Dr. V. S. Vereshchetin.

-2-

July 16, 1974

I sincerely hope that you will be able to partici-
cipate with me on this Panel, together with one other dis-
tinguished U.S.S.R. representative, and that you and he
will join us in this important project.

I am sure you agree that such open panel dis-
cussions by recognized experts leads to the evolution of
very constructive ideas for the scientific and legal minds
working in outer space for the benefit of all mankind.

I hope that you will write me of U.S.S.R.'s
desires to cooperate in this U.S. - U.S.S.R. Aerospace Panel,
and look forward to your reply.

ERF:R

Dr. V. S. Vereshchetin
Vice-Chairman, Intercosmos
USSR, Academy of Sciences
Leninsky Prospect 14
Moscow, USSR

COPY

FINCH & SCHAEFLER

36 WEST 44TH STREET
NEW YORK 10036

August 14, 1974

LEON SCHAEFLER
EDWARD RIDLEY FINCH, JR.
RICHARD HENRY PERSHAN
CHARLES M. ARAK
GEORGE A. NELSON, JR.

EDWARD R. FINCH
1873-1965

TEL. MURRAY HILL 7-3636

CABLE ADDRESS: FINSCHA, N. Y.

Hon. Henry A. Kissinger
The Secretary of State
Washington, D.C.

Dear Henry:

Thank you for your thoughtful letter of August 10, 1974. The U.S.-U.S.S.R. Aerospace Panel for August 11, 1975 at the American Bar Association meeting in Montreal is making good progress and I am glad you fully approve of the idea.

Just as a matter of NASA and State Department coordination, please be advised that Assistant Administrator Donnelly, who works very closely with Dr. Jim Fletcher, the NASA Administrator, has been in close touch with me and expects to discuss this and other Apollo-Soyuz matters at the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences in Moscow on or about September 9, 1974 with Dr. Vereshchetin, Vice Chairman of Intercosmos. As to the U.S. side, all is cranked up in good shape and I am pleased to enclose for your information a copy of a letter just received from NASA.

I shall never forget your remarkable intuitive foresight in having me in Moscow with the top Soviet space officials bearing your message of the United States strong desire for Middleeast peace on the very night of the last missile alert in October 1973. How are you doing with General Torrijos of Panama these days? Was glad to help on the international drug and the Panama Treaty problem for you there.

Henry, please let me know if you would like me to accompany you, or at any time to perform for you and the United States any mission where further service as a Special Ambassador would be helpful.

ERF:R

Encl.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20546

REPLY TO
ATTN OF: FGA

AUG 9 1974

Edward R. Finch, Esq.
Finch & Schaefler
36 West 44th Street
New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Ambassador:

This will confirm scheduling of Astronaut Alan L. Bean, back-
up commander of the ASTP crew, to appear on the aerospace
panel at your American Bar Association convention, August 11,
1975, in Montreal.

Even if there is no slippage in the Apollo-Soyuz mission, the
date of your meeting and the target date of the ASTP launch
come so close as to preclude participation in the Montreal
ABA meeting by Astronauts Stafford, Slayton or Brand.

Al Bean is a veteran of the space program. He commanded the
56-day Second Manned Skylab Mission, and went to the moon as
Lunar Module Pilot in Apollo 12.

He is personable and articulate; I am confident he will be an
asset to any convention presentation.

Mr. Eugene Marianetti, Chief of the Astronaut Appearances
Branch (AC 202/755-8364) here at Headquarters, will be in
touch with your office as to the programming details.

We appreciate your interest in the space program, and look
forward to working with the ABA.

cc: Mr. Lou Potter, ABA

COPY

FINCH & SCHAEFLER

36 WEST 44TH STREET
NEW YORK, N. Y. 10036

November 1, 1974

Dr. V. S. Vereshchetin
Deputy Chairman Interkosmos
Council of the USSR
Academy of Sciences
Moscow, Russia

Dear Dr. Vereshchetin:

In due course I will be hoping to receive confirmation from you of your attendance at the US-USSR Aerospace Panel on outer space and international law in Montreal, Canada, on August 11, 1975 under the auspices of the American Bar Association. To that end, I am pleased to enclose a xerox copy of the official Agreement between the United States of America and Soviet Union signed on May 24, 1972 at Moscow and call your attention to Article 4 thereof. The document is in English and in Russian for convenience.

You will also find enclosed a copy of my most recent (October 1974) published article on international law and outer space entitled "Outer Space Law and the Global Community" for your information.

Best regards and looking forward to receiving word from you with regards to your attendance and the attendance of the USSR cosmonaut, as per your discussion with NASA Deputy Administrator, John Donnelly in Moscow in September 1974 and the other distinguished Soviet representative who will be present at the Panel,

ERF:R
Encl.

cc: Dr. Henry Kissinger
John Donnelly, Esq.

EDWARD R. FINCH, JR.*
AMANDA LEE MOORE†

# Outer Space Law and the Global Community**

## Introduction

New systems are being launched into outer space applying technologies in new ways to the world's ever-present and continually emerging problems. Previous space activity has been carried out under internationally agreed-to principles as codified in United Nations resolutions and treaties. Foremost among these principles is the charge that activity in space be conducted for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all mankind. The conduct of the new space systems is examined in light of these and other principles as background for determining their potential at present and in the future. The basic premise for researching the roles of outer space law and its technologies in the world is the desirability of peace and the undesirability of war and all conditions and developments that weaken peace and international cooperation.

The purpose of this article is to explore the possible combinations of space technologies and the law of outer space to facilitate the peaceful settlement of disputes; the assessment of monitoring worldwide environmental hazards and resources management; the realization of durable deterrence and detente; and the prevention of a general nuclear war.¹ The proposals made herein are aimed at incremental reforms—small but positive, with a chance of implementation in the immediate future—to halt man's path to self-destruction and make the probable future resemble a preferred one. The ultimate goal is a truly international effort directed straight to the problem of how to avoid wars and preserve peace permanently.

* Edward R. Finch, Jr. is a partner, Finch & Schaefler, New York, N.Y., and is incoming Chairman, Committee on Aerospace Law, Section of International Law, the American Bar Association. He is a former U.S. Ambassador and former U.S. Delegate to Fourth U.N. Congress.

† Amanda Lee Moore, J.D. (1974), National Law Center, George Washington University, and Ph.D. Candidate in International Law, Cambridge University, England.

** This article is presented by the authors in their individual capacity, and not as representing the U.S. Government or any official organization.

'These objectives are not the only ones deemed mandatory for keeping world peace and enabling man to devote time and resources to his greater problems. Other ones include: (1) Bringing the People's Republic of China further into the world community and into existing international treaties; (2) Progress toward transformation of international society into a true community through improved global communications; and (3) Capturing the technological revolution before it captures the world. See the authors' *Outer Space Can Help the Peace*, 7 INT'L. LAW. 881 (1973).

752

International Lawyer, Vol. 8, No. 4

Outer Space Law and the Global Community 753

# Outer Space Satellite Systems

## 1. In the Geostationary Orbit²

Global telecommunications services today give people front row seats to richer lives by freer exposure to ideas and people, and a chance to manage their environment. This revolution in communications is made possible by space technology which has ringed this planet with satellite communications systems. The past year has seen plans for and performance by satellite systems which exceed the achievements of the past decade, yet will in turn be outstripped by orders of magnitude in the next. This has not been the achievement of a single country such as the United States or U.S.S.R., but rather of internationally cooperating countries and international consortiums. Communications and weather satellites are in their fourth and fifth generations, while the full potential of remote sensing and broadcast satellites are just being realized.

### a. WEATHER

The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in May 1974 launched a weather satellite into geostationary orbit for the first time. The Synchronous³ Meteorological Satellite (SMS-1) not only will maintain 24-hour coverage of North America, but it will also serve as a clearing house for data from balloons, ships and over 10,000 ground stations. Together with a twin satellite to be launched in the fall to cover the eastern Pacific, SMS-1 will be a prototype for a network of satellites called the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite System. If properly functioning, SMS-1 will take part in a vast international weather study of the contributions of the tropics to the world's weather systems.⁴

In late 1976 or early 1977, Japan will put a similar satellite over the western Pacific, the European Space Research Organization (ESRO) will add another over the eastern Atlantic, and the Soviet Union is expected to provide the fifth, over the Indian Ocean, giving the world its first coordinated, full-time, full-coverage World Weather Watch (WWW). The increasing prospects for accurate short and long range weather forecasts made possible by satellite have led the world meteorologists to plan a Global Atmospheric Research Program

²A satellite placed in orbit above the equator at an altitude of 22,300 miles (35,000 km) will orbit the earth once every 24 hours. The orbit at 22,300 miles above the equator is known as "the geostationary orbit." CHAYES, FAWCETT, ITO, and KISS, SATELLITE BROADCASTING-(1973) [hereinafter SATELLITE BROADCASTING].

³A satellite in a geostationary orbit since its speed is equal to that of the earth's rotation, will appear to hang motionless over a single spot on the earth's surface. Such a satellite is called "synchronous" and is continuously visible over about one-third of the earth. A system of three such satellites (synchronous and in a geostationary orbit) can provide coverage of the entire surface of the earth, except to arctic and antarctic regions. See SATELLITE BROADCASTING at n. 2.

⁴The study is called GATE—the GARP (Global Atmospheric Research Program) Atlantic Tropical Experiment, *A New Breed of Weather Satellite: The Fixed Stare*, 105 SCIENCE NEWS 332 (1974) and *And Into the Warming Sea Rode the 4,000*, 105 SCIENCE NEWS 354 (1974).

754 INTERNATIONAL LAWYER

(GARP) for the mid-1970s. An objective is to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of the global atmosphere. This will permit accurate long range weather forecasts that could save millions of dollars for construction, shipping, and airlines; help prevent expensive damage to crops and property; help industries like electric and gas utilities to anticipate load requirements; and save lives by early warning of hurricanes and other destructive storms. Both are coordinated through the U.N. Agency—the World Meteorological Organization.⁵

b. COMMUNICATIONS

The geostationary orbit is recognized as a resource which with the radio spectrum must be used in the interests of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and understanding.⁶ The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the U.N. Agency responsible for regulation of international communication services and allocation of the radio spectrum for specific purposes, has adopted new provisions that expand the potential use of the radio frequencies by satellite systems.⁷

Mobile satellite systems—direct satellite relay to ships and aircraft operating over the world’s oceans—should be launched experimentally by NASA in the next three years. This points toward the day when uninterrupted transocean communications service can provide airliners with the best current route information and help improve traffic conditions in our increasingly crowded skies. The aeronautical satellite communication system (AEROSAT) for oceanic air traffic control satellites will operate under a Memorandum of Understanding among the United States, Canada, and ESRO as a joint venture. The planned system includes two satellites to be placed over the Atlantic Ocean beginning in 1977. Another set of NASA’s Applications Technology Satellite (ATS) experiments has shown similar possibilities with ships, providing greatly improved communication and navigation services for commercial shipping. United States communications entities are planning to establish the world’s first maritime satellite system (MARISAT) by early 1975 with one satellite over the

⁵NASA PAMPHLET, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION at 6 (1973), and Background Paper by the Secretary-General Assessing United Nations Documents and Other Pertinent Data Related to the Subject of Remote Sensing of the Earth by Satellites U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/118 at 61-62 (1973) [hereinafter Background Paper].

⁶According to the conclusion of the studies by the International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) of the ITU approved at the last Plenary Assembly (New Delhi, 1970) in order to avoid mutual interference between the space service and terrestrial services and for various other technical reasons, geostationary satellites, when using the same frequency bands, must be spaced at least 2° apart. Therefore, on technical grounds, the absolute limit of the capacity of the geostationary orbit would be 180 satellites. Id. at 56-58.

⁷At its 1971 World Administrative Radio Conference for Space Telecommunications (WARC-ST), the ITU reserved several blocks of frequencies for space telecommunications services, including direct broadcasting and remote sensing. See: LaVean and Martin, *Communications Satellites: The Second Decade, 12 ASTRONAUTICS AND AERONAUTICS* 54, 55 (1974).

