NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

18 March 196G 

Colonel F. Ned' Hand 

Office of Special Projects (SAFSP) 

El Segundo, California 

Dear Ned: 

Your proi-_,,osed presentation has been reviewed with much 

interest; I consider it to be an excellent piece of work. 

You may wish to consider the followinc.,items, which resulted 

from the combined comments of this office and those of Colonel 

Marshall Sanders: 

1. We believe that the date on pae 7, iLm 5, should read 

17 April 63 - instead of 13 April 1364. 

2. Presumably, the reference to l',7"1-111-71;US "-meteor" on page 17, 

line 14, should read NIMBUS rne.,:t-.orol3zical 

3. We recommend deletion of the last sentence of page 16. 

This comment, regarding the intelligence collection potential of artificial satellites, does not appear to be directly pertinent to your 

main theme, may generate provocative C:i.SCS i0a, and seems to 

detract from the tone of Mr. 1v:esker's position on observation from 

outer space - which conlmencee an page 17. 

We took the libO iuy of a.lso clearing your presentation with both 

OSD/PA and SAFOI. 3/17-',.4., in turn, obtained clearance from the 

State Department. Changes indicated onpa.ge2 1, 24, 23, 37, 43, 45, 

46, and 47 resulted from the combined Department 

review. We understand ths.•.'L you and Mr, ,L,-,:..4,-L1Car, of State, have 

already discussed these items. 

We appreciate the opportunity to 037tr:D:at on your paper. This 

very professional effort will be a welcome addition to our file on 

Space Law. 

=MI Sir.cerey, 

P_A ULW.L - 01.=; .

Colonel, USAF 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

I. To discuss and understand fully the implications of U. N. 

activities in the field of space law, one must have a general 

familiarity with the status of space law as it existed prior to U. N. 

action. Prior -Le- 1 October 1957 (the date of Russia's first 

sputnik and the first successful satellite), there was no real 

need to distinguish between air law and space law. The question 

of national sovereignty in air law was rather succinctly covered 

in the Chicago Convention, and I quote: "The contracting 

states recognize that every state has complete and exclusive 

sovereignty over the airspace above its territory." Missing 

from the Chicago Convention was any definition of airspace and 

not until the technological progress of states brought their 

activities up Lite-----sira e—stty"------satertiTe—ikeiwas there any 

need to worry about a definitionfoi-a-i-p-space?. 

2. Interestingly enough, the Soviets relying in part upon the 

Chicago Convention, which incidently they have never signed, 

asserted the usque ad cocain-) theory, i.e., sovezeigr.,„y to an 

unlimited heighth, in support of their criticism of the meteorological balloons launched by the U. S. in 1956.1 However, 

1P 688, Crane, Soviet Attitude To Ward international Space .Law, 

American journal of international Law-- 40_senate .Doc No. 26, 

87th Gong, First Sess. :-• 

1'3 

DIRECTORATE FOR 51:CiRiTy fCASD-PA 

DEPARIMLN1 i DEFF.At3E 
sNRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

with the success of Sputnik I which violated the sovereignty of 

every nation over ,thich it flew if the usque ad coelum theory 

was applicable, the Soviet writers looked for a new theory which 

would legitimize the flight of a sputnik and at the same time 

make illegal the so-called space espionage. The evolution of 

the Soviet thinking on this point is beyond the scope of the present discussion but those who are interested might read Mr. Robert 

D. Crane's article, "Soviet Attitude Toward International Space 

Law," in the July 1962 issue of the American Journal of International Law. 

3. Perhaps one should not be too critical of the dilemma of the 

Soviet legal scholars in attempting to adapt legal theory to a 

dynamically developing space technology fraught with all sorts 

of very serious political overtones. If you will forgive me for 

philosophizing, I think this period in which the scholars endeavored 

to cope with the new problems of the space age is illustrative 

of the .basic principle that a law does not develop in a vacuum. 

One can theorize and anticipate, but a body of law does not really 

begin to develop until there are real problems requiring current 

solution which must be resolved against conflicting desires of 

IC= 

individuals and nations and the political fabric of the times. 

2 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

The U. S. also had some difficulty at this time in adjusting its 

thinking to the new space age. The presentation of Mr.Loftus 

Becker, Legal Advisor to the Department of State, before the 

special Senate Committee on Space and Astronautics on 14 May 1958, 

illustrates the position of at least our Department of State. 

Before I quote Mr. Becker, it will perhaps add to the understanding 

of the quotation to know that Sputnik was launched as part of the 

activities of the International Geophysical Year. 

"b. Implications of the International Geophysical Year 

"There is another misconception with respect to the 

rights of the United States in this sphere that I should like 

to correct. I have several times seen it stated that we 

do not have any right to protest or take any action with 

respect to satellites because of the events relating to the 

International Geophysical Year. Now, the facts are these: 

"The arrangements with respect to the International 

Geophysical 'i. ear were not made on an intergovernmental 

basis. They were arrangements made between scientific 

bodies in a private capacity. It is true that certain governments, including the Soviet Union and the United States, 

3 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

announced in advance that during the International Geophysical 

Year they intended to place objects in orbit around the earth. 

And it was also stated in connection with these announcements 

that the purpose of these satellites would be for scientific • 

investigation. No nation protested these announcements. 

"It follows, therefore, that the only conclusion that can 

be reached with respect to the arrangements regarding the 

International. Geophysical Year is that there is an implied 

agreement that, for the period of the International Geophysical 

Year, it is permissible to put into orbit satellites designed 

for scientific purpose_ the over, tS in 

this Ll have to be determines u whateve:7 _:ernent 

may C .:C' to SUC:". 

ere Any hgreed Upper 1imii o SOVE.sr 

"The next question of international law which I would 

like to mention is the position of the United States regarding 

its sovereignty upwards. There are those who have argued 

that the sovereignty of the United States ends with the outer 

• limits of the atmosphere and that space outside 

is either free to all or should possibly be conceded to be 

4 

NM 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

within the sovereignty of one or another international 

organization. 

