAUTS IS AN OBLIGATION ‘ERGA OMNES’
Obligations erga omnes are those in which ‘all states can be held to have a legal interest in their protection’. These are obligations imposed in the light of basic principles of modern international law. The international community recognizes certain obligations erga omnes that are owed to each state bilaterally. Space law recognizes some of these obligations in the ‘Outer Space Treaty’. States Parties to the treaty shall regard astronauts as ‘envoys of mankind’ in outer space and shall ‘render to them all possible assistance’. Also since space activities are accepted as benefiting all mankind, it is in the legal interest of all states that the astronauts are not prosecuted for landing in territorial waters. This is because the spacecrafts landing in unintended locations is also an acknowledged possibility in space law.
(iii)LANDING IN AREAS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ANY STATE
Article 3 of the 1968 Astronauts Agreement applies to astronauts who have ‘alighted on the hgh seas or in any place not under the jurisdiction of any State.’ ‘Those contracting parties which are in a position to do so shall, if necessary, extend assistance in search and rescue operations of such personnel to assure their speedy rescue.’ In reply to a question from a representative of Brazil, the United States representative explained: ‘it was not the intention of Article 3 to impose an obligation to assist in search and rescue operations on countries in geographical vicinity to the aircraft which had alighted on the high seas or on any other place not under the jurisdiction of any State. It was intended mainly to allow for the possibility of the contracting party’s ships being near the scene of accident and therefore in a position to help with the rescue.
During the discussions, questions were raised whether the launching authority is itself obliged to assist in such search and rescue operations. However, it is obvious from the text that a contracting State is merely to ‘extend assistance’ in search and rescue operations (presumably undertaken principally by the launching authority) and to do so only ‘if necessary’. Nevertheless, Article 3 requires it to inform the launching authority and the Secretary – General of United Nations of the steps it is taking and other progress.
(iv)RETURN OF ASTRONAUTS
If astronauts land in the territory of contracting State or have otherwise been recovered by it, they shall, under Article 4, ‘be safely and promptly returned to the representatives of launching authority.’ In as much as the 1967 Space Treaty requires its contracting parties to return astronauts to the State of registry of space craft,a State party to both treaties can be faced with conflicting treaty obligations. The possibility of returning the astronauts to representatives of the launching authority instead of launching authority itself, on the other hand, greatly facilitates the task of territorial State.
(v)ASSISTANCE TO AND RETURN OF ASTRONAUTS AND RETURN OF OBJECTS LAUNCHED INTO SPACE
The problem of assistance to return of astronauts is one to which the Soviet Union attaches a great deal of importance. Early in 1962 in reply to a message from President Kennedy, Mr. Khrushchev proposed, in addition to a general treaty on space, the conclusion of special agreement on the subject, and a Soviet draft on this effect was introduced before the Legal Sub Committee on 6 July 1962. The draft applied also to the rescue of the space ships.
For the purpose of resolution 1962, however agreement was reached on what is now the first paragraph of Article V. The second paragraph on mutual assistance among astronauts was introduced by Soviet draft I, while the third paragraph was added during the discussions in the legal sub Committee on a proposal submitted by the United States. The final text of Article V is as follows:
State parties to the treaty 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 another State party or on high seas. When astronauts make such a landing, thay shall be safely and promptly returned to the State of registry of their space vehicle.
In carrying on activities in outer space and on celestial bodies, the astronauts of one state party shall render all possible assistance to the astronauts of other State parties.
States Parties to the Treaty shall immediately inform other State Parties to the Treaty or the Secretary General of the United Nations of any phenomenon they discover in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, which would constitute a danger to the life or health of astronauts.
In addition, the last sentence of Article VIII on objects launched into space provides:
Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall upon request, furnish identifying data….
Agreement on these provisions was reached in the Legal sub Committee without a great deal of discussion. Several points however deserve further consideration. It may also be pointed out that discussions on the Agreement on the Rescue and Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space were brought to a successful conclusion on 15th December 1967, and the Draft agreement received the unanimous commendation of the General Assembly on 19th December. It was opened for signature on 22nd April 1968.