755

Atlantic and one over the Pacific. ESRO has announced plans to launch an experimental maritime satellite (MAROTS) by the late 1970s. In addition, studies by the International Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), a specialized agency of the United Nations, aim at establishing a fully internationalized maritime satellite system.⁸

Satellite communications have also significantly reduced costs and improved the quality of intercontinental communications, generating increased uses of communication facilities. The International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT) which operates a synchronous system providing global coverage for member States, plans lower cost service and exploitation of the new frequency bands opened up by the 1971 World Administrative Radio Conference for Space Telecommunications (WARC-ST).⁹ The United States continues its "open skies" policy by offering other nations access to its launching facilities. In addition it is allowing competition in the offering of new communication services in its domestic satellite area.¹⁰ With lower cost will be a corresponding increase in the exchange of words, data and pictures. The long-term effect can only be hypothesized, but it may knit the people of the world into a global society.¹¹

Concrete moves toward domestic satellite communications systems have been taken in Canada, Algeria, Japan, Brazil, Russia and Europe, often bringing remote regions reliable telephone and television services for the first time.¹² Algeria is now building a complex of earth terminals for its vast Sahara areas. In Japan, an experimental domestic system to link Tokyo and other cities with island outposts and mountainous regions is planned for launch by early 1977. Brazil plans to tie the vast western Amazon region into the eastern coastal area with a domestic satellite system and is in discussion with NASA over the planned program. ESRO plans the launch at the end of 1976 of a test satellite to provide regional television and audio broadcast relay capability as well as intra-European telecommunication circuits. In addition, it is studying a report on the feasibility of using a geostationary communications satellite system to

⁹Id. at 16-17.

¹⁰Id. at 13. INTELSAT is a partnership of telecommunications organizations in 84 nations. Earth stations are owned by the organizations where they are located. In the United States, this now includes private industry. By 1974, more than 88 ground stations for satellites will have been established in 53 of INTELSAT's member countries. For the changes made in the INTELSAT system by the entry into force of the Permanent Arrangements, see: Doyle, *Permanent Arrangements for the Global Commercial Communications Satellite System of INTELSAT*, 6 INT'L LAW. 258 (1972). The Permanent arrangements terms are at 23 U.S.T. 3813 (1973), T.I.A.S. No. 7532.

¹¹Five U.S. domestic satellite system operators have been authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to proceed with their initial plans: Comsat General and A.T. & T., Western Union Telegraph Co., American Satellite Corp., G.T. & E., RCA Global Communications. Certain limitations, designed to enhance the ability of the other domestic-system applications to compete, were placed on Comsat, A.T. & T., and G.T. & E., LaVean and Martin, *supra* note 7 at 13-15.

¹²"Satellites May Make Earth the Smallest of Worlds," The New York Times, June 9, 1974.

¹³LaVean and Martin, *supra* note 7 at 13.

756

INTERNATIONAL LAWYER

monitor and control offshore oil exploration and production in the North Sea.¹³

The Soviet Union launched its first synchronous satellite on March 26, 1974. This satellite is believed to be a prototype for the long-awaited Statsionary communications satellite which the Soviets planned for improvement of communications service with the southern parts of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. The satellite is centered over the Equator and gives coverage of Asia, Europe, Africa and Australia (i.e., the areas between Japan and Great Britain).¹⁴ It is believed that the satellite can operate over frequencies closely matching those used by the INTELSAT satellites countries, thus providing at least the theoretical basis for a truly worldwide communications system.

### c. DIRECT BROADCASTING¹⁵

The foregoing systems have been generally unopposed in their development and utilization, beyond the old vestiges of cold war rhetoric. More controversial has been the latest NASA Applications Technology Satellite—the ATS-F—a broadcast satellite launched on May 30, 1974. Plans call for experiments with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare to distribute educational and cultural material to parts of Alaska, the Rocky Mountain region, and Appalachia. A cooperative project with India will explore the use of satellites for national coverage in a community broadcasting experiment serving the purposes of multilingual teaching of family planning, modern agricultural methods, and medical hygiene. Having developed the group support for the national coverage in terms of equipment, personnel and expertise, India hopes to continue communication services to its villages with a domestic satellite of its own. After its year of service to India, the ATS-F will be allowed to drift to a stable orbit and position over the Western Hemisphere where hopefully it will provide several more years of communications services. Brazil hopes to use the ATS-F to improve the capability of the country's education system and communication services. Feasibility studies are being conducted by UNESCO in cooperation with ITU on a regional tele-education system for the Spanish-speaking countries of the South American regions, and with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) on a common program for satellite broadcast systems for purposes of education and social development for the countries of Africa, the Arab region, Southeast Asia and Indonesia.¹⁶

¹³ESRO *Studies Oil Exploration Satellite*, ASTRONAUTICS AND AERONAUTICS, January 7, 1974.

¹⁴The New York Times, March 27, 1974. The Soviet communications satellite system is known as INTERSPUTNIK and it services Soviet "satellite" countries as INTELSAT does its member States, Background Paper, *supra* note 5 at 63-64.

¹⁵A radiocommunication service in which signals transmitted or retransmitted by space stations are intended for direct reception by the general public, BERRADA, FREQUENCIES FOR BROADCASTING SATELLITES 11 (1972). The definition was adopted by the ITU at the WARC-ST in 1971.

¹⁶Report of the Working Group on Direct Broadcast Satellites on the Work of its Fifth Session, U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/127 at 6 (1974). [hereinafter DBS Report-Fifth Sess.]

Outer Space Law and the Global Community 757

It is in the developing countries, without extensive television broadcast
systems already in place, that the revolutionary potential for direct broadcasting
most clearly appears. With direct broadcast satellites (DBS), a full-blown
national television capability can be established within the same amount of time
at relatively modest cost in comparison to conventional methods. The same
satellite may provide other telecommunications services such as links for
intercity point-to-point communications. Satellite broadcasting to schools
throughout the country holds large promise for offering training in the
important areas of literacy, basic agricultural and mechanical skills, population
control, and national unity.¹⁷

2. In Near-Earth Orbit

a. APOLLO-SOYUZ TEST PROJECT, SPACE SHUTTLES AND SPACE STATIONS

The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP), an outgrowth of the May 24, 1972 U.S.-U.S.S.R. agreement concerning Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, is scheduled for July 15, 1975. The Soviet and American crews will link-up and remain docked in about a 150-mile earth orbit for two days while they exchange crew members and carry out experiments.¹⁸ The principal purpose of the effort is to demonstrate an international space-rescue capability. In addition, moreover, it will promote continuing U.S.-U.S.S.R. space cooperation.

The Soviet Union plans to develop a large space station as a stepping stone for manned moon landings to coincide with the development of the U.S. Space Shuttle which could be used as a means of transportation to and from the reusable Soviet space station.¹⁹ Presumptive at present, this situation would be quite a logical step in future U.S.-U.S.S.R. technological cooperation. It is clear that the U.S.S.R. is interested in making permanent arrangements about cooperation with the United States in space and that the United States reciprocates the interest.²⁰ The Space Shuttle represents the logical means for such extended collaboration, with the U.S.S.R. as well as other nations.

¹⁷*Id.* at 7. Point-to-point service relays broadcasting programs from a satellite to an earth station for direct or indirect distribution to terrestrial broadcasting stations. This is the service offered by INTELSAT and the other communication satellite entities as described *supra* note at 3-4. Compare to the definition of direct broadcasting *supra* note 15.

¹⁸"Lessons of 3 Skylab Missions—About Man, Space, the Earth," U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, February 11, 1974.

¹⁹*Interview with Dr. James C. Fletcher, AIR FORCE MAGAZINE, March 1974.* The legal implications of space stations and the Space Shuttle are beyond the scope of this paper, but see MENTER, JURISDICTION OVER MAN-MADE ORBITAL SATELLITES, and the October 1974 joint meeting of the International Astronautical Federation and of the International Institute of Space Law, SPACE STATIONS: PRESENT AND FUTURE.

²⁰*Id.*, AIR FORCE MAGAZINE. A list made in 1972 of tangible benefits from outer space activities is found in REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMM. ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTS, FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL MANKIND: THE PRACTICAL RETURNS FROM SPACE INVESTMENT, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess. (1972), at 11-76.

758

INTERNATIONAL LAWYER

b. REMOTE SENSING

Before the launch of ERTS-A in July 1972, the phrase "for the benefit of all
mankind" expressed a hope for its space applications. Two years later, it is clear
that the words have great tangible meaning—benefits in hand and many more
pending around the globe. The Earth Resources Technology Satellites (ERTS)
program is a major milestone in the development of the practical uses of space.
The experiments with ERTS data represent the most massive effort yet to
explore experimentally the direct uses and benefits of space for all people on
earth.²¹

The U.N. Working Group on Remote Sensing of the Earth by Satellite at its latest meeting understated the point when it reported that remote sensing of the Earth from space "has very great potential for meeting national, international, regional and global requirements" for data relating to the earth's national environment.²² The Working Group, like scientists all over the world, could not single out the most useful application of remote sensing data, but noted that applications included, among others, the monitoring of the environment, studies in agriculture and forestry, geography, geology and mineral resources, hydrology and water resources, oceanography and marine resources, atmosphere, meteorology and natural disasters.²³ The last two applications currently warrant specialized remote sensing satellites of their own—Seasat-A and the SMS-1.²⁴

Man's influence on his environment is now creating severe pressures upon
himself and upon the ability of earth to sustain and support him. His supply of
land, air, fresh water, food and fuel is being drained by demands of his rapidly
increasing population and swiftly advancing technology. Earth survey satellites
may help discover fresh water under desert sands, measure the
magnitude of air and water pollution and the effectiveness of measures to
reduce it, alert man to other environmental dangers, and contribute
to the most efficient use of land.²⁵ If man is to survive and to maintain and

²¹The full ERTS story may be found in *ASTRONAUTICS AND AERONAUTICS*, September 1973 and May 1974, as well as the NASA *PAMPHLET*, *supra* note 5. The legal history up to 1972 is presented in Finch, *The United Nations and Earth Resources Satellites*, 7 INT'L. LAW. 158 (1973) as well as the Reports of the U.N. Working Group on Remote Sensing of the Earth by Satellite, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Sessions (hereinafter ERTS Report).

²²ERTS Report—3rd Ses., A/AC. 105/125 (1974).

²³Id.

²⁴*Supra* at text accompanying note 2. Seasat-A is a satellite to be launched by NASA in 1978 for government and private organizations concerned with the world's oceans, *Aviation Week and Space Technology*, April 22, 1974.

²⁵Proper land use is necessary most of all in the developed, industrialized nations. The need for planning use of the public lands in the U.S. is argued by Breuer in *Our Environment and the Economics of the Forest*, 33 ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION 126 (1974). In a recent legal-dispute, the state of Vermont used images from ERTS-A to show that pollutants plume from a paper mill on the New York shore of Lake Champlain, while Florida through ERTS-A data was able to convince land developers in central Florida to shape their development to the land, instead of shaping the land to the development. See Boyle, *Space Among Us: Some Effects of Space Research on Society*, NASA PAMPHLET at 61 (1973), and New York Times, Aug. 11, 1974, at 33.

*International Lawyer*, Vol. 8, No. 4

Outer Space Law and the Global Community 759

enhance the quality of his life, he must find ways to balance his requirements against the earth's ability to meet them. Man needs a comprehensive global view of earth to cope with the problems he faces today; for the problems of the air-ocean-land system that supports life are global.

Outer space has created a new era in communications, weather watching and earth surveying. For some, it is ending ages of relative isolation, ignorance, or misuse of our planet's riches. For all, it is contributing to knowledge and understanding, which, coupled with the exchange of ideas, goods and people, is the first stage towards realizing global peace.