"The United States Government has not recognized any 

top or upper Limit to its sovereignty. This position has been 

taken entirely aside from article 51 of the United Nations 

Charter and any limitations that may be inherent in that, 

such as "armed attack." 

"It is true that, in such international agreements as the 

Chicago Convention of 1944, the parties thereto recognize 

that each of them 'has complete and exclusive•sovereigrty of 

the airspace above its territory.' But it is important to note 

that there is nowhere in the-Chicago Convention of 1944 or 

other international agreements comparable thereto any 

definition of what is meant by the term 'airspace.' 

"I do not wish to take, nor has the State Department 

ever officially taken, a definitive position as to how this term 

'airspace' should be defined. I think it important to note, 

however, that one of the suggestions that has been made in 

this regard is that the airspace should be defined to include 

that portion of space above the earth in which there is any 

5 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

.22 June 2015 

atmosphere. I am informed that astronomically the earth=s 

atmosphere extends 10,000 miles above its surface. 

"It follows that it would be perfectly rational for us 

to maintain that under the Chicago Convention the sovereignty 

of the United States extends 10,000 miles from the surface of 

the earth, an area which would comprehend the area in which 

all of the satellites up to this point have entered. At any rate, 

that type of definition would afford us enough elbowroom for 

discussion. 

"Furthermore, although the United States; in its domestic 

law as well as agreements such as the Chicago Convention, 

has plainly asserted its complete and exclusive sovereignty 

over the airspace above its territory, at no time have we 

conceded that we have no rights in the higher regions of 

space. One rationale for this position which seems to me 

self-sufficient was that the United States had no need to 

define its position with respect to what rights, if any, it might 

possess outside the earth's atmosphere until such time as 

mankind has demonstrated a capability of existing outside 

the atmosphere. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

. 22 June 2015 

":,'Even after such a capability is demonstrated, there will 

be no imperative requirement in international law that the 

United States make any claims of sovereignty in order to 

protect its rights." 

"A very apt analogy is afforded by the Antarctic. #. . 

"As in the situation with respect to Antarctica, this should 

not be interpreted as any concession of any kind whatsoever 

on the part of the United States that its activities have not given 

it certain rights in space which, in turn, could be relied upon 

as the basis of a claim of sovereignty." 2 

4. Such was the state of space law prior to the actions of the U. N. 

Before going into a detailed chronology of the activities of the U. N. 

and at the risk of perhaps putting the cart before the horse, I 

think it important to note the official U. S. position on the Legal 

effect of U. N. general resolutions in space matters. I quote from 

the statement U. S. Ambassador Stevenson gave on 2 December 1963: 

"I should like to say a few words about the character 

and status which the United States considers the principles 

2 .?p 400 - 40, , Senate Doc No. 26, 87th Gong, First Sess. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

contained in this declaration will have once the draft resolution 

has been adopted by the General Assembly, as we hope, 

without dissent. In the view of the United States, the operative 

paragraphs of the draft resolution contained legal principles 

which the General Assembly, in adopting the resolution, would 

declare should guide States in the exploration and use of 

outer space. We believe these legal principles reflect 

international law as it is accepted by the Members of the 

United Nations. The United States, for its part, intends to 

respect these principles. We hope that the conduct which 

the resolution commends to nations in the exploration of 

outer space will become the practice of all nations. "3 

5. As far as I know, the first action taken by the U. N. on the 

outer space question was G. A. Resolution 1348 (XIII), 13 Dec 1958. 

It: 

"1. Establishes an ad hoc Committee on the PeaCeful Uses of 

Outer Space composed of the representatives of Argentina, • 

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, 

India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Sweden, the Union 

of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Arab Republic, the. 

3

1? 235, 236, Senate Doc No. 56, 89th Gong, First Sess. 

8 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and 

the United States of America, and requests it to report to 

the General Assembly at its fourteenth session on the following: 

"(a) The activities and resources of the United Nations, 

of its specialized agencies and of other international bodies 

relating to the peaceful uses of outer space; 

"(b) Th; area of international co-operation and programmes in the peaceful uses of outer space which could 

appropriately be undertaken under United Nations auspices to 

the benefit of States irrespective of the state of their economic 

or scientific development, taking into account the following 

proposals, inter alia: 

"(i) Continuation on a permanent basis of the outer 

space research now being carried on within the framework of 

the International Geophysical Year; 

"(ii) Organization of the matual exchange and dissemination of information on outer space research; 

"(iii) Co-ordination of national research programmes 

for the study of outer space, and the rendering of all possible 

assistance and help towards their realization; 

9 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

,22 June 2015 

;;(c) The future organization arrangements to facilitate 

international co-operation in this field within the framework 

of the United Nations; 

"(d) The nature of legal problems which may arise in the 

carrying out of programmes to explore outer space." 4 

6. This ad hoc committee met during the period 6 May to • 

25 June 1959. Of particular sigriicance was that the committee was 

boycotted by Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the U. S. S. R. The 

committee, however, submitted a report dated 25 June 1959 specifically covering each of the tasks signed by the General Assembly 

in the establishing resolution. Of particular interest to lawyers 

was their report',,n possible legal problems in connection with 

outer space activities. They listed 6 problems susceptible of 

priority treatment. These are: 

a. Question of freedom of outer space for exploration and use. 

b. Liability for injury or damage caused by space vehicles. 

c. Allocation of radio frequencies. 

d. Avoidance of interference between space vehicles and aircraft. 

4-Pp 88-89, Senate Doc No. 18, 88th Cong, First Sess. 

10 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

e. Identification and registration of space vehicles and 

coordination of launchings. 

f. Re-entry and landing of space vehicles. 

