NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

- 22 June 2015 

1or y 

c„oc: 

r C 1:1,—,:',1\'T T. \ Policy: Space Law 

Policy: Peaceful Uses 

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES DELEGATION 

TO THE 

LEGAL SUB-COMMITTEE TO THE CUKHITTEE ON THE PEACEFUL 

• USES- OF OUTER- SPACE 

New York, September 20 - October 1, 1965 

Submitted to the Secretary of State 

Leonard C. Meeker. 

United States Reprecentative 

Prepared by: 

H. Rowan Gaither 

a 
- - - 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

General 

Lack of progress at, the 1965 session of the Legal Sub -

Committee must, T think, be attributed to political. Consider 

ations extraneous to the • subject of outer.space'-- specifically, 

to Soviet unwillingness .to reach new agreements with the U.S. 

in light of the conflict in Viet Nam. The agreement on.. . 

assistance and return, on which preliminary-agreement on.. 

certain of the draft articles had been reached at the last, 

session, was discussed at length with no further agreement on 

draft articles. The •discussion•of liability -agreement resulted 

in agreement on three very general principles with most of. 

the discussion reported as an "exchange of views". 

Activities of Other Delegations 

The Soviet Bloc appeared to have instructions to prevent 

final agreement on either draft convention. •The Soviet 

Delegate (Morozov) inSisted that the returnof. astronauts- - 

and space vehicles must be conditioned on a judgment that 

the launching was in accordance withthe ASsembly's declaration of legal principles, although ti a duty to rescue 

astronauts would be unconditional. The Soviet position-was 

supported by. other Bloc delegates. The Soviets made. no 

attempt, publicly or privately, to meet the proposals given 

to them privately by the U.S. In April.1965.. On the basis 

of what Morozov had told the U.S. delega;-ibn.at.th-, last 

session in 1964, those proposalsshould have led to agreement on assistance and return. 

The Soviet delegation was zlot so overly.obstrucive 

in the discussion of the 1iabi1thT agreement, probably• 

owing to the consideration tba agrae=:nt on that subiet 

was not imminent. However, at the atm of the-session,• 

when the chairman was. attersot:Lng to formulate the areas 

o 
...NRO APPROVED FOR RELE 

-" 22 June 2015 

3TC:1-7-171\177,=J 

of consensus reached on this subject, the Soviets strongly 

protested language indicating that any agreement had been 

reached- on any but the most general points of principle. 

• The Soviets played only a minor role in the discussion of liability, with Ambassador Morozov notably 

absent during most of the discussion. The Hungarian 

delegation took the lead for the Bloc. 

The delegations of Mexico, Lebanon and Argentina were 

active in a variety of unsuccessful attempts. to produce 

compromises between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. The 

Austrian delegate. was also active in this regard, but with 

a more realistic, sophisticated approach. 

The Commonwealth countries again soughtto exert a 

constructive influence -- particularly Australia. 

Assistance and Reb 0 

The Soviet delegation took, an extremely hard line on 

the question of conditions on 'return of astronauts and 

space vehicles. While the duty to rescue astronauts was 

to be unconditional, the Soviets•.argued _that return Must' 

be conditioned upon the launch having been made in •accordance with the Delc2ratioh of Legal -Principles. Morozov 

noted that, without such •a condition, it state could be. 

required to return an unexploded bomb on a silver platter. 

The Soviets were supported in this argument by the Bloc, 

and also by Argentina and Mexico. Italy, India, Japan 

and Brazil though:. scum dualffication such as a requirement of "peaceful use' should be incorporated, and 

Austria expressed the view that such a. provision would 

difficult to object to if an acceptable di,aDutes clause 

were written in. 

Liability 

.The 

ceeded on 

article. 

discussion of the subject of liability proa by tooth basis, rather than article by 

The U.S. delegation and the Hungarian delegation 

/ both 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELE 

22 June 2015 

- 3 - 

both tabled revised drafts: The Chairman (Lachs, of 

Poland) appeared to hope to reach some areas of consensus 

from which the committee could -oroceed at its next 

session. Accordingly, after each topic had been disdussed,he summarized what he viewed. as having been agreed 

to. At the end of the s,, si_on•, ha ,presented a draft 

report which listed areas of Lgreement by topic on the 

liability. agreement. When the Lime ca= to accept the 

report, the Soviets objected strongly to language which 

implied agreement except on the most general points of 

principle. For the most part, the report stated only 

that there had, been an "e:.::chr=ln-of views". 

The following are noi-nt,,on which there appeared to 

be agreement:. 

1) The Convention should apply to damage caused. by 

space objects on earth, in air space and in outer space, 

2) where' onlyone State was involved in the launching, that State would be liable, and the term 7launching 

included attempted- launching. 

3) . International•oaanizations engaged in space 

activities should be liable under the Convention for • 

damages caused by such activities. 

At the end of the discussion of the liability agreement, the Commonwealth delegations suggested that we consult together between this. and the r,ex-t session in order 

to formulate draft articles whf_ch toad be More widely 

supported. The re f- .esentstives of 'Leli-t.m (Litvine) and • 

Austria (Ze=nek) offered to The S. 

delegation e:K7,-,i- essed in of the suggestion. noted 

that it had given some thozht to fcatsasthg soh comt-omse provisions, and L.a in toI:.ch ±th these -

delegations. It was anioite,1 tht consultation would 

focus on the problem of tte Iteasui-e of damages, a :oriority 

conept of liability, Lt:Z, cfiCeria in the definition of 

launching state, among others. 

LAJNA:HRGaithe-2:ma:12/2