A. W. TOLEN, Brigadier General, USAF 1 Atch 

Staff Judge Advocate Rpt on Natl Space Law 

Seminar (1966) 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

'22 June 2015 

il F s 

I 

• 

SIJIHJECT: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND 

ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20331 

1 6 MAR 1966 

Report on National Space Law Seminar (1966) 

To, MSF 

1. Attached is a copy of a report on the National Space Law Seminar 

prepared by Major General Richard C. Hagan, USAFRes, which I feel 

will be of interest to you. 

2. Of special interest may be a summarization of USSR Governing 

Principles on page 2, Mr. KarpovTs comment on MOL, page 4, and 

some specifics of International Cooperation beginning on page 9. 

RE,LyTo SCJ 

/-, 

FORGING MILITARY SPACEPOWER 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

,22 June 2015 

r- REPORT ON NATIONAL SPACE LAW SEMINAR (1966) 

BY RICHARD C. HAGAN, MAJOR GENERAL, AIR FORCE RESERVE 

Princeton University and The Federal Bar Association presented a Second 

National Space Law Seminar at Lowrie House on Friday, February 18, 1966. The 

Seminar Chairman, Mr. Harold Berger, National Chairman, Federal Bar Association 

Committee on Space Law, opened the meeting at 2:00 P. M. A list of participants 

is attached. 

Present as special guests were: Mr. Victor P. Karpov, Counselor, Embassy of 

the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and, Mr. Alexander Kokorev• 

The Moderator of the Seminar, Mr. Andrew G. Haley, General Counsel, International Astronautical Federation, presided and introduced Mr. Karpov as the first 

speaker. 

USSR Presentation 

Mr. Karpov made the following comments. He undertook to outline current 

Soviet attitudes on Space Law) a presentation of the views of Soviet lawyers. He 

spoke exceptionally well in English, using notes to deliver his remarks. He did 

not read his remarks. He disclaimed being a space legal authority although he 

acknowledged being a lawyer. 

Limited Application of Terrestrial Principles - After noting that space law 

was very young, having been born only nine years ago, he discussed the position of 

Space law in international law, uttering the hope that a convention on space law 

could be reached with which he, then, as a lawyer, could work. He analogized the 

problems to those on the high seas, underscoring, the fact that measures should be 

taken to see that there was no military use of outer apace. He said that earth 

principles of law could not be mechanically applied to outer space, that we must 

take into consideration its peculiar problems and make intelligent application of 

principles of international law to outer space. He said, for example, that not all 

the resolutions of the UN would be applicable to outer space, not each provision of 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 dune 2015 

-2- 

the UN Charter, for there are some which obviously could not have application to 

outer space. He cited with approval the views of the Indian Delegate with 

reference to peace in outer space. On earth, he said, Va inherited the usages of 

international law but we have not inherited these in outer space. This requires 

the cooperation of all nations operating in outer space exploration. 

USSR Governing Principles - Referring to a Declaration of Principles put forth 

by the Soviet Union in the Legal Subcommittee of the UN Committee on P-.7-A ,:kful Uses 

of Outer Space in May and June, 1962, he proceeded to a detailed elucidation and 

description of these principles. 

Mr. Karpov summarized these principles as follows: (1) exploration and use 

of outer space shall be for all mankind, and there shall be no claim for its use 

by one nation, for example, space and celestial bodies are for the use of all, and, 

as a result, the Soviets do not claim any part of the moon by virtue of Luna 9, 

citing Professor Keldysh; (2) all nations have a right to the use of outer space; 

(3) all principles governing outer space should be in accord with the provisions 

of the UN Charter and the principles of international law; (4) scientific and 

technical achievements in outer space should be for all peoples and in the 

interest of friendly relations; (5) cooperation and mutual assistance in outer 

space are necessary; (6) projects in outer space would not be carried out without 

permission of other nations (Mr. K. would underscore this point); (7) all 

activity in outer space should be carried out only by governmental or state 

authorities, because international cooperation necessitates a most responsible 

and cautious attitude and parties; (8) under the thesis of opposing "spies in 

011.5 the sky", all activities of an intelligence gathering character should be 

opposed; and (9) all space ships found outside of the frontiers of the launching 

state would be returned to the launching state, except for those employed for 

illegal use of space, in which instance the space ship or the container would 
I;JR0 APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 :June 2015 