They then listed 5 other problems that recuired consideration. They 

are: 

a. Question of determining where outer space begins. 

b. Protection of public health and safety; safeguards against 

contamination of air• from outer space. 

c. Questions relating to exploration of celestial bodies. 

MIA 

d. Avoidance of interference among space vehicles. 

INS 

e. Miscellaneous other questions, such as meteorological 

activities that might require international measures to insure 

maximum effectiveness. 

7. The next sig• ficant action of the U. N. was the establishment 

of a committee on the peaceful uses of outer space. This was done 

by G. A. Resolution 1472 (XIV), 12 December 1959. The original 

committee, composed of 24 countries, i.e., Albania, Argentina, 

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Czechoslovakia 

11 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

France, Hungary, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, 

Poland, Romania, Sweden, U. S. S. R. , U. A. R., Great Britain, 

and the U. S. A. , was instructed: 

Lt( a) To revi‘sw, as appropriate, the area. of international 

co-operation, and to study practical and feasible means for 

giving effect to programmes in the peaceful uses of outer 

space which could appropriately be undertaken under United 

Nations auspices, including, inter alia: 

"(i) Assistance for the continuation on a permanent basis of the research on outer space carried on within 

the framework of the International Geophysical Year; 

Organization of the mutual exchange and dissemination of information on outer space research; 

"(iii) Encouragement of national research programmes for the study of outer space, and the rendering of 

all possible assistance and help towards their realization; 

"(o) To study the nature of legal problems which may 

arise from the exploration of outer space." 

5PI61, Senate Doc No. 18, 88th Gong, Fir st Sess. 

12 

IMB 
• NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

8. Some difficulty was experienced in persuading Russia to 

participate in the activities of this committee, and during 1960 

the U. S. pursued bilateral discussions with the Soviet Union in 

an effort to bring about the first session of the committee. 

Eventually, the committee met on 27 November 1961 and although 

the U.. S. S. R. had threatened to boycott the committee, the 

U. S. S. R. did in fact participate. A brief report was forwarded 

to the General Assembly listing the officers elected and the 

• representatives of States who spoke at the meeting. 

9. The U. S. position on the use of outer space was. included in 

a draft resolution which the U. S. with the cosponsorship of 

Australia, Canada, and Italy submitted to the General ,Assembly 

On 2 December 1961. This resolution was debated in the Political 

and Security Committee of the 0. A. In the course of the debate 

the U. S. was able to secure the cosponsorship of all the 

members of the U. N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer 

Space, including the U. S. S. R., and it was adopted unanimously 

by the General Assembly on 20 December 1961 as G. A. 

Resolution 1721 (XVI);6in some respects we might refer to it as 

the Magna Carta of Space. It added Chad, Mongolia, Morocco, 

and Sierra Leone to the Outer Space Committee, and provided in 

pertinent part: 

6 Pp 40 - 42, Rpt by the Pres to Cong for the-Year 1961,"U. S. 

Participation in the U. N." 13 

NMI 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

'22 June 2015 

"1. Commends to States for their guidance in the exploration and use of outer space the following principles,: 

"(a) International law, including the United Nations 

Charter, applies to outer space and colootial. bodies; 

"(b) Outer space and celestial bodies are free for 

exploration and use by all States in conformity with international law, and are not subject to national appropriation; 

"2. Invites the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer 

Space to study and report on the legal problems which may 

arise from the exploration and use of outer space. "7 

This resolution also called upon States to register with the Secretary 

General the launching of objects into orbit or beyond. 

10. After G. A. Resolution 1721, the U. N. Committee on the 

Peaceful Uses of Outer Space organized and got down to serious business; it divided itself into 2 subcommittees: One technical and the 

other Legal. The Legal Subcommittee was chaired by 

Dr. Manfred Lachs of Poland. The 2 subcommittees convened at 

7 y 226, Senate Doc No. 18, 88th Cong, Fir st Sess. 

14 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

• 22 June 2015 

.c7 

Geneva on 28 May 1962. The work of the Technical Subcommittee 

is a separate matter that I will not attempt to cover in this discussion 

because I believe that we here are primarily concerned in the work 

of the Legal Subcommittee. For clearer understanding, it should 

be kept in mind that the Legal Subcommittee has divided its work 

into 3 general categories: The first is the establishment of 

general principles governing the use of outer space; the second has 

been the establishment of rules governing the assistance to 

astronauts, and the return of astronauts.and space objects found 

outside the territory of the launching state; and the last has been 

the establishment of rules covering international liability for 

damages occurring in connection with or as a result of space launches. 

WWI 

11. The U. S. S. R. submitted a draft covering a Declaration of 

Legal Principles. Some of the more significant points advanced by 

the Russians in their draft were: 

The use of outer space for propagating war, national, 

or racial hatred, or enmity between nations shall be prohibited. 

The implementation of any measures that might in any 

way hinder the exploratiOn or use of outer space for peaceful 

purposes by other countries should be permitted only after 

15 
.NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

prior discussion of and agreement upon such measures 

between the countries concerned. 

"c. The use of artificial satellites for the collection of 

intelligence information in the territory of foreign states is 

incompatible with the. objectives of mankind in its conquest 

of outer space. 

"d. ALL activities of any kind pertaining to the exploration and 

use of outer space should be solely and exclusively by states." 

12. The U. S. position on these points might be summarized by 

• saying that the war propaganda, racial hatred, etc., were essentially 

propaganda and were of such general character as not to be appropriate for an international agreement. The prohibition of 

dangerous experiments would perhaps be commendable, but the 

U. S. objected to any rule which would give any other country a 

right of veto of its space activities. Limiting space activities to 

States was in the opinion of capitalistic countries generally not 

quite compatible with our concept of free enterprise and a little 

too much like foisting communistic concepts of operations upon 

the new regime of space. T-Ii•e-Eitre"s1:1-6E-Sr 

satellites-for ---the collection O'f.int e tionis.,:of,importan.t 

politic.41..significance. 