## The Laws of Outer Space

Not having been the scene of any of the previous conflicts in human relations, outer space has been a good place in which to build new, fresh, and constructive international institutions.²⁶

### 1. Treaties in Force

While there will always be questions for treaty considerations with the advent of new space systems or new applications of technologies in space, much basic international law is already present. In December 1961, the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1721 (XVI) "commended" to the member States the following principles: (1) that international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, applies in outer space; and (2) that outer space, including celestial bodies, is free for exploration and use by all States in conformity with international law and is not subject to national appropriation. Six years later, these principles became the main pillars of the Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space (hereinafter Outer Space Treaty).²⁷ The fundamental principle of the freedom of all States to use outer space is subject to certain conditions, spelled out in the Outer Space Treaty. They include:

1. the requirement that the use of outer space be carried out on the basis of equality for the benefit and in the interests of all countries;

2. the obligation to use outer space in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and understanding;

3. the prohibition against placing in orbit and in outer space nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction;

4. the obligation to conduct activities with due regard for the "corresponding interests" of all contracting States;

5. the avoidance of activities which could cause environmental damage in outer space and on the earth;

²⁶Hosenball and Hartman, *Dilemmas of Outer Space Law*, 60 A.B.A.J. 298 (1974).

²⁷18 U.S.T. 2410 (1967), T.I.A.S. No. 6347.

760

INTERNATIONAL LAWYER

6. refraining from uses which might result in harmful interferences²⁸ with activities of other States in the peaceful uses of outer space; and

7. a duty to inform the U.N. Secretary-General and the public, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable, of the nature, conduct, locations and results of national space activities.

These treaty provisions, besides being the "principles" by which all outer space activity is to be governed, have developed into norms of international law with independent value as methods of conducting global activities.

In 1968, the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts, and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space was signed, elaborating and implementing the Outer Space Treaty provision of unconditional obligation to help and to return astronauts promptly and safely if they land elsewhere than where planned.²⁹ The Treaty condition that a launching State is internationally liable for damages caused by its space vehicles carried forward into the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects which assures recovery to a national of a State for injury to his person or damage to his property from another adherent State's space activities.³⁰

## 2. Draft Treaties

Two draft treaties currently before the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (hereinafter Outer Space Committee) deal with the moon and the development of its resources and a mandatory scheme for marking space objects with a registry indicator to help implement the liability convention. It is hoped that the latter draft treaty will be put before the General Assembly for approval with the Outer Space Committee's endorsement and recommendation that it be opened for signatures in the fall of 1974.³¹

The draft treaty on the moon, however, is not at a similar stage as several issues remain unresolved. The paramount issue is that of the exploitation of lunar resources. Some countries, especially the U.S.S.R., argue for a moratorium in regard to any development of resources on the moon until an international arrangement can be made under which all countries will directly participate or benefit. Others reply that such a moratorium would discourage any country from carrying on any program designed to investigate even the possibility of commercial use of lunar resources, nor would there be an incentive for the development on the necessary scale of the technology required for such

²⁸The "harmful interferences" used in the Outer Space Treaty is not the same as that appearing in the Radio Regulations of the ITU, Spa 2-3. There it is used in regard to satellite signal capabilities, while here it is used in a more general sense.

²⁹19 U.S.T. 7570 (1968), T.I.A.S. No. 5699.

³⁰T.I.A.S. No. 7762 (entered into force for the United States, October 9, 1973).

³¹Report of the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/133 (1974).

Outer Space Law and the Global Community 761

uses. The practical effect would not be to encourage the next logical stage in lunar exploration or, if the scope of the treaty is broadened, in the exploration of other celestial bodies.³²

### 3. Principles for Direct Broadcast and Remote Sensing Satellites

The Outer Space Committee utilizes the principle of consensus in all the decisions and recommendations it makes to the General Assembly, i.e., they must be unanimous. The products of consensus have proven to be the best basis upon which to achieve lasting international agreement, as the aforementioned treaties will attest. Although in some cases it represents the lowest common denominator of agreement, the protracted process through which consensus is achieved ensures a full exchange of opinion and views, hopefully increasing the possibilities of mutual understanding and workable, effective solutions. The process at its limits is illustrated by the rounds of debates on Direct Broadcast and Earth Survey Satellites. Working groups were set up for each system respectively within the Outer Space Committee,³³ and as such the principle of consensus governs. The most recent meetings of these working groups reveal the full extent to which the differing views have been aired, the only consensus being that practically everyone disagrees and will continue to do so.³⁴

The Legal Subcommittee of the Outer Space Committee has numerous draft principles for both Remote Sensing and Direct Broadcast Satellites which were formed by the Working Groups.³⁵ Having done so, the Working Group on Remote Sensing of the Earth by Satellite considers that it has fulfilled its mandate as best it could considering the dynamic technology. It awaits the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee decisions on the possibility of reconvening the Working Group. If reconvened, new specifications will have to be made as to what aspects of remote sensing the Working Group would look at (i.e., all aspects or just the non-legal ones). In addition, the Legal Subcommittee has discussed five draft paragraphs of general principles to govern DBS activity with expectations of reaching agreement on (1) applicability of international law; (2) rights and benefits of States; (3) international cooperation; (4) State responsibility; and (5) peaceful settlement of disputes.³⁶ No attempt was made to

³²Speech by S. Neil Hosenbail, Deputy General Counsel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, August 1973. Agreement on a definition of "outer space" has been sought but was not discussed by the Legal Subcommittee at its most recent meeting, May 1974, and, therefore, will probably not be discussed before the Outer Space Committee, July 1974.

³³The U.N. Working Group on Remote Sensing of the Earth by Satellites, convened under G.A. Res. 2778, and the U.N. Working Group on Direct Broadcast Satellites, convened by G.A. Res. 2453 B (XXIII).

³⁴DBS Report-Fifth Sess., *supra* note 16, and ERTS Report Third Sess., *supra* note 22.

³⁵DBS Report-Fifth Sess., *supra* note 16, Annexes I-VI and ERTS Report-Third Sess., *supra* note 21, Annexes I-III.

³⁶The number of bracketed phrases in the draft paragraphs signalling differing views does not portend early agreement on the principles by consensus.

762

INTERNATIONAL LAWYER

reach the more controversial areas of prior consent and program content control. From the recommendations of the Legal Subcommittee and Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, the Outer Space Committee will prepare, for endorsement by the U.N. General Assembly, resolutions on the activities of these groups and the Working Groups.³⁷

Two recognized concepts of international law are common to the disputes over both satellite systems: the rights of sovereign States and consent.³⁸ With Remote Sensing systems, some countries fear the specter of economic imperialism by the industrialized, technologically developed countries, particularly with regard to exploitation of ERTS-discovered but hitherto hidden resources, the existence of which might be unknown to them. For other nations, satellite broadcasting directly to home receivers presents the dangers of communications or cultural imperialism.³⁹ A nation could be inundated with programs foreign to the indigenous culture or propagandistic in their content. A majority of States consider it "essential" to elaborate principles to control these activities, the principles in turn dictating the organizational arrangements formed to utilize the systems.⁴⁰ Basic to such principles would be the primacy of State sovereignty and the requirement of consent—consent to be surveyed by a satellite or have information so derived given to a third party; consent to have a signal broadcast into one's country. The advent of restrictions on the developing systems, argue the United States and others, will thwart their full benefits for the world. The sovereignty of States is not paramount to other rights under international law, including the right of scientific research, the free flow of information, and the use of outer space for peaceful purposes.⁴¹

In the U.N. arena, the distinction between experimental (or developmental) systems and operational ones is not as clear as it once had been. The feeling has been expressed that both stages must be equally limited by international principles or guidelines.⁴² In addition, ERTS and DBS are not systems pertaining solely to outer space, or even to outer space and airspace. Their applications are essentially performed on the earth while the activity itself is in

³The content of these resolutions beyond that already mentioned is too speculative to draw conclusions from here.

⁴⁰Other agreements include the "wheat deal," Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, various joint scientific research programs and trade and cultural exchanges. A number of cooperative accords were announced during President Nixon's 1974 trip to the U.S.S.R. in the fields of economics, scientific exchange and other matters of mutual concern.

³⁹Gotlieb, Dalfen, and Katz, *supra* note 38 at 255-256.

⁴⁵Views and Comments of Member States on Remote Sensing of the Earth by Satellites, U.N. Doc. 105/C. 1/WG. 4/L. 11, February 21, 1974 (hereinafter Views and Comments).

⁴¹DBS Report-Fifth Sess., *supra* note 16 at 9-20.

⁴²The arguments by the United States against drafting principles at this early date have been premised on the fact that both earth survey and direct broadcast satellites systems are only experimental. In addition, no country has yet expressed plans to launch an operational system beyond domestic scope. Background Paper, *supra* note 5.

*International Lawyer, Vol. 8, No. 4*

Outer Space Law and the Global Community 763

outer space.⁴³ Principles guiding the technologies may have to come from areas other than outer space law.⁴⁴ Any possible guidelines or principles, however, should be addressed primarily to facilitating the maximum international availability and effective utilization of the systems.

### 4. Recommendation

The trend in the development of international outer space law has been toward drafting implementing agreements which articulate in finer detail the principles of the Outer Space Treaty as a technology or system's state of the art developed and utilization became more practical. More recently, however, nations are requesting new treaties binding on the global community at the advent of each new technology and its potential application. The development of communications satellites have continued relatively calmly and successfully under the INTELSAT arrangements and under the more technical ITU Convention and Radio Regulations. Even when dealing with the allocation of frequencies for satellite broadcasting, the ITU kept the general approach of the Outer Space Treaty in its provisions for continuous information and coordination between all the States concerned in the utilization of a satellite broadcast system, especially where harmful interference or spillover might occur.⁴⁵ Neither have any strenuous objections been voiced to the World Weather Watch and the development of mobile satellite systems for air and sea. These activities have developed under only enthusiastic international support and cooperation.

It should be the same way with Remote Sensing and Direct Broadcasting Systems. If the full powers of consent were to be allowed to a State being sensed or receiving signals, that State might, in effect, be exercising the power to prevent the system from coming into effect at all. For example, the whole concept of earth surveying depends upon the system gathering the widest amount of information if the technology is to realize its full potential. New international principles, agreements or treaties which limit a technology are

⁴³Other authors find four types of international law concerning outer space: (1) Law which applies solely to outer space; (2) Law which applies to the earth, air space and outer space as an environment; (3) Law which applies to functions performed in outer space and occasionally including air space; (4) Law which applies essentially to activities performed on the earth as a consequence of the exploration and particularly the uses of outer space. These authors would apply the law from the fourth types to ERTS and DBS systems. See: E.Galloway, "Should the U.N. Draft a Treaty on Earth Resources Satellites?"—a paper presented at the Regional Conference on Earth Resources Survey Satellites and International Law, April 1972, at 14. The writers, however, feel that more accurately there should only be the three categories.

⁴⁴For example, the rules and regulations of the ITU, the Charter and resolutions of the United Nations and customary international law are applicable to these space activities, see Background Paper, *supra* note 5 at 51-60. As to direct broadcast satellites, the applicability of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been recognized, see: *American Constitutional Law and Restrictions on the Content of Private International Broadcasting*, 5 INT'L LAW. 102 (1971).

⁴⁵See *supra* note 28.

764

INTERNATIONAL LAWYER

inappropriate at the experimental stage before the scope of its application is
known, its benefits realized or its physical equipment even tested. In the case of
broadcast satellites the continuing development of the technology will
increasingly allow for more precise refinement of the directional powers of the
beam. This will curtail spillover. All signals emanating from a DBS to a
particular country then would be intentional and if they violated the
international principles against statements tending to incite war or racial and
religious hatred,⁴⁶ sanctions could be brought. Joint systems, cooperatively
established and operated, would tend to alleviate fears about cultural
imperialism and exploitation, as it would for Remote Sensing systems.

Each new space application generally starts a national enterprise, but soon
develops with international participation and cooperation. Bilateral
arrangements adequately govern the initial stage as all the space powers are
signatories of the Outer Space Treaty and therefore adhere to its principles. The
bilateral scientific and technical, as well as legal, agreements between the
United States and India, Canada, and Brazil specifically state responsibilities
for coordination of radio frequencies and the content of television programming
in the utilization of the ATS-F. Similarly, there is a bilateral scientific and
technical agreement in the framework of the agreement on Cooperation in the
Exploration of Outer Space between the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of
America in January 1971. The agreement envisages the conduct of experiments
on the study of the natural environment over selected areas of the world ocean,
as well as the territories of both countries with the help of space techniques.
Other bilaterals exist between the United States and Brazil, Canada, and
Mexico as regards data from ERTS-A and the criteria for experiments on the
satellite.⁴⁷ NASA issued guidelines for determining participation in the remote
sensing programs and regulations on the distribution of the date obtained.
Equal access was granted and the experimenters were selected on a scientific
validity basis both for domestic and foreign users. The date was made generally
available to interested parties at an equitable and non-discriminatory cost after
going to the experimenter first. These rules follow implicitly the principles and
traditions set out by outer-space law.