-Snot be returned. (For comparison, here is the statement from the Declaration of 

Principles tabled by the Soviet Government in the 1962 meeting: (1) certain 

principles expressed in the United Nations Resolution 1721 (XVI), December 20, 1961, 

were expressed in different wording; (2) a prohibition against the use of outer 

space for "propagating war, national or racial hatred or enmity between nations"; 

(3) prior discussion and agreement would be required between countries concerning 

any use that might " hinder the exploration of outer space for peaceful purposes"; 

(3) all space activities shall be conducted by States which retain sovereignty 

over their vehicles; (4) Collection of intelligence information by satellites is 

incompatible with mankind's space objectives; and, (5) spacecraft and their crews 

shall be given any emergency assistance required and returned to the State of 

origin. In their then (1962) second proposal, the USSR, in a paper entitled 

"International Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts and Spaceships making 

Emergency Landings", set forth the kind of assistance and methods to be employed 

by the Contracting States in helping spacecraft and their crews under emergency 

conditions. The assisting States would be reimbursed by those responsible for the 

launchings. Provision was made for the early return of astronauts and space objects 

to their home base, except that "space vehicles aboard which devices have been 

discovered for the collection of intelligence information in the territory of 

another State shall not be returned.") 

Claims to space or celestial bodies - citing with approval Professor Keldysh, 

Soviet Academy of Sciences President, with reference to Luna 9 (soft-landing moon 

vehicle), Mr. Karpov said: that the Soviet Union does not claim any part of outer 

space; that Luna 9 did not give rise to a claim on the moon; but that the Soviet 

Union did own and lay claim to Luna 9 itself. He noted that all scientific and 

technical achievements were for all peoples of the eaxth and in the interest of 

friendly relations. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

• 22%June 2015 

-4- 

Cooperation and mutual assistance - he spoke of the value of cooperation and 

mutual assistance in outer space. He underlined the proposition that projects in 

outer space should not be carried out without the prior permission of other nations. 

He deduced that all activity in space should be carried out by governments, or by 

governmental or state authorities. He said that international cooperation neaessitates most responsible and cautious attitudes and parties, and hence governmental 

entities, noting that television and communication usages of outer space could 

interfere with space exploration by responsible parties. 

He opposed "spies in the sky", prohibiting or banning all activities of an 

information gathering character. 

Return of Space Ships - he agreed that all space ships should be returned to 

the launching state, except for those which had committed an illegal use of space 

(information containers and the space craft would not be returned.) 

He stressed the need for cooperation between the Soviet Union and the United 

States in space, saying that there is some, and that there is need for more, both 

cooperation and mutual understanding. He then turned to the Manned Orbiting 

Laboratory. 

Manned Orbiting Laboratory - Mr. Karpov said that the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, from the point of view of Soviet Scientists and Lawyers, was incompatible 

with cooperation and use of space for all mankind. If this use expands, prospects 

of future cooperation in space and space law would diminish. In final analysis, 

it was up to the United States Government but they must realize that MOL would 

'w hinder cooperation with the Soviet. 

"Peaceful Use" of Outer Space - Mr. Karpov noted that the "peaceful use" of 

outer space had been interpreted by many nations, including the United States, to 

mean "non-aggressive" user. This is not enough. Such use must be Tilthout military 

purposes. In other words, any use of space by military personnel, or in furtherance 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

-5- 

of military purpose should be prohibited, and, thereby, through peaceful uses, more 

peaceful cooperation between the Soviet Union and the USA would be possible. 

On this note, Mr. Karpov ended his principal presentation. But questions were 

addressed to him as will be noted hereafter. 

************** 

Mr. Haley, the Moderator, then proceeded to read a list of Soviet firsts in 

space, paying tribute to the accomplishments of the Soviet Union in space exploration. 