16 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

'22 June 2015 

13. The U. S. position on this subject of observation in and from 

space was covered by Mr. Leonard C. Meeker, the deputy Legal 

• Advisor and now Legal Advisor, U. S. Department of State, in a 

talk that he gave at the Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill 

University, Montreal, Canada, 1,3' April 196;:../. Mr. Meeker pointed 

to G. A. Resolution 1721 wherein it stated that "outer space and 

'celestial bodies are free for exploration and use by all states in 

conformity with international law and are not subject to national 

appropriation," and concluded "that observation from space comes 

within the freedom which the General Assembly has recognized in 

this statement of principle." Mr. Meeker outlined.in some detail 

the many purposes for which observation of the earth from outer 

space might be undertaken. He.. began with the weather satellites, 

discussed the plans for the Nimbus meteor satellites. He described '' 

the plans of the world meteorological organization to prepare a 

report on arrangements to advance the state of atmosphere science 

and technology and to expand weather forecasting capability in the 

light of new space techniques. Mr. Meeker pointed out that 

observation of the earth may take many forms. Most broadly understood such observation means the acquisition of dataabout the earth 

CMS from outer space by many means, whether optical -- by means of 

photography — or through the use of other systems of perception 

17 

.; r
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

which can give data about the earth and its immediate environment. He emphasized that it was his intention "to give principle 

attention to optical observation by photographic means." 

Mr. Meeker stated that satellites carrying photographic and other 

observation equipment should in the near future be able to detect 

promptly forest fires and other large scale fires, that observation satellites would be useful in measuring the extent of snow 

on the ground which would be helpful for the purpose of estimating 

potential water supplies for irrigation purposes. Similar use of 

satellite photography would be useful in connection with ice fields, 

ice bergs, devastation wrought by insects, and would be helpful 

in the field of earth measurement particularly in the mapping of 

remote and inaccessible areas. He discussed the use•of observation to promote international security. On this point, he stated: 

"Another important potential use of observation in space 

is the possibility of acquiring information about military 

preparations, and thus help in maintaining international 

peace and security. One of the great problems in today's 

world is the uncertainty generated by the secret development, 

testing, and deployment of national armaments and by the 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

' 22 June 2015 

lack of information on military preparations within closed 

societies. in fact a nation is not preparing surprise 

attack, observations from space could help us to know this 

and thereby increase confidence in world security which 

might otherwise be subject to added and unnecessary doubts. 

"We in the United States believe that openness serves 

the cause of peace. In arms control and disarmament negotiations, the Soviet Union has recognized, at least in prirsiple, 

the need for verification and inspection, but it continues to 

resist Western efforts to secure adequate verification and 

. •. 

inspection arrangements The Soviet Union has so far 

seemed to pia e a higher premium on maintaining its policy 

of 'secrecy than it does on reaching agreement on steps to 

ensure a peaceful world. 

"Observations from space may in time provide support 

of arms control and disarmament arrangements, although they 

could not eliminate the need for ground inspection. Of perhaps 

greater significance at the present time, however, is the fact 

that the progress of science, to which the Soviet Union itself 

has made dramatic contributions, decrees that we are all to. 

19 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

live in an increasingly open world. The Soviet Union's 

attitude up to this time toward verification and inspection 

is inconsistent with this trend as it is with the achievement 

of arms control and disarmament. 

"It is obvious from any discussion of observation in space 

that there is no workable dividing line between military and 

non-military uses. Weather satellites are of significance tothe armed forces just as they are important to civilian 

populations. Similarly, heat-sensing devices aboard earth 

satellites might be developed to detect not only the heat from 

forest fires but also the heat generated in the launching of 

ballistic missiles. 

In respect of the impossibility of separating decisively 

the military and non-military applications, observation of the 

earth from space is not different from other uses of space. 

A navigational satellite can guide a war•vessel as well as a 

merchant ship. A communications :_-:teltite can serve a military establishment as well as civilian communities. The 

instruments which guide a space vehicle on a scientific mission 

may also g fi.e a space vehicle on a military mission. American 

20 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

and Russian astronauts have been members of national armed 

forces, but this has afforded no reason to challenge their 

activities. 

"The fact that observation satellites clearly have military 

as well as scientific and commercial applications can provide 

no 'oasis for objection to observation satellites. International 

law imposes no restrictions on observation from outside the 

limits of national jurisdiction. Observation from outer space, 

like observation from the high seas or from airspace above 

the high seas, is consistent with international law. 

"In saying what I have this morning, I should not wish to 

create any impression that the United States is unconcerned 

over a possible extension of the arms race into outer space. 

For several years the United States has consistently adhered to 

the view that outer space should only be useful for peaceful --

that is, non-aggressive and beneficial -- purposes. However, 

pending the - ;hievement of disarmament agreements, the 

test of any space activity cannot be whether it is military or 

nonmilitary, but whether it is consistent with the United Nations 

Charter and other obligations of international law. 

21 
•NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

"Even in the absence of comprehensive disarmament 

agreements, the nations of the world are not precluded from 

taking meaningful measures of arms control and disarmament 

in space. On the contrary, there are some things that can 

be done immediately to prevent an extension of the arms race 

into space. In the first place, a prohibition could be 

- agreed and carried into effect to halt the testing of nuclear 

weapons in outer space as well as in other environments. 

The United States continues to bend its efforts to this end." 