As the technologies advance and the bilateral arrangements prove too
constraining, international treaties may become appropriate. The United
Nations has more than adequate facilities within which agreements may be

⁴⁶Art. 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and U.N. G. A. Res. 110(II) (1947) which was incorporated into the Outer Space Treaty, thereby setting at least an outside limit on the scope of satellite broadcasting material.

⁴⁷Background Paper, *supra* note 5 at 59060. A full discussion of the role of regional arrangements in the maintenance of world order is in J. Moore's, *The Role of Regional Arrangements in the Maintenance of World Order*, 3 THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER, at 124 (1971) [hereinafter F.I.L.O.].

Outer Space Law and the Global Community 765

drafted: in the subcommittees of the Outer Space Committee or in the more
specialized independent United Nations agencies.⁴⁸ With each new technology,
new organizational requirements may arise. For example, a majority of States in
the Working Group on Remote Sensing have expressed the need for a network
of national/regional data distribution centers linked through an international
network.⁴⁹ An organ of the U.N. Secretariat, e.g., the Outer Space Affairs
Division, would ideally suit this need and, at the same time, develop the
capabilities for distributing other information as new outer space application
systems develop.

The United Nations needs to take a broader and longer range approach to its
role in outer space matters beyond those suggested by the outer space powers.
By guaranteeing the interests of the less technically oriented countries and
ensuring the equitable access to utilization of and information from the new
technologies, the United Nations will be able to remove many of the fears of
member States which manifest themselves most frequently in efforts to limit a
technology's full development.⁵⁰ Then the systems can be made ready for use on
a global scale, directed and guided by the United Nations.

Toward the Peaceful Solution of Global Problems

1. *Armed Conflicts*

Conflicts using conventional weapons and wasting human lives have been a
constant element of man's history.⁵¹ Today, outer space offers the means to
check the occurrence of these events or at least limit their scope. The
multispectral scanners currently used on SKYLAB have a resolution of about 30
feet and subsequent generations should be even better.⁵² Through a global
system of such satellites, the movements of troops, the course of a submarine, or

⁴⁸Space Activities and Resources: A Review of the Activities and Resources of the United Nations of the Specialized Agencies and of Other Competent International Bodies Relating to the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Addendum-Supplementary information for 1973, U.S. Doc. A/AC. 105/100 Add. 2 (1974).

The working group format performs a valuable function with its interdisciplinary approach to looking at all facts and implications of a problem and the opportunities for free and frank exchanges among the more technical experts of the member States. For the purely legalistic function of drafting, the multidisciplinary approach has proven to be an impediment and the Legal Subcommittee or the full Outer Space Committee are the preferred forums.

⁴⁹Views and Comments *supra* note 40.

⁵⁰The United Nations has taken some steps in this direction with the regional panel meetings and discussion groups it has held all over the world educating the participating countries on the benefits of technologies, training personnel in the use of the new data, and even providing fellowships for more study by scientists and administrators in the developing countries, see DBS Report-Fifth Sess., *supra* note 16 at 6-7, Report of the United Nations Panel Meeting on the Applications of Remote Sensing of Earth Resources, U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/121 (1974), Buenos Aries, 3-7 December 1973, and Report on Types of Assistance Extended by the United Nations System to Developing Countries in the Field of Practical Applications of Space Technology, U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/124 (1974).

⁵¹Wilkes, *Territorial Stability and Conflicts*, F.I.L.O., *supra* note 47 at 165 and Barnet, *Toward The Control of International Violence: The Limits and Possibilities of Law*, id. at 370.

⁵²NASA Information, 1974.

766

INTERNATIONAL LAWYER

the launch of a missile would be instantly detected and the proper steps taken.⁵³ Military installations are currently monitored as a means of inspecting and supplying verification for adherence to disarmament pacts. The 1972 U.S.-U.S.S.R. agreement on arms control specifically allows verification by national technical means (which includes remote sensing) and prohibits interference with a satellite in orbit verifying the Treaty.⁵⁴ In the recent disengagement arrangement worked out between Israel and Egypt by Secretary of State Kissinger, both countries accepted an American proposal for the use of United States reconnaissance aircraft and satellites to monitor compliance with their troop separation agreement along the Suez Canal.⁵⁵

Traditionally, disputes concerning outer space activity have looked to the United Nations as their forum for debate. This tradition has continued in the rather heated exchanges over direct broadcast and earth survey satellites.⁵⁶ Similarly, the separation agreements between Israel and Syria and Israel and Egypt look to the United Nations—in its capacity as a supranational peacekeeping force to police the buffer zones.⁵⁷ United Nations forces have been in the Middle East before, as they have been in Cyprus, India-Pakistan, and Southeast Asia. Hopefully, the world will come to recognize their effectiveness, as well as that of the United Nation's mediation capabilities, when properly supported. The need for both is becoming more evident in even localized conflicts, which often involve superpowers, and may flare up into superpower confrontation.

Over five years ago it was recommended that the United Nations be given cost-free access to the INTELSAT communications system for emergency communications to increase its effectiveness in peacekeeping operations and emergency relief.⁵⁸ At that time, because of the cost involved and the state of the art, the request was turned down by INTELSAT (and turned down again in 1974). A separate proposal made in the United Nations that the U.N. have its own independent satellite system was defeated for similar reasons. This latter proposal will be brought up again in future years. Satellite survey systems today are less expensive and closer to the operational stage than before. The Secretary-General could request the United States, the U.S.S.R. and all other interested parties to support a United Nations-controlled global monitoring

⁵³C. Boyle, *supra* note 25 at 70-71 and KLASS, *SECRET SENTRIES IN SPACE* (1971).

⁵⁴Art. XII, Treaty on Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, 23 U.S.T. 3435 (1972), T.I.A. No. 7504 [hereinafter Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty] and Interim Agreement and Protocol On Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, 23 U.S.T.3462 (1972), T.I.A.S. No. 7504 [hereinafter Interim Agreement on Offensive Strategic Arms].

⁵⁵"Text of the Agreement and a Protocol," The New York Times, May 31, 1974.

⁵⁶*Supra* at text accompanying notes 35-45.

⁵⁷The New York Times, June 1, 1974.

⁵⁸"Utilization of the INTELSAT System by the UN," a paper submitted on behalf of the Secretary-General of the U.N. to the Plenipotentiary Conference on Definitive Arrangements for INTELSAT, March 1969, and UNA-USA SPACE COMMUNICATIONS: INCREASING UN RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PROBLEMS OF MANKIND, May 1971.

Outer Space Law and the Global Community 767

satellite system, be it for environmental control, resource planning, treaty enforcement, or as a deterrent to most forms of aggression. Such a system could relieve the superpowers of the efforts and expense currently involved, while offering the benefits equally to the world.

## 2. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons

India's exploding of a nuclear device on May 18, 1974 marked her entry into the circle of nuclear powers—the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China. While India asserts that her use of nuclear devices will be solely for peaceful purposes (e.g., blasting mines and other engineering projects), officials say she has the expertise to have nuclear arms.⁵⁹ The Indian feat takes on greater significance when coupled with the conduct of nuclear tests by the People's Republic of China, and France, on June 17, 1974 and the accords made by President Nixon with Egypt and Israel to supply them each with nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.⁶⁰ None of these countries adhere to the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty which prohibits testing in the atmosphere, under the water, or in outer space.⁶¹ Neither have they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 which sought to freeze the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons.⁶² This latter treaty permits atomic assistance to be granted to other countries but only for peaceful purposes and under the international safeguards and inspection system set up by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).⁶³

It is as yet unclear what exact safeguards will apply to the accords with Egypt and Israel and, if American or international safeguards, whether they will be foolproof. The Indian explosion was made possible by weapon-grade plutonium from a reactor built with Canadian atomic aid and presumed by Canada to be covered by the inspection system to guard against the diversion of the fissionable material into weapon making.⁶⁴ Subsequently, Canada has stated that she does not equate the creation of a nuclear explosion with a so-called peaceful purpose without adherence to the 1968 Treaty by the terms of her atomic aid arrangement with India.⁶⁵ Nevertheless, India developed the technology to extract such plutonium from the fuel elements of a reactor. The process escaped

⁵⁹The New York Times, May 23, 1974 and June 18, 1974. It has been disclosed also that Great Britain recently carried out an underground nuclear bomb test in Nevada, The New York Times, June 25, 1974.

⁶⁰The New York Times, June 15, 1974.

⁶¹14 U.S.T. 1313 (1963), T.I.A.S. No. 5433.

⁶²21 U.S.T. 483 (1970), T.I.A.S. No. 6839.

⁶³As the French are not signatories to the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, her aid to Iran for the development of nuclear energy to produce electricity would not be covered by the I.A.E.A. inspection system. This would give at least three countries in the volatile Middle East, nuclear capability whether for peaceful or other purposes. The New York Times, June 25, 1974.

⁶⁴The New York Times, June 19, 1974.

⁶⁵The New York Times, May 23, 1974. The history of India's atomic device development may be found in *India: Into the Nuclear Club on Canada's Shoulders*, 184 SCIENCE 1053 (1974).

768

INTERNATIONAL LAWYER

detection as it was conducted in a separate chemical plant. This technology has already spread with Japan, Argentina and Spain constructing plants with similar capabilities.⁶⁶ In addition, any reactor in the Middle East will be particularly vulnerable to terrorist attack or take-over. The possible effect of nuclear-armed terrorists is an element no one wants added to the Middle East situation or anywhere else.⁶⁷

France, the People's Republic of China, India, Egypt and Israel must be brought into the circle of adherents to both the 1963 and the 1968 Treaties. The new testing, besides the health and environmental dangers, will probably diminish the possibilities of negotiating a successful absolute test ban treaty as the United States and Russia have been attempting to do.⁶⁸ All the aforementioned nations are members of the U.N. family. The good offices of the United Nations should be brought to bear, whether in the General Assembly, the Security Council, or by the Secretary-General, to cogently prevail upon all nations to adhere to the international safeguards and prohibitions against nuclear testing. A more effective inspection arrangement is obviously necessary. Remote sensing capabilities may be equally applicable to this situation and on-site inspection by U.N. personnel may be needed. Atomic reactors hold great promise, just being realized, as an alternative source of energy from fossil fuels. It is the use of nuclear power for weapons that must be curtained, not the uses for peaceful, beneficial purposes.⁶⁹

### 3. Deterrence and Detente

The medium of space may be used to increase a country's alertness to danger and to assist in maintaining an effective deterrent posture. Space is often the best place, and sometimes the only place, to accomplish some defense jobs. Through the use of outer space systems, defense forces are given improved communications anywhere in the world,⁷⁰ more accurate navigational assistance, better weather information and more reliable, earlier warning of attack. Satellites have been developed which can detect and track intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine launched ballistic missiles almost from the moment they are fired. While satellites can determine the make of emplaced missiles and anti-ballistic missiles, they cannot as yet determine their quality, i.e., the number of warheads on a missile in a silo. In

⁶⁶Id.

⁶⁷The New York Times, June 19, 1974, and D. Krieger, When Terrorists Go Nuclear, Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions Report, June 1974, p. 13.

⁶⁸The New York Times, June 15, 1974.

⁶⁹See, for example, the *Protocol on Cooperation in Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion and Plasma Physics Research*, which sets up US-USSR coordinating committees to implement fusion and fast breeder reactor cooperation between the two countries, *AIR FORCE AND SPACE DIGEST*, April 1974.

⁷⁰For example, a full operational system, the Fleet Satellite Communications System is scheduled to provide improved control of U.S. Navy ships and Air Force strategic aircraft worldwide, USAF's *Role in Space, AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY*, February 18, 1974.