Symbolic Acts of Sovereignty and Treaties 

Professor John Cobb Cooper, dean of American space lawyers, then spoke concerning the "symbolic acts of sovereignty". He raised the question of what types of 

action could be considered as a basis of sovereignty claim. He said that he 

approved the principle of non-sovereign claims as established in the UN Resolution 

1721 (XVI) D ecember 20, 1961. He noted, quite pointedly/ that a "declaration of 

intent" is unilateral and can be set aside on a change Of circumstances. He 

further noted that treaties have been, for all practical purposes, set aside, 

e. g. Punic Wars and Carthage. He called for a formal international agreement to 

govern the right to possession of an area as distinguished from the whole, e. g., 

Soviet claim to a part. He hoped that we would have a Convention to prevent us from 

asserting, or denying, or deciding sovereignty claims and questions later. He noted 

that perhaps a laboratory on the moon could be established for the use of all people, 

with no sovereign claim to the ground on which it would stand. He forecast that 

lawyers now have the chance to prevent kinks in outer space, saying that the only 

way was through a convention against sovereignty on stellar bodies. WW1 

National Controls and Safety 

Brigadier General Martin Menter$speaking.as an individual and after recanvassing various historical facts, supported the position of Professor Cooper with 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

-6- 

reference to a convention prohibiting sovereignty on stellar bodies. He favored 

international cooperation through the UN. He cited paragraph 5, UN Resolution 1962 

(XVIII) and stated that we do have governmental responsibility thereunder. General 

Menter underscored the necessity for assurance of safety of flight, including the 

safe passage of space craft. He noted that future use of space craft between one 

terrestrial point and another would necessitate the maintenance of controls for 

safety reasons. He continued, however, that nations should reach accord on the use 

of celestial bodies, the resolution of disputes, the application of criminal and 

civil laws, the use of minerals (including mining rights), and raised the question 

of what laws should be applied, saying that we should give some thought to that. 

General Menter prophesied international cooperation in space. After alluding to 

the necessity for effective occupation under the traditional concept of sovereignty, 

he said that we need to work out the problems we see. 

Mr. Summerfield, then called on by the Moderator, disclaimed any special 

comment in the space law field at the time. 

Professor Goldie discussed the "Pent House Studies" on the West Coast. 

Professor Dowd pointed out the need for definitions of objects etc. which are 

so subject to change but are generally encompassed under the term "Administrative 

law". He raised the question of whether we can develop a going concern in space 

law under administrative law. 

New Uses and Private Users 

Mr. Summerfield then called attention to the fact that man would be moving 

into outer space for other uses, new uses. For example, he noted the use of a 

satellite for the University of Callfornia to communicate with its various divisions 

as a possibility. He opined that there could be a private user of outer space 

without el;angerIng relations between nation states. Commenting (:)7.. military 

4.1—+ 4+ was difficult to diferentiate Between terrestrial 
NRO-APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

-7- 

terrestrial segment. 

The Moderator, Mr. Haley, then referred to the use of frequencies problem 

which man is now encountering and queried about the additional use by the private 

sector in the manner suggested. He extended congratulations to Harold Berger on 

the organization and holding of the Seminar. Noting the problem of the mass 

transportation of peoples, Mr. Haley then called on Mr. David Berger, Harold's 

brother, to comment on his problems. 

Applicability of Space Technology to the Solution of Terrestrial Traffic Problems 

Mr. David Berger, noting his experience in urban problems, said that the 

electronics systems developed for use in space would have applicability in the 

solution of man's traffic problems in Megalopolis. He pointed out that the dynamic 

approach of space technology had much to offer for earth transport, taking a leaf 

from the space person's books. He raised the question of what such developments • 

would mean to the law. Would they require new governmental approaches? What of 

region, inter-state and national compacts? He said that the point of departure, as 

in space, should be that man cannot permit international legal problems to halt 

progress. So with his mass transport problems here on earth. He thought that 

there would be some borrowing of outer space technologies in (1) waste disposal, 

(2) crime prevention, (3) transportation, etc. 

Control of Nuclear Weapons in Space 

Mr. Herbert Ries of the Department of State reviewed the so-called Declaration 

of Principles, noting the various rational reactions which had appeared during the 

course of the UN debates. He recourted the views of the USSR and the USA as 

expressed at those meecings. He noi.ed the value of the dialogue between the USSR 

and the USA, and that the USA would consider the principles of law laid down in 

the UN Reslution as principles of international law, J.nclnel!ng thc agreelnent not to 

orbit weappns of mass destruction. Mr. Ries stated the.t this prinAple was 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

-8- 

definitely tied to problems of control of nuclear weapons, e. g. expense and 

accuracy, and hence tied to arms control and disarmament in which forum such 

controls could more properly be discussed. 

Mr. Haley, the Moderator, commented on private use of space and the use of 

space by COMSAT. He spoke of UNESCO and mining problems. 