As an aside, we should note the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and 

G. A. Resolution 1884 (XVIII) banning the orbiting of weapons of 

mass destruction. Continuing with the quotation-from Mr. Meeker: 

"In the second place, nations can refrain from placing 

weapons of mass destruction in outer space. Even though 

it is now feasible to do so, the United States has no intention 

of placing such weapons in orbit unless compelled to do so 

by actions of the Soviet Union. While disarmament 

negotiations continue for the actual elimination of nuclear 

weapons and the means of delivering - them it is important to 

do everything now that can be done to avoid•an arms race in 

22 
. NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

outer space, for it is clearly easier not to arm an 

environment that has never been armed than to disarm one 

that has been armed. It is the earnest hope of the United 

States that the Soviet Union will likewise refrain from 

taking steps to extend the arms race into space. 

14. Referring again to the May 1962 meeting of the Legal 

Subcommittee -- the U. S. S. R. submitted a proposal on liability 

for space accidents. I will cover the significant developments 

in the areas of liability and assistance and return in connection with 

the 3rd meeting and will not go into them now. 

15. The main committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space reported 

to the General Assembly under date of 27 September 1962. The 

report included the work of the Legal Subcommittee, just discussed. • 

16. The next meeting of the Legal Subcommittee was in New York 

.during the period 16 April - 3 May 1963. I had the privilege of 

being a part of the U. S. delegation and I have attended all 

subsequent meetings of the Legal Subcommittee in this capacity. 

The Soviets, in the course of the meeting, submitted a revised draft 

on general principles and it contained the same objection noted 12.■ 

23 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

before, i. e., war propaganda, states only activity in space, veto 

on activities that might cause interference and satellite. 

reconnaisance. Considered in connection with the General 

Principles was a United Arab Republic draft code for international 

cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and drafts of the 

U. S. and the U. K. 

17. The assistance and return draft remained the same. Belgium 

submitted a working paper on liability. With respect to the 

General Principles, the Soviets remained firm on their 4 controversial points and a new controversy developed, i.e., the form 

• • , 

that the declaration of principles should take. The U. S. proposed 

that the decla.rat' .n of principles should be in the form of a 

General Assembly resolution similar to 1721 while the U. S. S. R. 

insisted upon a formal treaty. Q.7,thu will recall that I read a "

statement by Ambassador Stevenson 

t 

 the effect that the U. S. 

accorded a General Assembly resolution\ unanimously passed, 

as substantial evidence at least of the accepted international law 

on the subject covered. Of great interest is the grave concern 

,\ 

with which the Soviet bloc views the possibility that U. N. General 

Assembly resolutions might be binding international law( 

7 L 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

• 

tended to improve the political climate for negotiation which was 

further improved by the passage by acclamation of U. N. General 

Assembly Resolution 1884 (XVIII), 17 October 1963, calling upon 

States to refrain from 6rbiti ngnuclear weaponsA9 

-4• 

20. The upshot was that the main committee drafted its own 

"Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States 

. in the Exploration and Uses of Outer Space." The draft cleared 

the main committee, was debated in the Political and Security 

Committee, and although certain countries expressed reservations 

the General Assembly unanimously passed it and it became 

General Assembly Resolution 1962 (XVIII) dated 24 pecember 1963. 

It provides: 

PIM 

"I. The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried 

on for the benefit and in the interests of all mankind. 

. Outer space and celestial bodies are free for exploration and use by all States on a basis of equality and in accordance 

with international law. 

IN 

"3. Outer space and celestial bodies are not subject to 

appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use 

9 P233, Senate Doc No. 56, 89th Gong, First E'ess. 

26 

IN 
,NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

or occupation, or by any other means. 

The activities of States in the exploration and use of 

outer space shall be carried on in accordance with international 

Law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the 

interest of maintaining international peace and security and 

promoting international co-operation and understanding. 

`t5. States bear international responsibility for national 

activities in outer space, whether carried on by governmental 

agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that 

national activities are carried on in conformity with the 

principles set forth in the present Declaration. The activities 

of non-governmental entities in outer space shall require 

authorization and continuing supervision by the State concerned. 

When activities are carried on in cuter space by an 

international organization, responsibility for compliance with 

the principles set forth in this Declaration shall be borne by 

the international organization and by the States participating 

in it. 

In the exploration and use of outer space, States shall 

27 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

be guided by the principle of co-operation and mutual assistance 

and shall conduct all their activities in outer space with due 

regard for corresponding interests of other States. If a State 

has reason to believe that an outer space activity or 

experiment planned by it or its nations would cause potentially 

harmful inteaference with activities of other States in the 

peaceful exploration and use of outer space, it shall undertake 

appropriate international consultations before proceeding with 

any such activity or experiment. A State which has reason 

to believe that an outer space activity or experiment planned 

by another State would cause potentially harrnful.interference 

with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer 

space may request consultation concerning the activity or 

experiment. 

7 The State on whose registry an object launched into 

outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over 

such object, and any personnel thereon., while in outer space. 

Ownership of objects launched into outer space, and of their 

component parts, is not affected by their passage through outer 

space or by their return to the earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State of registry 

Z8 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

shall be returned to that State which shall furnish identifying 

data upon request prior to return. 

“8. Each State which launches or procures the launching 

of an object into outer space, and each State from whose 

territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally 

liable for damage to a foreign State or to its natural or 

juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the 

earth, in air space, or in outer space. 

"9 . States shall regard astronauts as envoys of mankind 

in outer space, and shall render to them all passible assistance 

in the event of accident, distress, or emergency landing on 

the territory of a foreign State or on the high seas. Astronauts 

who make such a landing shall be safely and promptly returned 

to the State of registry of their space vehicle." 

21. Note that with respect to the controversial questions that had 

defied resolution during the April - May 1963 meeting of the Legal 

Subcommittee, this resolution was: 

a. Actually a resolution rather than the treaty demanded by 

ENE the Russians. 