769

addition, these warning satellites have the capability to detect nuclear
explosions above the ground and will replace the current satellites which
monitor the 1968 Atmospheric Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.⁷¹

Over the past two years, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. have entered into a number of agreements which have signaled a period of "detente" between the two nations.⁷² One is the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty, which prohibits a nationwide ABM system or a base that could be expanded for the deployment of such a system.⁷³ The second agreement (both were signed in Moscow on May 26, 1972) is the Interim Agreement on Offensive Strategic Arms.⁷⁴ Its main provisions limit the aggregate number of SLBMs (submarine launched ballistic missiles) and fixed, land-based ICBMs. Collectively these agreements are known as SALT I. As preparations are on-going for SALT II, the U.S. defense establishment and the scientific community are in sharp debate over whether the U.S.S.R. is about to surpass the United States in some areas of strategic nuclear weaponry.⁷⁵ The most that is hoped for are agreements in principle to limit the deployment of Russia's new MIRV multiple warhead missiles and to ban nuclear blasts above a certain explosive "threshold" for underground tests.⁷⁶ Both could be monitored by the combined verification technique set out in the preceding section.

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger looks upon detente as "a process of managing relations with a potentially hostile country in order to preserve peace

⁷¹*Id.*

⁷²Other agreements include the "wheat deal," Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, various joint scientific research programs and trade and cultural exchanges. President Nixon's commencement address to the United States Naval Academy, The New York Times, June 6, 1974. A number of cooperative accords are expected to be announced during President Nixon's 1974 trip to the U.S.S.R. in the fields of economics, scientific exchange and other matters of mutual concern. The New York Times, June 25, 1974.

⁷³*Supra* note 54.

⁷⁴*Id.*

⁷⁵The United States nuclear weapons strategy recently underwent a basic change. Its recent military research appropriations are for new projects designed to (1) increase the accuracy of the land-based intercontinental Minuteman missile (2) double its nuclear yield, and (3) develop a terminally guided warhead (MIRV, or maneuverable re-entry vehicle) that would have nearly perfect accuracy. These weapons go far toward giving the U.S. a "silo-killing" capability that the Russians view as a strike force capability, "Soviet Defense Chief Says West Pursues Arms Race," The New York Times, June 6, 1974. Since 1971 it has been the U.S. position not to develop a system which the U.S.S.R. may construe as having a first strike capability, the theory being that this might provide an incentive for the U.S.S.R. to strike first. The New York Times, May 26, June 16, 17, 1974. The need for these new weapons is as a response to Russia's recent acquisition of MIRVs, missiles equipped with multiple warheads, each capable of being targeted independently while the missile is in flight. Ulsamer, *Soviet Objective: Technological Supremacy*, AIR FORCE MAGAZINE, June 1974. The Soviet and U.S. nuclear weapons are compared in *AIR FORCE MAGAZINE*, December 1973, and The New York Times, May 26, 1974. An opposite effect may be obtained, say the critics, wherein a new arms race is started undermining whatever degree of security "mutual deterrence" has provided so far, York, *Deterrence by Means of Mass Destruction*, SCIENCE AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, March 1974, at 4.

⁷⁶The New York Times, June 25, 1974. Limiting the underground tests would not affect current weaponry but the magnitude of the next generation which would be curtailed by the limited testing capability.

770 INTERNATIONAL LAWYER

while maintaining our vital interests.’”⁷⁷ A Soviet specialist finds it sets limits on what each side can do without risking war and get officials concerned—Soviet and American—talking with each other.⁷⁸ Keeping the term within these descriptions, the engagement of the bureaucracies acting as a restraint upon foreign adventures may be the best and longest lasting result of detente.⁷⁹ What new agreements there will be await the next phase in U.S.-Soviet arms negotiations. Nevertheless, because of the timely and pragmatic benefits and interests which exist in outer space, detente in terms of outer space activity will always continue. The trend of the 1970s, as that of the 1960s, has been toward continuing joint scientific endeavors whatever the political wind.⁸⁰ Space law is one area where the United States, the U.S.S.R. and the rest of the U.N. family have kept their mutual promises and adhered to treaty obligations. This tradition, hopefully, could be extended to the arms-limitation and disarmament areas.

Conclusion

When the Soviet Union wished to introduce a proposal of principles to govern the operation of Direct Broadcast Satellites, it did so in the United Nations General Assembly. Similarly, consideration of requests for new relationships between the industrial world and the developing world recently brought the officials of both to the United Nations.⁸¹ What nations, governments and people are anxious about are discussed at the United Nations: the raging wars in the third world; the accelerating arms race; the failure to reach effective disarmament agreements; the demise of the environment; and the threats of over-population, inadequate food and natural resources. This tradition is not to be discounted. The availability of avenues for peaceful settlement in the United Nations Assembly, councils, committees, working groups and independent agencies, is one step farther along to the integration of diverse cultures, political ideas and economic systems. The concept of peaceful coexistence then will be surpassed by the concept of the global community—at peace with its myriad elements because they are working together as an ever-dynamic whole.

The United Nations as an approach to settling disputes peacefully is grossly

⁷⁷"Only Major Accords by Kissinger, Soviet May Salvage Detente," The Wall Street Journal, March 27, 1974.

⁷⁸Id.

⁷⁹No two scholars or experts seem to agree on the meaning or scope of "detente." Differing meanings may be found in Rostow, *Defining Detente in Terms of the United Nations Charter*, The New York Times, April 27, 1974, and Laird, *Let's Not Fool Ourselves About U.S.-Soviet Detente, READER'S DIGEST*, February 1974.

⁸⁰See Review of National and Cooperative International Space Activities for the Calendar Year 1973, U.S. Doc. A/AC. 105/123 Add. 1, Add. 2, and Add. 3 (1974).

⁸¹"Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order," U.N. G.A. Res. 3201 (S-VI) and "Program of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order," U.N. G.A. Res. 3202 (S-VI), May 1, 1974.

Outer Space Law and the Global Community 771

underutilized. This paper emphasizes a single area -for increased U.N.
participation—outer space. The legal principles and technologies of outer space
could further the realization of that participation. Other areas exist where the
United Nations may be able to do more—it must have the opportunity to do so.
The opportunity will not signal the demise of the rights of sovereign States, but
rather will curtail any irrational nationalism of governments and people and
enable agreements on mutually beneficial settlements or solutions to the wider
range of economic, social and legal international problems and disputes
confronting the global community today.

FINCH & SCHAEFLER

EDWARD R. FINCH
1873-1965

TEL. MURRAY HILL 7-3636

August 19, 1975

CABLE ADDRESS: FINISCH, N. Y.

Dr. Henry Kissinger
Secretary of State
State Department
Washington, D.C.

Dear Henry:

This is simply a personal note of thanks to you for your participation in the 1975 American Bar Association Convention in Montreal. I know you will receive an official letter of thanks from President Jim Fellers of the American Bar Association, but I would be remiss if I did not personally thank you. Your subject on the Law of the Sea was very appropriate because of the many counterparts in international law between the freedom of outer space (1967 Treaty) and the freedom of the seas.

If you will call me some time on the phone I will come down to Washington and be glad to brief you on what the top Soviet international attorneys said in our working sessions quite candidly about the future of outer space. We have reached an understanding of their viewpoint and policy position in the USSR Academy of Sciences (Interkosmos) and I am sure they gained a real insight into our earnestness for the future of world peace in outer space.

As I suggested to Ron Stowe and Kim Flower as well as to Monroe Leigh, "Einstein is the keeper of the peace"; a remark which I have coined along with the new word "ecospace" costs and benefits of outer space which came out of our working sessions with the Soviets. If we push the solar space power system concept, the United States should be able to cut its energy bills by a factor of 80 to 90% in the 1985/90 time frame. The Soviets are moving vigorously already in solar space power systems.

US-USSR AEROSPACE PANEL

11 August 1975

Montreal, Canada

Panelists, Distinguished Guests, Fellow Attornies -- the meeting is called to order. This is the 1975 American Bar Association President's Program. We are on international radio and I am asked to announce that we are meeting at the Sheraton Mount Royal Hotel, Montreal, before approximately 500 lawyers and guests present. Through your individual channel audio equipment, you should all have simultaneous translation available to each of you.

I am Edward R. Finch, Jr. of New York, Chairman of the Aerospace Law Committee of the American Bar Association, International Law Section. The US-USSR Aerospace Panel is co-sponsored by the International Institute of Space Law of the International Astronautical Federation with headquarters in Paris, France. It is a pleasure to introduce the distinguished members of the Panel. Their biographies are in the hands of the press, and I will not take the time now to repeat each of their truly outstanding careers here. We regret that Dr. Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State of the United States could not join us on the Panel this afternoon. We thank him for his encouragement at the inception of this program over one year ago. We are very much honored by the participation of President James Fellers, of the American Bar Association, on my right, and by the presence

of past President Charles Rhyne, [also on my right] of the
Association and current President of the World Peace Through
Law Center. We most appreciate the participation of Honorable
Neil Hosenball, the General Counsel of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration of the United States, and by the
presence of the renowned US astronaut Alan Bean of recent
Skylab fame. On this side of the table is our distinguished
guest Dr. V. S. Vereshchetin, the Vice Chairman of Interkosmos
in Moscow and a loyal member of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
We are also pleased to have on the panel today, Professor
G. P. Zhukov, the Chief Aerospace Legal Counsel of the USSR
Academy of Sciences on my extreme left. We are indeed honored
and especially honored to have the distinguished USSR Cosmonaut
Anatoly Filipchenko, who has twice been in outer space and is
(applause) and is twice a hero of the Soviet Union. Our US-USSR
Aerospace Panel is particularly appropriate today for two reasons.
First, it follows in time very closely after the successful
Apollo-Soyuz hookup in outer space of the Soviet Union and the
United States spaceships, which for a time represented in one
space station, both the Soviet Union and the United States.
Cosmonaut Filipchenko and Astronaut Alan Bean of the United
States were backup spacemen for the Apollo-Soyuz test program.
The Apollo-Soyuz project by its program, by its planning which
extended over a period of almost two years, by its integration
and success has shown the world that the nations of the world

2

have many common interests in outer space for the material
and legal benefits of all mankind. In March 1975, Dr. Vessev,
the Minister Counselor of the Soviet Embassy, reiterated Soviet
support for ASTP. Permit me to add it is also a boost to the
extension to the rule of law to outer space and thus to world
peace. Secondly, this Panel today is in a sense an imple-
mentation of Article IV of the agreement of May 24, 1972
between the President of the United States and the President
of the Soviet Union, which agreement calls for cooperation in
outer space international law and science matters between the
Soviet Union and the United States. We in the United States
sincerely hope that the agreement between the Soviet Union and
the United States can be extended beyond its expiration approxi-
mately a year-and-a-half from now. This Panel you see before
you today is truly working detente. And I might add as an aside,
that we have been doing just that all morning. There is full
freedom of speech here on the Panel. This is strictly an ABA
and not an official government function for the Soviet Union or
the United States. Remember that formal press releases are
available. We also wish at this time to thank the President
of the United States for the loan of the outer space grown
crystal, on display right here at my left hand. It has a
potential memory capacity of approximately 100 times anything
known to computer technology now in the world. We also wish
to thank Arthur D. Little & Company for the display in the rear
of the room of the Solar Space Power System. It is hoped that

3

funds will be appropriated by the United States, the Soviet
Union and other countries for such a joint project. Because
of the demands of time and pressure on our President of our
Association, I am now going to interrupt the planned remarks
and ask the President of the Association if he will kindly
give us a few words. President Fellers.