A Priori vs. Factual Definitions 

General Hagan, in response to Mr. Haley's query as to his personal comment 

on mining on celestial bodies, said that he had not studied the problem and did not 

feel qualified to discourse on the matter until he had given some thought to it. 

In fact, he said that he was loath to embark on the a priori final solution of 

conceived problems in advance of having some of the facts assisting in defining 

the problem. The Moderator interrupted with the query as to whether Mr. Hagan was 

disagreeing with the noted authority, Dr. Cooper. This Mr. Hagan denied, but said 

that what he meant to say was that he found the facts always helped in defining 

the problems, while general principles furnished the key to open the solution to 

the problems once they were defined. This touched off much comment around the 

table between the a priori legalists and the more positivistic legalists. 

Subsequent USSR Comments 

Mr. Karpov made additional comments that Luna 9 was no sign board of possession 

and occupation of the moon by the USSR. Only Luna 9, itself, would be the property 

of the USSR. He reiterated - no elaim, no claim. He continued by noting that the 

USSR had sought to achieve a wedding of the vieve of scientists and lawyers, resulting in a committee in the USSR. He :oted the cooperation and modus operandi in 

Antarctica, suggesting the feasibility of such an arrangement with reference to 

cooperatior on the moon and other celestial bodies. C.mmenting or. the suggestion 

of the Unfaersity of CaLifOrEf.a's pcssible use a sai.ellite as a -ethoC. of 

communicatfon, he called it an "interesting expe::iment', He again reverted to his 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

-9- 

earlier theme of strict regulation of every activity in space, so that the ensuing 

activity would not be incompatible with man's general aims and would be in conformity with the general interest, and the good of all mankind. Agreement as to 

general principles in outer space would provide the basis for space law. 

COMSAT - when queried as to the Soviet attitude on COMSAT, Mr. Karpov 

replied that the US principles with reference to COMSAT are far enough from USSR 

principles as to prevent USSR cooperating, and causing the USSR to adopt a waitand-see attitude. The US position from the beginning, with reference to COMSAT, 

was such as to preclude the equal participation of the USSR, the predominant position 

of the USA precluded USSR participation. In addition, COMSAT was a private corporation. This was the reason the Soviet is trying to develop ite own system of 

communication via satellites. 

.Specifics of International Cooperation 

Over the serious objection of the Moderator, General Hagan queried Mr. Karpov 

with reference to specific areas of international cooperation "in the interest of 

all mankind", acknowledging that the two great nations in space could surely probe 

the various possible areas of vital cooperation. Evading the query, Mr. Karpov 

asked what General Hagan meant. General Hagan said that the general formula was 

one with which most men could agree but its meaning would have to be developed by 

exploring various specific examples. The Moderator tried to close this line of 

inquiry by saying that all of these areas had been covered in the Dryden-Blagonravov 

talks. General Hagan evaded by saying that evidently Mr. Karpov might have some 

new suggestions. Mr. Karpov then said that the USSR and the USA could cooperate in 

weather exchange. When pushed for another example, he said that perhaps they 

could cooperate in (2) (an area now under discussion) and "other cooperation 

like that". General Hagan then asked what is "other cooperation like that?" 

Mr. Karpov could not come tip with any more. Then he was asked if cooperation 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

-.10- 

could be achieved with reference to "new design". "New design of what?" he 

questioned. It was then specified "new design of space craft". A slow smile 

spread over Mr. Karpov's face, and he said, "No, that wouldn't be possible." He 

elaborated, in response to the question "why?", that the General knew perhaps 

better than anyone why that wouldbe impossible, and admitted that it was for 

military reasons. He was then asked by General Hagan for another form of 

specific cooperation, and then, one step ahead of the Moderator, it was suggested 

to Mr. Karpov that perhaps cooperation could come in the field of propellants, 

saving everyone costs of all types. This he denied as being possible and for the 

same reason, "military reasons". 

Mandl's Early Statement 

The Moderator rang the curtain down on this line of inquiry and called on Dr. 

William S. Strauss. Dr. Strauss called attention to the earliest exposition of 

legal principles in space exploration, Mandl's early 1900s publication. He 

related how this monograph had been preserved in the Library of Congress and how 

precisely and well Mandl had anticipated the legal problems of space exploration. 

Generalized Commentary 

Dr. Goldman noted that all types and fields of the various disciplines should 

be brought to bear on the problems which man will encounter in space exploration. 