29 
. NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

b. With respect to the war propaganda, etc. , position of the 

Russians, it contained a recital (recalling its Resolution 110 (II) 

- of 3 November 1947) which. condemns propaganda and Lies to 

provoke and encourage any threat to the peace, etc. 

c. With respect to the Russian demand of a right of veto 

of potentially harmful space activities of other countries, it required 

only consultation. 

d. With respect to the demand on the part of the Russians that 

activities in states be limited to states only, it provided that states 

shall bar international responsibility for actions of Governmental 

and other agencies. 

e. There was no mention of the so-called space espionage, 

the prohibition of which had been demanded by the Russians. 

22. ,There was an accompanying resolution, i.e., 1963 (XVIII) 

dated 24 December 1963, which: 

Recommends that consideration should be given to 

incorporating in international agreement form, in the future 

as appropriate, legal principles governing the activities of 

States in the exploration and use of outer space. 

30 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

"2. Requests the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of 

Outer Space to continue to study and report on legal problems 

which may arise in the exploration and use of outer space, 

and in particular to arrange for the prompt preparation of 

draft international agreements on liability for damage caused 

by objects launched into outer space and on assistance and 

return of astronauts and space vehicles. 

"3. Further requests the Committee on the Peaceful 

Uses of Outer Space to report to the General Assembly at its 

nineteenth session on the results achieved in preparing these 

two agreements." 

23. The language recommending that consideration be given to 

incorporating the principles in international agreement form can 

perhaps be regarded as the compromise which Lead the Russians to 

accept the general principles in the form of General Assembly 

resolution. The request for the prompt preparation of draft 

international agreements on liability and on assistance and return 

was the agenda for the meeting of the Legal Subcommittee at Geneva 

■•■IMI 

in March 1964, or at .least so the Western nations contended. The 

bloc again raised the question of putting the general principles in 

31 

IN 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

treaty form, and aft er some controversy the agreed agenda was: 

a. A general debate: 

b. A draft international agreement on assistance and return; and 

c. A draft international agreement on liability. 

24. In the discussions at Geneva on assistance and return, the 

Subcommittee considered the U. S. and U. S. S. R. drafts. Certain 

areas of disagreement were isolated; these were: 

a. The extent of the responsibility of the territorial state to 

search for, rescue, return, etc. 

b. The responsibility of the launching state to pay the expenses 

for the return of space objects. This controversy did not extend 

to the return of personnel. 

c. The responsibility of the territorial state to seek assistance 

if the rescue operation were beyond its capability. 

d. The right of the territorial state to maintain the security 

of its own territory. 

3 2 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

e. The status of Antarctica. 

f. Exclusive versus cooperative search on the high seas. 

g. Registration of the launch. 

h. The settlement of disputes, i.e., the role of the International 

Court of Justice. Cu this last point, the U. S. had proposed making 

the International Court of Justice the final arbiter on disputes but 

• the communist countries objected to giving the international Court 

of Justice any authority unless the parties to the disputes consented 

to the referral to the I.C.J. 

25. In the face of these areas of disagreement, the Canadians 

and Australians endeavored t)draft a compromise draft on assistance 

and return that would be acceptable, but they were unsuccessful. In 

the discussions on liability it was quite apparent that agreement was a 

long way off, although in general the discussions centered essentially 

about legal problems as contrasted to the more political type that 

had been involved in assistance and return. The Subcommittee 

• considered a U. S. draft, a Hungarian draft, ar.d a Belgian working 

paper. Some of the more significant matters involved were: 

(i) The U. S. proposed absolute liability with provision that there 

should be no Liability for that part of the damage caused by willful 

or reckless act or omission on the part of the presenting state or 

33 
•NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

parties it represents. (ii) , The Hungarian draft proposed 

absolute liability for damage if the Launch was for an illegal 

purpose. Otherwise, fault liability only for damage in outer 

space. If damage occurred on the ground or in the atmosphere, 

exemption from. ..lability only if there was willful act or gross 

negligence on the part of the injured state, or if the damage was 

the result of natural disaster. 

26. • Interestingly enough, both the U. S. and Hungarian drafts 

proposed a ceiling on liability. (Neither stated an amount.) This 

was bitterly opposed by India and other nonlaunch.ing states. 

• • • 

27. There was considerable controversy between U. S. S. R. and 

ELDO members, specifically'Britain. and Australia, over the position 

of international launching organizations. The U. S. S. R. objected 

to giving any status to international organizations, and contended 

that the injured party should look directly to the participating 

nations in addition to the inter national organizations. 

28. As an aside, there was a great deal of confusion over joint 

liability. And it was a matter of some embarrassment that we,-, 

Western .l awyer s, had a little difficulty in coming up with a definition. 

34 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

that would be understandable to the Eastern Lawyers. 

29. The U. S. had proposed a state-of-registry concept in which 

a nation could accept liability by being the nation to formally 

register it regardless of the ownership or the participation of other 

nations in the launch. The communist group made a very spirited 

objection to this in which they likened it to the law of the sea and 

the flying of the Panamanian flag. 

30. The meeting in Geneva Was- considered as the first part of the 

3rd session of the Legal Subcommittee. When the Legal Subcommittee 

reconvened in New York in October 1964, the meeting was designated 

as the 2nd part of the •3rd session. The agenda continued to be 

largely devoted 'L., the drafting of conventions on assistance and 

return, on Liability. 

31. Significant points on assistance and return were that: 

a. The U. S. S. R. proposed that the obligation to return space 

objects, and astronauts should be conditional on the launc'n's having 

been carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Legal 

Principles set forth in U. N. General Assembly Resolution 1962 (XVIII) 

raw 

of 13 December 1963. 

35 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

'22 June 2015 

b. Japan continued to suggest, as it had in the first part of 

the 3rd session., that the return of space objects be dependent upon 

the announcement of the launching and the registration of the object 

with the U. N. 

c. The U. S. S. R. wanted a requirement that the assistance 

rendered to a foreign astronaut be the same as that which a country 

would render its own. 