PRESIDENT FELLERS: Thank you Chairman Finch. On behalf of
the more than 200,000 members of the American Bar Association,
I welcome you to this 98th Association Annual Meeting and to
this Presidential program. It is a pleasure for me to be able
to join with you, even if only for a few moments, on the occasion
of this historic panel. The space linkup which we witnessed
last month was indeed a significant scientific and technological
achievement. But more important, I believe, is what it symbol-
ized, the joining together of the Russian and American peoples
to work for the betterment of all mankind. We have seen detente
in the political and diplomatic arenas for some time now, for
this, of course we are grateful. No doubt our hopes for peace
are greatly increased by it. However, with our peoples linking
together to work for progress and a better world, I think we
virtually assure peace. Let us continue then what we have begun.
And now I would like to present these commemorative medals to
the individual panelists. The medals are tokens of the ABA's
appreciation for their serving in this capacity. They are
inscribed "US-USSR Program, American Bar Association" and on

4

the back "Montreal, August 11, 1975". I'm going to ask
Chairman Finch to distribute the medals, we're presenting them
to V. S. Vereshchetin, Dr. Vereshchetin, Vice Chairman, Inter-
kosmos (applause). And to Professor G. P. Zhukov, the Chief
Legal Counsel for the USSR (applause), and to our USSR Cosmo-
naut, A. V. Filipchenko (applause), and to President Charles S.
Rhynne of Washington, President of World Peace Through Law
Center (applause), and Neil Hosenball, General Counsel, of
NASA (applause), and to our American Astronaut, Alan S. Bean
(applause). I would also like to present a medal to the
Brigadier General Martin Minter, Program Chairman (applause)
and to Judge Harold Berger, Vice Chairman of our Aerospace
Committee (applause). I wish very much that I could stay for
the Panel discussion which promises to be very exciting, but
regretfully I was due to start speaking in another hotel some
blocks from here 15 minutes ago. I wish you a happy afternoon.

**CHAIRMAN FINCH:** We will break the order of the Agenda, Dr. Vereshchetin has a special presentation to make on behalf of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.

**DR. VERESHCHETIN:** Mr. President, Dear Colleagues, it is just
by coincidence and not in return to the honor accorded to us
that we have brought with us, commemorative medals devoted to
the Apollo-Soyuz space flight, which recently were made by the
Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union by the Interkosmos
Council, the body responsible for the organization of this

5

joint project. And it gives me great pleasure and honor to
present this medal to you on behalf of the Interkosmos Council.

**PRESIDENT FELLERS:** Thank you so much! (Applause). I think you all should know we didn't have a deal made. I'm very pleased and proud to have this.

**DR. VERESHCHETIN:** And also I would like to present this medal to the organizer of this meeting to our distinguished Chairman, Ambassador Finch.

**CHAIRMAN FINCH:** Thank you very much. (Applause). There are many distinguished personnages in the audience and I understand that they have many questions to propose to the entire Panel. Briefly, the Panel has agreed in advance that our procedure will be to each make a 5-minute opening statement, and then to answer questions which have been propounded to the Panel members by advance mutual circulation to them in Moscow and in the United States. Thereupon the meeting shall be open to questions to the Panel from the distinguished guests and the many attornies present. Please do not feel disappointed if you do not get an opportunity to be recognized by the Panel and to present your question. The Panel will adjourn promptly at five, and will proceed at 6 p.m. to the International Law Section's reception in the Verdun Room of the Bonaventure Hotel here in Montreal. At that reception you may have an opportunity to speak directly with the distinguished Soviet visitors on our Panel, and you may have a chance to discuss the question even

6

better than you could here in public before the entire Panel.
I want to make a special note of thanks to General Martin Minter,
my Program Chairman, and to Judge Harold Berger, the Vice Chair-
man of our Aerospace Law Committee. I also want to say thank
you to the past President of the American Bar Association
David Maxwell, who has been a founder/member of my Committee
of our Committee on Aerospace Law for sixteen years, and who
has only recently resigned. Finally, your Chairman would be
remiss if he did not make a special note of certain international
congratulations which are due at this time. The first is due
to the Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space of the United
Nations, and its legal subcommittee and scientific subcommittee.
It has been responsible for much of the impetus which has led
to the formulation, signature and ratification of a number basic
outer space treaties for the very real benefit of all mankind
and of world peace. Secondly, Dr. Vereshchetin, we wish to
congratulate the USSR Academy of Sciences on its coming 250th
Anniversary in October of 1975. And third, we wish to con-
gratulate Neil, the US National Aeronautics and Space Admini-
stration, and the USSR Academy of Sciences for admirable detente
in action for the past several years, and the brave Cosmonauts
and Astronauts of the Apollo-Soyuz test project, who are now
in the process of debriefing and therefore are unable to be with
us today. Their backup men are here before you and they went
through exactly the same training that those who flew this

7

particular mission. They have all been invited to our inter-
national reception following this meeting. I am sure that
you join your Chairman in expressing this strong desire of
the American Bar Association for further close international
cooperation amongst lawyers as well as scientists as exemplified
by this outstanding ASTP project. We also all join Canadian,
US and USSR lawyers in the hope that the nations of the world
today may rapidly conclude in the United Nations for the
future heritage and material benefit of all mankind, their
studies as to possible new treaties to govern (1) activities
on the moon and other celestial bodies, (2) direct broadcasting
from space satellites, and (3) remote sensing of the earth from
space. We wish to particularly thank the Soviet Panel members
for their long journies to come and join us here on this US-USSR
Aerospace Panel as the guests of the American Bar Association,
and for making possible this historic first occasion in inter-
national law when distinguished international lawyers, scientists,
an astronaut and a cosmonaut from the Soviet Union and the
United States can now show you working detente in action for
the peace of the whole world. (Applause). We shall now proceed
to the Panel agenda and I would like to ask Dr. Vereshchetin
if he would be kind enough to let us have his opening statement.
Dr. Vereshchetin.

DR. VERESHCHETIN: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen. In my
short remarks I would like to draw your attention to the fact
that the Apollo-Soyuz mission demonstrates in particular close

8

connection between scientific and technical problems of
international cooperation in space on the one hand, and
the problems of international legal character on the other
hand. I would like to remind you that the treaty on
principles governing the activities of states and the
exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and
other celestial bodies (that's a long title) which was con-
cluded in '67, envisages the obligation of the astronauts of
one state to render any possible assistance to the astronauts
of the other states, while carrying on activities in outer
space and on the celestial bodies. To avoid this obligation
of the treaty being a dead-letter the launching states are to
provide their space ships and space stations with compatible
rendezvous and docking systems, which would make possible the
rescue operation in outer space in case of necessity. The
development of such compatible systems was one of the main
objectives. Of another international legal instruments which
was the agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States
of America on cooperation in exploration in the use of outer
space, signed in Moscow on May 24, 1972. The close inter-
connection between scientific technical and legal aspects of
states cooperation in space research is also reflected in Article
IV included in the above mentioned Soviet-American agreement
on space cooperation. The agreement itself is of technical
nature, as is well known, but this Article IV says as our

9

distinguished Chairman mentioned already, that the parties
will encourage international efforts to resolve problems of
international law in the exploration and use of outer space
for peaceful purposes with the aim of strengthening the legal
order in space and further developing international space law
and that the parties will cooperate in this field. Of great
importance is the fact that this commitment has been undertaken
by two states which not only holds leading positions in space
research and international cooperation in this field, but also
representing two different political and social systems. My
distinguished colleagues know that nowadays only those rules
of international law can be considered as generally accepted
which are recognized and observed by wide range of states
irrespective of their social order. Here the leading space
powers have a special role and responsibility in the rating
rules in this sphere of space law as a branch of international
public law, and on them also largely depends the maintenance
of international law and order in space. As to practical
implementation of this commitment to encourage the resolution
of international legal problems arising from the exploration
and use of outer space, evidently this should be done in the
process of bilateral consultations between the representatives
of the United States and the Soviet Union and through active
search from mutually acceptable approaches to various legal
problems at international forums, and in various ....

10

Progressive development of international space law is not
conceivable in my opinion without cooperation and mutual
understanding of leading space powers. Such a cooperation
was number one condition from the very appearance of this
new branch of international public law. This is also so
necessary now, that when the object of regulations turn to
be such important areas of space applications as remote sensing
for example, remote sensing of the earth's resources, and
t Direct
T.V. broadcasting areas affecting sovereign rights of the
states. Dealing with the regulation in this field of space
activity we cannot obstruct from the fact that in contrast
to the task of purely research type, the above mentioned
applied activities in a sense are carried on simultaneously,
both in space and on the earth. Our distinguished Chairman
has just mentioned in one of his recent writings this fact,
but the inevitable conclusion, in my opinion, is that the
legal regime of the above mentioned and some other fields of
space application should be elaborated with due accord, not
only with the principle of freedom of space, but also of the
principle of sovereign rights of states over their respective terri-
tories. Article IV of the Soviet-American agreement on space
which was mentioned above, could largely promote progressive
development of international space law and consolidation of
law and order in space. It goes without saying, that the
signing of the USSR/USA agreement on cooperation in space,

11

which includes not only their mutual understanding on a
concrete Apollo/Soyuz project, but also broader and longer
term commitments for the parties has become possible only
because of the overall improvement of political relations
between the two states. At the same time, the extension
of contact and cooperation between scientists, between
scientific and technical organizations of the USSR and of
the United States of America, their joint project and coopera-
tion in the lawmaking process should promote the further
development of relations of mutual trust and give greater
depth to the international detente. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

**CHAIRMAN FINCH:** Thank you Dr. Vereshchetin (applause).
Our next opening statement will be that of General Counsel,
Neil Hosenball of National Aeronautics and Space Administration
of the United States, Neil.

**NEIL HOSENBALL:** Thank you, Ed. It was less than two decades ago that the Soviet Union launched the first satellite into orbit around the earth. This has been followed by thousands of space flights for hundreds of different purposes by many nations alone and in collaboration with others. There's only been six years since the United States landed the first men on the moon. Today we honor the world's first manned international space flight by these two space-faring nations the USSR and the United States. I think it is fitting that we have a US astronaut and a Soviet cosmonaut joining with Soviet and

12

American jurists to discuss this recently completed mission
and its contribution to the development of international
cooperation and joint space flight. There can be no question
that the Apollo/Soyuz mission has demonstrated that engineering
genius and political will can overcome many hurdles, techno-
logical, ideological, and even linguistic. Recently, I found
a reference to an historical incident that I think may partially
explain my strong support of Apollo/Soyuz and international
space cooperation in general. The incident took place some
1200 years ago, and is evidenced by a letter written by the
Caliph of Baghdad to Leon the Armenian of Constantinople. The
letter read as follows: "From the Commander of the faithful
to the Kaiser of Rome, Salutations. Know ye that the Holy Prophet
of Islam, blessed be his name, enjoined upon us his followers
two sacred duties, acquisition of knowledge and its diffusion,
blessings of Ala be upon him. He instructed us learning is
the shared heritage of all mankind. He told us it was the
partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge which made
sons of Adam different from others of Ala's creation. In
accordance with his injunction, we affirm that ours as the
mightiest vice regency of Ala on earth, owes more than any
other the obligation of creating new knowledge. We have thus
ordained that an observatory be erected at Tadmor in the lands
of Syria, determined the inclination of the ecliptic and to
construct tables of planets motions for computing the size of
the earth. With your kingdom, since the prophets time, we

13

have differed on religion and disputed on territory, but
knowledge is our shared heritage. So, let those of your
astronomers who will, come freely to Tadmor, they shall find
the portals of welcome wide-open. This site, a temple of
learning, shall remain Holy and inviolable. As an earnest
of our knowledge sharing, we send you a new work in mathe-
matical sciences, composed at our court by that servant of
Ala Abdu Abdallah Mosa Ak Krob Krazimi. This concerns a new
path he's created in mathematics, he calls it Algebra. Now
the United States -- oh incidentally, as an aside, I had this.
shepherdized by a historian, and for the non-lawyers in the
audience, and for the benefit of our Soviet guests, shepherd-
izing is a system that we use, that American lawyers use to
make sure that a precedent that they are relying on has not
been overruled. And so the historian reported to me that she
had researched the incident and that she found for two centuries
after this incident took place, it was an era of peaceful co-
existence and great expansion of culture. So I think the
precedent is valid. The United States and the USSR are among
the greatest powers in today's world, and like the Caliph of
Baghdad, they too have a similar obligation, an obligation to
encourage the acquisition and creation of new knowledge. To
encourage cooperation between nations, and to encourage the
dissimination and utilization of that knowledge, for as the
Caliph said, learning is the shared heritage of all mankind.