Mr. Paul Dembling underscored the position that principles of law in relation 

to space exploration have value in discussion, and in anticipation of occurrence of 

the facts. 

Professor Goldie of Australia commented that there are areas of preventive law 

which can now be explored and adopted and he said that faculative laws must know 

the nature of the subject matter. He thought that Articles 5 and 8 of the UN 

Resolution point to the expectation of mankind. He admitted that general principles 

were usually not effective until procedures had been worked out. 
• NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

-11- 

Mr. Haley, the Moderator, then closed the seminar and invited all participants 

to the cocktail party and dinner which would follow. 

Evaluation - The Seminar centered principally around the views of Mr. Karpov, 

reflecting the ideas of the USSR. It is surprising that ideas put forward by the 

Soviet Union in 1962 and which had not found footing to any great extent in the 

community of nations should have made no greater change than was evidenced in the 

seminar. The views with reference to COMSAT, spy in the sky, return of space ships 

and crews, use of space, cooperation in space exploration, illegal uses of space, 

military uses of space -- all these are the traditional viewpoints of the USSR, 

and purported to be those of their scientists and lawyers. Mr. Karpov, in the 

spirit of good will which pervaded the meeting, was the center piece, and seemed 

to carry with him many of the participants who appeared reluctant to probe or 

debate (discuss) with him the merits of the various ideas presented by him. In 

fact, the impression was one of the genial host who would not invade the sanctity 

of his guests ideas because of the guest's presence in the home. It can be 

safely concluded that the USSR is not ready to put forward any new thoughts on 

international cooperation, and is living within the limitations which its own 

interests impose. 

If, as was proposed, representatives of other nations are invited to participate,in future seminars (and there was much favorable discussion of this pint of 

view), there must be a free exchange of ideas if the seminars are to be meaningful. 

This free exchange must be made clear to all participants prior to acceptance of 

their invitations to participate. 

Some of the thoughts expressed with reference to cultural and historical 

factors in understanding the problems of space exploration, as settings for the 
NRO'APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

-12- 

legal implications, could fruitfully be'developed in future seminars. 

The congenial atmosphere among professionally interested persons in this 

afternoon and evening at the Lowrie House should augur well for a repetition of 

similar meetings. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22June2015 

NATIONAL SPACE LAW SEMINAR 

List of Participants 

Seminar Chairman: 

Harold Berger, National Chairman, Federal Bar Association Committee on Space Law 

Moderators: 

Andrew G. Haley, General Counsel, International Astronautical Federation 

Program Planning Committee and Seminar Discussion: 

Harold Berger, National Chairman, Federal Bar Association Committee on Space Law 

Lawrence R. Caruso, Legal Counsel, Princeton University /) 

Richard C. Hagan, Major General, United States Air Force 

Andrew G. Haley, General Counsel, International Austronautical Federation 

Herbert Ries, United States Department of State 

Martin Menter, Brigadier General, United States Air Force 

Seminar Discussion: 

John Cobb Cooper, Past President, International Institute of Space Law 

Paul Dembling, Deputy General Counsel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Donald W. Dowd, Professor of Law, Villanova University 

Richard L. Fruchterman, Jr., Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy 

L. F. E. Goldie, Professor of Law, Loyola University Law School of Los Angeles 

Dr. Eric F. Goldman, Professor of History, Princeton University 

S. Houston Lay, Director of International Affairs and the Legal Profession 

Program, American Bar Foundation 

Noyes Leech, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania 

Dr. Courtland D. Perkins, Professor of Aeronautical Engineering, Princeton Univ. 

Walter D. Reed, Lt. Colonel, United States Air Force 

E. J. Spielman, Chief Counsel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

Western Operations Office 

William S. Strauss, Assistant to General Counsel, The Library of Congress 

Dr. Martin Summerfield, Professor of Aeronqutical Engineering, Princeton University; Past President of the American Rocket Society 

Dr. John Wm. Whelan, Professor of Law, Georgetown University 

Ex Offiftal: 

David Berger, Past Chancellor, Philadelphia Bar Association; Former city 

Solicitor of Philadelphia 

James McI. Henderson, General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission 

A. S. Harzenstein, National Vice President, The Federal Bar Association 

Mervyn R. Turk, Colonel, United States Army, Retired