3Z. It was generally agreed that a state returning an astronaut 

and space object should be reimbursed for all of its expenses where 

the return was at the request of the launching state. Some felt 

that there should be a reimbursement for the expenses of the 

recovery of a space object even though the launching state made 

no request. Some states suggested that the expenses of locating 

astronauts should be reimbursed pointing out that the rescue would 

be for the benefit of a very few and comparatively wealthy states. 

36 
OM 

N 

•NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

• 33. The U. S. S. R. proposed that the launching state should have 

the direction and control of rescue forces supplied by other states. 

34. Although there was general agreement that international 

organizations should be liable for their activities, there was a 

complete divergence of opinion between the Soviet bloc and the Western 

delegations on the status of international organizations in the 

agreement, the Soviet bloc refusing to agree to permitting 

international organizations to be parties to the agreement. A very 

controversial point involved what states would be eligible to be 

parties to the convention. The U. S. proposed that state members 

of the U. N. and other states especially invited by the General \ 

Assembly could be parties. The U. S. S. 1-Z. on the other hand 'k 

1. 

together with the entire communist bloc proposed that all states 

could be parties. This, of course, was the procedure followed in 

the nuclear test ban. The controversial aspect is that the alt-state 

doctrine includes states such as East Germany and communist China. 

35. There was a proposal that the assistance and return and 

liability agreements be linked and entered into simultaneously. 

Under this procedure, a state would have no obligation to the 

1.60/ launching states under the assistance and return convention unless 

the launching state had ratified the liability convention. 

37 
•NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

-36. In the discussions on liability the Subcommittee worked with 

drafts proposed by Belgium, United States, and Hungary. The 

matters remaining undecided could be divide-a' into substantive 

matters and procedural matters. For example, some time was 

spent on whether the agreements should follow the Anglo-American 

approach to treaties and include definitions or the continental 

concept which eliminates, or at least limits, the definitions. 

Italy proposed that there should be one treaty for the two subjects, 

in other words, a part "2:t" covering assistance and return and a 

part "B" covering liability, with a common preamble and 

common clauses covering definitions, settlement of.dasputes, 

eligibility of states, and other final. provisions. 

37. One of the problems is the designation of the states that 

would be responsible for damages. in this connection, the U. S. 

had included as a responsible state the state which "procures the 

launching" and had defined it as the state defraying the cost of the 

launch. This concept, however, was far from settled and there 

were many proposals for amendments which wereiitertwined with 

the problems of notification, registration, status of international 

organizations, and the procedures for handling joint launches. 

38 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

38. On the question of the scope of liability, most delegations 

agreed that the launching state should be liable for damage. All, 

however, had their "buts" and these caused considerable 

disagreement over the question of exceptions. The U. S. draft 

contemplated exception or diminution of damages only if the 

damage resulted from the willful or reckless acts or omissions on 

the part of the presenting state or the injured party. Italy favored 

absolute liability for accidents on the ground only and suggested a 

presumption of common fault for accidents in outer space. Austria 

favored absolute liability but tended to agree with Hungary on 

Liability for fault regarding accidents in outer space.,' Hungary 

urged full liability without exceptions where a state had been exercising an unlawful activity in outer space. 

39. On the question of measure of damages, the U. S. formula was 

that principles of internationallaR, justice, and equity would 

determine the compensation. Belgium proposed that the national 

law of the injured party should detertnine. Several delegations 

preferred a unified and self-contained set of legal principles. Others 

preferred the traditionale of law rules. On the question of 

damages, France suggested a broad definition embracing the types of 

damage covered under the agreement to include physical damage and 

39 
.NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

damage caused by contamination of the atmosphere by nuclear 

devices and damage to natural and juridical persons. There were 

also views related to the problems such as delayed or instant 

damages, and direct and indirect damages. 

40. As in assistance and return, the same controversy between 

East and West existed over the status of international organizations. 

Bear in mind that several of the Western nations are members of 

ELDO (European Launcher Development Organization), and ELDO 

is endeavoring to establish some accommodation so that the 

international organization can assume the liability and either 

absolve or limit the individual liability of its members. 

41. Related to • ae problem on international organizations was the 

liability of states' joint undertakings. Hungary, speaking for the 

bloc, urged that liability should rest with all the states participating 

in a common undertaking. Several of the Western sties suggested 

some Limits. 

42. On the question of the procedures for the presentation of claims, 

there was discussion on whether an injured parly-shoulci be able to 

simultaneously pursue remedies under the convention, local law, 

or any other treaty. 

40 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

43. On the question of the statute of limitation, the U. S. draft 

proposed a one-year period to run from the date that the accident 

occurred or the date on which the facts of the claim became known. 

Italy suggested five years. India proposed ten years. 

44. There was some discussion on the limits of liability. Both 

the U. S. and Hungarian drafts suggested a limitation but did not 

cite specific dollar figures. France, Japan, Argentina, and India 

opposed any monetary limitation. The Soviet bloc, United Kingdom, 

Canada, and Italy supported such a limitation. Other countries 

reserved judgment depending upon the amount of the limitation. 

45. On the auestion of the settlement of disputes, the U. S. draft 

proposed resort to the International Court of Justice; the bloc 

countries adamantly refused to concede any compulsory jurisdiction 

to the 1.0.3. and suggested that disputes be settled by the 

traditional methods of diplomatic negotiation. 

45. With respect to damage suffered by the nationals of the Launching 

state, the U. S. proposed that the convention should not cover 

MOM/ liability of a state for damages suffered by its own nations. The 

Hungarian proposa' .was substantially the same. Belgium proposed 

that liability be determined in accordance with the provisions of the 
'NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

national law of the injured party. 

47 Of interest is that the U. S. S. R. suggested that a claim for 

compensation should not constitute grounds for sequestration of 

space vehidl.es . 

48. The question of currency in which claims were to be paid also 

entered the discussions. United Kingdom proposed that payments 

should be in currency convertible readily and without loss of value 

in the currency used by the presenting state. 