14

And as Article I of the outerspace treaty of 1967 states, exploration and use of outerspace shall be carried out for the benefit and interest of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind. Apollo/Soyuz has been only the first mission of its kind. The United States currently has under development the space shuttle which is scheduled to be operational in the 1980s and beyond. The space shuttle is a key element of a space transportation system that will provide for economical, reliable, and routine access to space. One of the many payloads of the space shuttle will carry a space lab - a reusable, manned laboratory. The space lab is currently being funded, designed, developed and manufactured by the European Space Agency. A consortium of ten western European countries. Joint space lab missions can be expected to carry an international crew. Each flight will have three crewman to operate the shuttle, and can carry four or more payload specialists to carry out its experiments. Participation in flight operations as well as hardware development by other nations including the less developed nations, is expected and welcomed. In addition to the development of space lab by the European Space Agency, Canada and the United States are about to conclude arrangements to have Canada participate in the space shuttle program by funding, developing, and manufacturing a remote manipulator system to handle shuttle payloads. Other international discussions are underway, so it is quite evident

15

that multi-national use and occupancy of the space shuttle
will become routine during the 1980s. The last two decades
have primarily been concerned with the initial development
of national capabilities to explore outerspace and the moon,
the sun, the planets, the stars, and to test the practical
application of space technology to meet needs here on earth
in such areas of communications, meteorology and earth resources
management. Many of these activities have well developed
patterns of bilater, multi-lateral and international coopera-
tion. In the next decade the United States will continue to
explore outerspace, but it will also be a period of greater
emphasis on the extension and further development of space
applications and technology to assist in the solution of
national, regional, and global problems. It's my hope and
expectation that international cooperation in space activities
will not only continue, but will increase in the future, so
that the human and financial resources that should be applied
in the exploration and use of space for peaceful purposes can
be put to more efficient use for the benefit of all mankind.
Thank you. (Applause).

CHAIRMAN FINCH: Our next opening statement will be by Professor
G. P. Zhukov, of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Professor
Zhukov. (Applause).

PROFESSOR ZHUKOV: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is
indeed a pleasure for me to participate in the interesting
conference which has been organized by the American Society

16

the American Bar Association. To my knowledge, members of
your association first expressed interest quite some time
ago in the legal problems of outerspace. Our meeting today
testifies to the fact that this interest has been sustained
in full measure. Those of us who as myself and my friend
Mr. Vereshchetin, counselled with legal problems of outer-
space from the very beginning of space ages. From October 4,
1957, then a Soviet satellite was placed in orbit for the
first time in the history of mankind, can this complete
justification consider themselves extremely fortunate.
Literally, before our eyes, a new branch of international
law, namely International Space Law has actually emerged,
taken form and is continuing to develop a complete series
of interational documents regulating the activities of states
in outerspace and the cooperation of states in research
development and the utilization of outerspace is already in
existence. (Termination of Professor Zhukov's opening state-
ment in Russian).

CHAIRMAN FINCH: Thank you very much, Professor Zhukov. We
have enjoyed during the past three weeks, opportunities to
visit and discuss with you questions of outerspace international
law and we are much indebted to you for these many hours which
have been a great joy to the members of my committee. I will
now ask the past President of the American Bar and the Presi-
dent of the World Peace Through Law Center, Charles Rhyne, if
he will let us have his opening remarks.

17

MR. RHYNE: Mr. Chairman, our distinguished friends from the Soviet Union, and my fellow panelist Bean, and Mr. Hosenball, it's a great honor, of course, to appear on such a panel, which I hope will mean so much to the future cooperation, especially in the field of law for the people of the United States and for the people of the Soviet Union. In a major address to the United Nations in 1969, former President Nixon stated his interest and the interest of our nation in developing international cooperation in space exploration. He said, and I quote, "that we should take positive concrete steps towards internationalizing man's epic venture into space. Both from the adventures and applications of space missions so that they will be shared by all people, and our progress will be faster and our accomplishments will be greater if nations will join together in this effort, both in contributing the resources and enjoying the benefits. Now a major part of that hope was, of course, realized on May 24, 1972, when the agreements which have been referred to by the distinguished speakers who have preceded me were signed. Now those agreements, and there are now many of them, have a significance far beyond their own intrinsic merit, because collectively these agreements are an essential part of the framework of detente which has meant and which can mean so much to the peoples not only of the Soviet Union and the United States, but the people of the world. Under the substantive Articles of this agreement, the United States and the Soviet Union have as has already

18

been stated, exchanged valuable scientific information in
areas of space, meteorology, space biology and medicine, space
exploration, and on many, many other subjects. Particularly
significant were the exchanges of information and data resulting
from United States Mariner IX mission and the USSR Mars II & III
missions. But I would like to stress now, that from my
acquaintance with this broad field of space and the use of
space, the exploration here has passed far beyond the stage
where space exploration is a mere gimick. It's a real advance
alifting to new dimensions, the knowledge of mankind and the
creation of benefits of humankind never before realized. And
it is the ways in which space accomplishments have created
great benefits for humankind that I would like to emphasize
in my opening comments. One such benefit is in the field of
pollution control, where the monitor that is used on carbon
monoxide developed by the Skylab project has now been used in
cities all over our nation in control of carbon monoxide pollu-
tion. In another example, is an instrument that was developed
to analyze hazardous gases on Saturn rocket, and this is now
being used to test new car emission standards. Another benefit
and probably the best known and most tremendous benefit, of
course, is in the field of weather prediction. You've all read
a lot about the feeding of weather information in the centers
in the United States and Soviet Union and Australia, from which
that information flows out all over the world, and since weather

19

controls so much productivity of humankind, weather pre-
diction is an enormous benefit to all mankind. One safety
measure that has been used a lot in the United States, is
grooved pavements on airport runways, and which is now being
applied to highway construction where it has reduced the wet
highway automobile accident by an estimated 60 percent, comes
from the space program. The first computerized traffic-
control system was derived from the Apollo computers. But,
perhaps the most significant and probably the least compre-
hended, at least in my knowledge among the public is the
enormous strides that result from space technology in the
field of health care. It's a shame we don't have a medical
doctor or some expert there to focus on that, because I was
referred to the fact that the infrared T.V. scanner which was
developed in the space program is considered a major break-
through in the detection of breast cancer. And on and on
there are many, many benefits which have been catalogued,
which are practical down-to-earth benefits which get us way
beyond what I refer to as the gimmick of having someone
float around in space or having instruments float around in
space. So, we have, of course, many new problems that are on
the horizon, but these concrete benefits I would like to
emphasize because I think they are a dramatic display of what
has occurred through mutual cooperation in exchange of techology
in this field and what the future can promise to flow from

20

this program. From the successful Apollo/Soyuz linkup in space, the success of the cooperative efforts of the scientific communities is evident. As to other areas, the continual advancement of science and technology creates new situations presently not subject to a realm of law, such as direct broadcast from satellites, which is I'm told right around the corner. The distinguished Soviet jurists, Professor Zhukov has referred along with Professor Vereshchetin, to the fact that the agreement between the United States and Soviet Union of May of 1972, didn't overlook the problem of applying law to the new situations which are being created from the technological process that have flowed from those agreements. And, I believe that in the overall of law, which of course is my field, the greatest thing that has come from this space program has been the development of universal law, banning the use of space for military purposes. If we could just take that example and apply it on earth, we would reach that great goal that so many of us are striving for and have been striving for for so long, where the rule of law would indeed replace force as the controlling factor in the fate of humanity. I sincerely believe that the emphasis upon law in this agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States can help push us along towards that great day when disputes between nations will no longer be settled by the death of human beings, but will be settled in court houses under the rule of law. (Applause).

21

CHAIRMAN FINCH: Thank you President Rhyne for those remarks.
We are very much indebted to your enumeration, particularly
of some of the practical benefits to earth which are coming
from outerspace. We in our committee discussion this morning
I think coined a new word for the economics of space - Eco-space.
But that remains to be seen whether it is adopted in the
terminology of space in the future. Our next speaker will
be Cosmonaut Anatoly Filipchenko, the backup man for Apollo/
Soyuz for the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic. We
have been exceedingly honored by his presence and by his
friendship during the last three days, and we look forward to
his remarks at this panel, Anatoly. (Applause).

COSMONAUT FILIPCHENKO: (Opening statement in Russian).

22

MR. FINCH: Thank you Cosmonaut Filipchenko for those very interesting and detailed remarks which are of help to us in analyzing some of the problems of international law which we will face in the development of space law of the future. I would like to make an announcement which is not in the regular agenda that the panel and the committee on Aerospace Law is very much indebted to the General Council of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic here in Montreal, Mr. Michael Zorasov. If he is here would he kindly stand and receive our applause. We now come to USSR, a ha, USSR in an Alan Bean. This is truerly a US-USSR Panel as you can see. Alan, we appreciate very much you and your charming wife coming to Montreal, and giving up some of your vacation time to help us in this project and we would like to hear a few opening remarks from you.

ALAN BEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me think about it for a minute -- Neil Hosenball's comments about the Caliph of Baghdad some 1200 years ago. We are going to have to get alot smarter I think now because if my daughter found out that the Caliph of Baghdad had sent over Algebra she wouldn't like it much. And she wouldn't feel all that friendly about it. I know personally I've never really forgiven the Chinese for inventing paper so we are going to have to be careful what we exchange between ourselves. It's an honor to be here with you today to help foster international good will both in space and in International Law. I think it's possible that the two, the space and law, will become interrelated at a much

23

faster pace than many of us in this room imagine. Perhaps a portion of this faster reactionary speedup is going to be as a direct result of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTD), which we have been talking about for the last hour or so, the joint rendezvous and docking mission that we performed with the Soyuz. The crew, General Tom Stafford, Vance Brand, and Deke Slayton in the Apollo space ship spent some 45 hours docked as one joint space ship with General Aleksei Leonov and Valery Kubasov in their Soyuz space craft. So we had a true international space ship for some 45 hours - little over 45 hours. In an un-orbital news conference during the final phases of the dock portion of the mission, when Tom Stafford and Aleksei Leonov were in the Soyuz, Aleksei said, in his charming English in part, he's got this beautiful English, "You can see with me Tom Stafford, Apollo Commander. Today in space in the orbital module of the Soyuz space craft are the representatives of two countries, the Soviet Union and the United States. We are conducting our joint work with the Americans because our governments want to work together in spirit of cooperation between our countries.
Because people in America and in the Soviet Union did a great job to make this flight possible. We worked together for 2 1/2 years. We know each other very well. I know Tom Stafford, Deke Slayton, and Vance Brand like very hard working guys. We like to work together again. Before our joint flight we were a lot of times in the United States, and the American astronauts were a lot of times in the Soviet Union. Every time we knew each

24

other better and better. We know a lot about American people, about American customs. We know what the American people want. I am very glad that today we are working in space together with our good friends Tom, Deke and Vance. I am sure that our joint flight is the beginning of very great cooperation in space. Thank you very much." Now these remarks by Aleksei were pretty much what I believe were the feelings of all of us; cosmonauts, astronauts, engineers, scientists, managers, whatever, that worked on the ASTP. That we were working together as good friends. It wasn't always this way, by the way. It did not start this way some 2 1/2 years ago. We began as official friends. Somebody said get together and start working with these guys and so you do and you know you got to enter on a spirit of friendship and so you do. But you are not really friends there. At the end it was just the opposite. We were still official friends but we were also very good friends. Very very good friends. Real friends. As you may know cooperation in space with the Soviet Union, indeed many other countries throughout the world, has been going on for a number of years. For example, we have done much work together in Meteorology, the natural environment, exploration of near space, the moon, the planets, space biology and medicine and even in ASTP we did some materials manufacturing. The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project was an attempt to go further, to do much more than that to solve real operational problems in a necessarily give and take way. To accomplish common objectives, it was to be much much more than just a meeting at the border and exchanging pieces of data. We were

25

going to have to work together. And as a result of this flight

I believe we demonstrated that our countries, the Soviet Union
and the United States, could work closely together in good faith.
Very good faith as a matter of fact. Together we designed and

manufactured a common docking apparatus, we built our own and
they built theirs but we did it to the same specifications; we
tested a compatible rendezvous system; effected a real docking;
we verified crew transfer between the vehicles, three times as
a matter of fact; and performed several joint scientific

experiments. It required the best efforts of both countries
and the peoples directly involved. These things we did and did
in the spirit at first of guarded cooperation -- because we
didn't know what the other guy was thinking -- this spirit
evolved slowly over time into one of confident mutual under-
standing and trust. This new trust was evidenced throughout

the flight, I believe. May I share with you for a moment some
of my personal observations. These were formed mostly while
working together with the Soviet cosmonauts, scientists, and
engineers -- in the United States they were there three or four
times, in the Soviet Union we were there three times for a
period of 45 days total, or more. They were at official

functions during the training for space flight, in their homes,
as friends and dinner guests. I went to Hanatolli's home a
couple of times and met his wife and kids and just lived like
you would go see your next door neighbor. These people were
for the most part not policy makers but were men and women who
lived lives like most of us in this room. I felt that they