‘ENVOYS OF MANKIND ‘
This rather florid expression was first introduced in resolution 1962. During the discussions on the Treaty, the Lebanese delegate suggested that the obligation in the treaty should arise only when astronauts were engaged in peaceful activities; for otherwise they would not be envoys of mankind. This point was, however, not taken up.
In 1965, in the Legal Sub Committee, the Hungarian delegate put forward the view that the term ‘envoys of mankind’ implied that the astronauts were immune from local jurisdiction, but that they should not enjoy such immunity if they were not engaged in peaceful activities. It is more than dubious that one can read into the word ‘envoy’ a duty to grant astronauts jurisdictional immunity, and it is not surprising, therefore, that the Austrian delegate expressed his doubt whether the first part of the first sentence of Article V ‘could give rise to legal obligation’. From the observation made subsequently by the Soviet delegate, it is clear that no special significance was to be attached to this expression. It merely ‘served to justify to justify the legal obligations’ laid down in the rest of the Article, and he would be ‘prepared o consider another form of words provided that it did not complicate the text of the draft treaty. This expression has since then been dropped from the subsequent special Agreement on Rescue and Return.
It is true that subsequent to the Outer Space Treaty, there has been commentary that suggests that the term ‘envoy of mankind’ was ‘no more than a figure of speech without really any legal significance.’ However, the travaux preparatoire suggests that for at least some it might have had considerable significance. In 1962 the Lebanese delegate suggested that a space envoy only maintained his special status when maintained in special pursuits. While this may seem superfluous, the Hungarian delegate in the Legal Sub-Committee stated that the term “envoy of mankind” suggested immunity from local jurisdiction.
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties declares that a treaty shall be interpreted “in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” Further the International Court of Justice has made it clear that, “the first duty of the Tribunal which is called upon to interpret and apply the provisions of a treaty is to endeavour to give effect to them in their natural and ordinary meaning in the context in which they occur.
Perhaps one reason why commentators have not given much credence to the term “envoy of mankind” is that no case has yet arisen that would call into question the importance of such words.
CONCLUSION
Liability of a State as far as violation of territorial sovereignty is concerned can be established on many principles. When a spacecraft makes an unauthorized landing, territorial sovereignty can be violated as regards to the airspace or as regards to airspace and territorial waters (if the landing is made at high seas) both. This can be decided on the basis of Chicago Convention and the United Nations Convention on Law of Sea and accordingly liability can be fixed. There are some exceptions to this also, where in spite of making unauthorized landing, the State will not be held liable.
Envoys of mankind, as already seen, is a very elaborate term. It has never been used as such in any of the cases. But it is a space law obligation to treat astronauts as envoys of mankind. Rescue Agreement confirms this point. It is the duty of the Court to interpret the word in its natural and ordinary sense. But since no case as such as arisen in which importance of these words is in question, not much weigth is given to them except the fact that they are there in Rescue Agreement and Treaty on Principles Governing Activities of States in Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including Moon and other Celestial Bodies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The various books referred to in this project are:
1. Cheng Bin, STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAW, Clarendon Press Oxford, 1st edn., 2004
2. Shaw N. Malcom, INTERNATIONAL LAW, Cambridge University Press, 5th edn., 2003
3. Starke J.G., INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW, Aditya Books Private Ltd., 10th edn., 1994
The articles used in this project are:
1. Christol Q Carl, ‘Innocent Passage’ in the International Law of Outer Space, 22 JAG J.(1965)
2. Danilenko M. Gennady, ‘Outer Space and the Multilateral Treaty-Making Process’, (1989) 4 High Technology Law Journal 217.
3. DeSaussure Hamilton , The Freedoms of Outer Space and Their Maritime Antecedents, in Space Law Development and Scope 1(Nandasiri Jasentuliyana et al. eds., 1992)
4. Edmiston Allan W, Showdown in the South China Sea : An International Incidents Analysis of the So-Called Spy Plane Crisis, 16 EMROY INT’L.REV.639(2002)
5. Hall R. C. , ‘Rescue and Return of Astronauts on Earth and in Outer Space’, (1969) 63 American Journal of International Law 197.