49. There was also a discussion on who should bear the expenses 

of procedures to enforce the treaty. The U. S. proposed that the 

expenses should be shared equally by the parties. Belgium 

suggested that the allocation be left for a determination by the 

commis sion. 

50. Such then was the status of the 2 drafts as of the close of the 

2nd part of the 3rd session of the Le,g2.1. Subcommittee. In general, 

there were some grounds for optimism on assistance and return, 

the stumbling blocks being political but not regarded as insurmountable. 

On the question of liability, it was obvious that much work in the 

technical legal sense needed to be done before agreement could be 

reached. might be said with some accuracy that a cautious 

e- 
• NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

optimism on an early draft agreement on assistance and return 

was warranted. 

51. However, the optimism on the assistance and return was 

apparently overtaken by world events and the meeting of the 

4th session of the Subcommittee for the period 20 September - 

1 October 1965 was somewhat discouraging. About the most 

that can be said for this meeting was that there was an exchange 

of views. The bloc reactivated many of its old arguments against 

space espionage and ire used them as -- I guess I might 

say -- an excuse for not moving any closer to an agreement. 

• 

Little of new significance was said and for all practical purposes 

the ',Legal _;ubcorn-mittee stands at about the position it was 

at the end of the 3rd session in October 1964. 

L3 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

, r 

• 52. Some comments as to how the delegations to the Legal 

Subcommittee are made up and function might be of interest. 

E . 

First, you might like to know about the composition of the U. S. 

delegation. It has been headed for all of the meetings by 

Mr. Leonard C. Meeker, the present al Advisor to the 

Department of State. He Ls supported by advisors from his office, 

the ;tate Departments Office of U. Political Affairs, the 

State Department's Office of Soviet Union Affairs, and from the 

U. S. Mission to the U. N. in New York. In addition, there are 

representatives from the General Counsel's office of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, and I was there from the 

Department of Defense. Many of the other delegations, particularly 

those from the smaller countries, are composed of personnel 

from their permanent offices at U. N. 'Headquarters. Australia 

has for the most part been represented by Sir Kenneth Bailey, 

formerly Solicitor General of Australia, presently Australian 

High Commissioner to Canada, an old friend of Professor Goldie's 

it being my understanding that at Professor Goldie's wedding 

Sir Kenneth gave the bride away). Austria was represented by 

Dr. Karl Ze-i-riariek, Professor of Vienna University. Belgium, 

was represented by Professor Max Litvine, who prepared the Belgian 

rEM 

working paper on liability. Czechoslovakia was represented by 

.11•0■11=011= 

kameememeerea 

LG 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

Professor Jiri Hajek, who was Czechoslovakia's permanent 

representative to the U. N. Hungary was represented.by Dr. Endre 

Ustor, who carried the rank of Ambassador and Was head of the 

International Law Department of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 

Poland was represented by Professor Manfred Lach.s, the 

Chairman of the ,Committee who carried the rank of Ambassador and 

was Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. :Romania's 

representative was Professor Edwin Glaser, the Chief Legal_ 

Advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The U. S. S. R.. was 

represented by Ambassador P. D. Morozov, who interestingly 

enough was backed up by A. S. Piradov, Professor of International 

Law, Academy of Science of the U. S. S. H.. The United Kingdom 

representative was Mr. I. M. Sinclair, Counsellor and Legal 

Advisor to the U. K. Mission to the U. N. In the past, the U. K. 

has at times been represented by Miss Joyce Guttexidge. The 

delegates are all capable individuals, most of them are lawyers 

and some of them have achieved read eminence in the profession. 

It is important to understand, however, that with perhaps a few 

• 

exceptions, 415-delegate is L- free-agent an.d:.1.-..i,s-freadorn-of,action 

' P / •• • 

. s:-carefullTo-na...e.d--by--e.le-tailed. instructions from the State / 

kr,•t• ■ 

Department or Foreign Office of his Government), 

. the -advisor s.,z,:r 
INN 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

turn..backed by additional advisors and even supervisors in 

their respective capitals. There are few off-the-cuff remarks; 

in general, the remarks are obvious ''''''''''''''''' the carefully 

worded position papers with which the delegates come armed Much 

is done away from the formal conference; luncheons, dinners, and 

receptions are apt to be work arenas for the practicing delegates. 

53. The U. N. Secretariat provides administrative support. The 

Legal Subcommittee has, in the time I have been associated with it, 

been the particular responsibility of Mr. Oscar Schachter, Director 

Of the General Legal Division, Office of Legal Affairs, U. N. 

The Secretariat provides simultaneous translation, copies of 

documents in all of the necessary languages, and takes care of 

the other housekeeping chores such as provie.i na conference rooms, 

etc. The workaday schedules call generally for a 3-hour session 

in the morning (10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) and at times an afternoon 

session from 3:00 to 6:00. Unfortunately these conference 

sessions are just the part of the "work iceberg visible to the 

public. Many other hours are spent in bilateral consultations with 

other delegations and conferences with officials of their own Governmow 

meats .4 and-the-intarmi'i:',176-1-6-:Febifr-ia., The U. S. dele,oa.tion was 

backed up at all times by a staff in the State Department and it was 

necessary to keep them complete.yi-lo,....nadkbo---ihey-eouL2,6 W/o,: 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

‘„,GbLvernmental approval for new positions, changes to old positions, 

or p o:osed answers to questions that might have arisen in the 

course of debate. Generally speaking, a delegate's day .runs from 

about 8:00 a.m.. until about 10:00 p.m.; however, it is quite a 

fascinating experience. And speaking as a former politician back 

in Michigan, I found very little difference in the fundamental 

concept of operations between the U. N. deliberative committee 

and the old Macomb County Board of Supervisors or the Legislature 

of the State of Michigan.