6. Kopal, ‘The Role of United Nations Declarations of Principles in the Progressive Development of Space Law’, (1988) 16 Journal of Space Law 5.
7. Koplaw A.David, Back to the Future and Up the Sky : Legal implications of “Open Skies” Inspection for Arms Control, 79 Calif.L.Rev. 421, 449 (1991)
8. Thomas C. Jonathan, Spatialis Liberum, 7 Fl. Coastal L. Rev.579, 604 (2006)
The conventions, agreements and treaties used in this project are:
1. Agreement on Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Space Objects Launched into Outer Space (Rescue Agreement) or (Astronauts Agreement)
2. Chicago Convention
3. Protocol Relating to an Amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation
4. Treaty Governing the Activities of States in Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty)
5. United Nations Charter
6. United Nations Convention on Law of Sea
7. Vienna Convention of Law of Treaties
The websites referred to in this project are:
2. http://international.westlaw.com
The cases referred to in this project are:
1. Asylum case (Columbia v. Peru), [1950], I.C.J.
2. Barcelona Traction case [1970] I.C.J
3. Bosnia Genocide case [1996] I.C.J
4. Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations, [1950], I.C.J.
5. Cosmos Case, I.L.M.(1979)
6. Island of Palmas Arbitration, 22 AJIL (1928) 875
7. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua(Nicaragua v. U.S.), [1986], I.C.J.
8. Namibia case (Advisory Opinion) [1971] ICJ Rep 16Nicaragua case [1986], I.C.J
9. North Sea Continental Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal republic of Germany v. Netherlands), [1969], I.C.J.
10. Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v France) I.C.J Pleadings (2 Nuclear Tests) 265-67.
11. Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Advisory Opinion) [1951] I.C.J
12. US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (USA v. Iran) [1980] I.C.J
13. Western Sahara case (Advisory Opinion) [1975] I.C.J
Article VI, Treaty Governing the Activities of States in Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.
North Sea Continental Cases(Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal republic of Germany v. Netherlands), [1969],I.C.J.
Edmiston Allan W , Showdown in the South China Sea : An International Incidents Analysis of the So-Called Spy Plane Crisis, 16 EMROY INT’L.REV.639(2002); Chicago Convention, Annexure 9
DeSaussure Hamilton, The Freedoms of Outer Space and Their Maritime Antecedents, in Space Law Development and Scope 1(Nandasiri Jasentuliyana et al. eds., 1992)
Article II, Treaty Governing the Activities of States in Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.
Koplow A. David , Back to the Future and Up the Sky : Legal implications of “Open Skies” Inspection for Arms Control, 79 Calif.L.Rev. 421, 449 (1991)
Asylum Case (Peru v. Columbia) [1950] I.C.J ; Rights of Nationals of the USA in Morocco [1952] I.C.J
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [1951] I.C.J ; US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (USA v. Iran) [1980] I.C.J
Preamble, Agreement on Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Space Objects Launched into Outer Space
Hall R. C. , ‘Rescue and Return of Astronauts on Earth and in Outer Space’, (1969) 63 American Journal of International Law 197.
Article V, Treaty on Principles Governing Activities of States in Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including Moon and other Celestial Bodies
Eighth Report on State Responsibility, [1979] 2 Yearbook of International Law Commission 3; Nicaragua case [1986] I.C.J; Western Sahara case [1975] I.C.J; Namibia case [1971] I.C.J
Danilenko M.Gennady, ‘Outer Space and the Multilateral Treaty-Making Process’, (1989) 4 High Technology Law Journal 217.
Rescue Agreement; Kopal, ‘The Role of United Nations Declarations of Principles in the Progressive Development of Space Law’, (1988) 16 Journal of Space Law 5.
Article IX, Treaty on Principles Governing Activities of States in Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including Moon and other Celestial Bodies