26

[L.C]

represented in a microcosm the present, prevelant individual attitude of the Soviet citizen. I got that impression by working with them and ~~I am~~ meeting a lot of other Soviet citizens. How did the people seem? What did they think of the Americans? What did they think about when we were together? Well, almost 100% of them liked Americans alot. Not just barely liked them they really liked them. Probably more than you like Russians right this second. Alot. They wanted to be friends with Americans but most of all they wanted very strongly to do some- thing to prevent future wars. I don't know whether you know this or not. Although their land is roughly 2 1/2 times the size of our land, but their population is about the same as ours and it was equal to that at the beginning of World War II. Now during World War II we lost some 600,000 men and women -- mostly men -- while they lost in the Soviet Union 20 million men, women, and children. That's 30 times as many. There was no one I met who wanted any pain and suffering like that again. Believe me. Think for a moment if we in the United States had lost 30 times more people then we did including children and wives how much more would we hate to fight than we do now. I could feel that they wanted to help in their way, each of them individually the cause of peace. Interestingly, when they are over in our country, I see the same desire in Americans that when they meet a Soviet engineer, a cosmonaut, or a scientist, that they want to do the same thing that they want to help in some way. It's a great motivation. It's not phoney and it makes you feel better and more positive about the future if we could just know

27

each other better. I often had the feeling most Soviet citizens we met would be nice people to have living next door. They like to help you. This genuine attitude of friendliness prevailed not only on earth but in space and we at NASA hoped it was made more visible to people of the whole earth during the ASTP flight. You know, inside each of our little heads is an imaginary model of a Soviet man and woman. As there are little models for other nationalities, Chinese, well what we think Chinese are like, Egyptians and everything else. These models look and act like we individually think Soviet people look and act. We base our assumptions on what is possible or impossible in the future with these little models in mind. As a result of my exposure to real Soviet men and women, and the ASTP mission itself, those models have changed in a positive, beneficial way and my assumptions as to what is possible in the future cooperatively has changedLOT It is my belief that as a result of the joint flight itself, many people throughout the world, in fact all of us here in this room, have changed or will slowly change their assumption as to what cooperative peaceful possibilities exist for the future. Important questions are being asked and will be asked over the future years as to how to relate to their peoples and other countries of this earth. They may be answered differently as a result of the ASTP flight, I believe they will. I hope so. These questions and their answers will open up new avenues for mutual cooperation, and will make possible things that were not possible even a short time ago because ideas will be changed. They will affect our individual

28

and collective attitudes. These new attitudes will increase chances for continued peace and good will in this world. Of course along with this increased good will, cooperation, and joint activity comes more individual and state interaction.

More possibility of differences of opinion or conflict. Increase cooperation will focus attention on the accelerating need for careful thought and action in the area of space law. The exploration of space is adventure and a new frontier, and will require fresh imaginative ideas and concepts to make the journey all that it can be for mankind. This unending journey will be difficult but will also possess opportunities for unequal advancement in individual consciousness and aspiration levels of all men on this planet. This can make the world a better place. For ourselves and our children. I think that it will. Thank you.

MR. FINCH: The Chair would like to depart from the agenda with the permission of the panelists to make two acknowledgements. The first is for a very pleasant dinner for many of us last evening at the home of Dr. Nicholas Matt, the Dean of the Institute of Air and Space Law of McGill University and we are very much indebted to Dr. and Mrs. Matt, all of us. Those thanks come from the Soviet side of the panel and the United States side. Thank you Dr. and Mrs. Matt. And also a special acknowledgement to George Robinson who kindly assisted the panel in bringing from the White House the space crystal which you see on the table here in front of you. We are very much indebted to you,

29

Mr. Robinson, for that help and Charlie Rhyne also for helping
in connection with the crystal. We know the crystal is a
matter of much interest to the scientific side of the panel.
Before asking the panel the questions which appear on the left
side of your printed program, I believe it would be appropriate
to state that the ABA has long championed the extension of the
rule of law to outer space. And soon after SPUDNIK I it
formed in the International Law Section Committee, the
Committee on the Law of Outer Space now known as the Aerospace
Law Committee, that I am honored to chair today. The American
Bar Journal has carried many scholarly articles, many of them
by persons participating in this program. The International
Lawyer of our section has sponsored many space law programs at
the ABA mid-year and annual meeting. And the ABA has been the
guest of NASA at the Johnson Space Center and at the Goddard
Space Flight Center. For that our Committee wishes to express
special thanks to NASA. Members of the Interspace Law Committee
were privileged to brief Neil Armstrong before his first moon
walk. He came to Hawaii to speak with the former chairman of
the committee, General Martin Menter, and we had an opportunity
to discuss with him the 1967 and the 1968 treaty at that time.
As great as these space law programs have been, I believe we
have reached a new plateau with our panel participants today
in this ABA President's Program. The scene clearly reflected in
the Apollo-Soyuz mission was and is international cooperation
between the two space powers. It is that cooperation that led

30

to the early adoption of the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1721 of 1962, and subsequent resolutions setting forth guiding principles for the exploration of outer space and for the freedom of outer space. And it was that cooperation that enabled the world family of nations to reach agreement on the basic treaty of outer space which is the one to always bear in mind. The 1967 treaty which Dr. Vereshchetin referred to in his remarks a little while ago. As Charles Rhyne has suggested, we have made our rules for the law of outer space as we needed them and as the nations of the world developed their capabilities in outer space. We will now take the panel questions. At the meeting this morning it was agreed between the panelists and I think Dr. Vereshchetin will concur with me that the order the questions will be presented is not the order in which they appear in your program. The batting order is as follows - please take note: 2, 3, 5, 4, 6, and 1. And that is the order in which the panel will take the questions which appear on the left side of the programs that you were handed as you entered the room. Accordingly, we will start - the panel will commence with question No. 2.

**QUESTION:** Does the US-USSR foresee more joint space flights with the United States after ASTP, and what will be the advantages?

I will ask Dr. Vereshchetin if he can tell us - Can the 1972 Agreement which I mentioned in my remarks, Dr., earlier, can the Agreement be extended and do we foresee more joint space flights between the United States and the Soviet Union?

Dr. Vereshchetin, would you respond?

31

DR. VERESHCHETIN: I would like to start my response to this question with the final remarks of Cosmonaut Filipchenko. I remember he told us in his remarks that he thinks that this Apollo-Soyuz mission is the first step towards further development of international space man flights. I share this opinion and I think that the Apollo-Soyuz mission has laid good foundation for further joint flights. But I would like also to draw your attention to the fact that as the question says here it refers not only to man flights but in general to joint flights. And in this respect it is necessary to have in mind that the agreement of Soviet/American categorization was peace which was frequently referred to during this meeting and visitors not only categorization in man flights but also in many other fields which were mentioned by Astronaut Alan Bean, by Dr. Charles Rhyne, and other panelists and we have very good categorization in fields of space meteorology, space medicine, environmental problems, etc., and its proceeding very well and it does not finish with the completion of this mission. As to the concrete question about whether we have concrete joint plans for further man flights -- at the present moment the answer is no. But the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union and NASA now are in the process of negotiation about further joint man flights. And I am sure that soon we will witness a new agreement on this subject. As to the necessity to extend the Agreement, I think that even in the present framework it is possible to continue with joint flights, but as to if this question refers to the time limits, then I think that it is necessary to extend this Agreement.

32

[L.C.]

**MR. FINCH:** We are in agreement then that the Agreement should be extended. Is their any discussion from the floor of question No. 2 or any other panelists who would like to speak to question No. 2.

**NEIL HOSENBALL:** I think Dr. Vereshchetin has put it very well. There is an impetus for further joint cooperation between the USSR and the United States operating through the Academy of Sciences and NASA respectively and there is the current agreement which does run until 1977, there is provision for its extension by mutual agreement, there is also provision for adding additional fields of cooperation, and so, I believe with Dr. Vereshchetin that the discussions that will take place will lead to new joint flight operations - at least that's our hope, our expectations, and I think similarly on the USSR side the spirit of cooperation still continues as strongly as it does on the US side, and I concur almost completely with what Dr. Vereshchetin has stated.

**MR. FINCH:** Any other panelists would like to come in on question No. 2. Hearing none, we will move along. Question No. 3 is the next question that the panel will receive.

**QUESTION:** What has been the effect of outer space activity both scientific and legal on detente? Has it proved that international legal and international scientific cooperation is beneficial to both the US and USSR? And then really as a separate sub-question - Did the USSR and US accomplish its objectives in the Apollo-Soyuz mission?

33

[Lc]

Would you like to speak to this question, Professor Zhukov?

PROFESSOR ZHUKOV: HIS ANSWER WAS IN RUSSIAN.

MR. FINCH: Thank you very much Professor Zhukov. President Rhyne, would you like to comment on Professor Zhukov's remarks.

PRESIDENT RHYNE: Yes, I agree with Professor Zhukov that this is one of the few areas where law has preceded experience and sometimes almost preceded knowledge. We like to say that law is crystalized public opinion or law is crystalized knowledge, but here I think that the big thing that is happening is we are developing good will and mutual understanding and trust and real benefits that we would like to have codified into law so that they will receive the attention and the stability and last a long time. When we usually do have a situation where law follows the development of knowledge and experience, but here it has certainly led the way in pointing out to all human kind that there is an area where we can prohibit warfare, the use of war instruments. I have had the privilege of reading a translation of a very wonderful law book written by Vice Chairman Vereshchetin.

I was very interested in so many of the subjects that he mentioned there where law is yet to be written - this direct broadcasting, weather control, and some of the very fascinating subjects that he mentioned there that are a challenge to we lawyers not only in the Soviet Union and the United States but the whole world to develope law/rules and so I am glad that the Soviet lawyers are thinking about these things and there is no question in my mind but what the space activity has caused them

34

[lc]

to think about it - I was in Moscow in January and talking to
Chief Justice Smironov and Professor Zills and some of the
others and of course the big project that has grown out of this
whole new cooperation has been the ASTP Program and I think that
it has helped we lawyers realize that there is so much law
already and so much to be written and I hope that we can write
it together and get at it right away and get it written before
there is so much dispute about it that we will never agree on it.

**MR. FINCH:** Thank you very much, Charlie. That last part of that question - Did the USSR and the US accomplish its objectives in the ASTP. I would like to ask Cosmonaut Filipchenko if he would like to comment on it and perhaps you would like to comment on it.

**COSMONAUT FILIPCHENKO:** HIS COMMENT WAS IN RUSSIAN.

**ALAN BEAN:** There is not alotted to add to that other than to say
that the flight had two major goals - one was a technical one
and Anatol just talked that and the other was a political one.
The idea to do something that was extremely difficult and to
cooperate and accomplish the goals of the mission at the same
time and I think that was too. I believe that most people
came away with a much friendlier impression about the Russians
and what we could do together. I believe not only were technical
goals achieved, but you might say the political goals were also.

**MR. FINCH:** To the third question which is No. 5 in the program
in front of you.

35

**QUESTION:** Has the experience gained from the Apollo-Soyuz mission suggested any international legal problems for outer space?

Dr. Vereshchetin, would you like to comment on that and on the latter part - Does it suggest or require additional international agreement or national legislation or regulation?

**DR. VERESHCHETIN:** My feeling is that the flight itself did not create any specific new legal questions. Mainly because of the short period in which both ships were in the dock stage. And it was decided that everything should proceed according to the pre-determined program which was agreed upon in the course of two or three years of negotiations, recommendations, etc. And in particular it was decided for example that the Commander of the host ship was responsible for all the actions of both crews in case they are in this ship. So no problem of jurisdiction or criminal law or civil law or any other legal problem would not arise in this situation mainly because it was a short joint flight. But in the future it was mentioned during the coverage by the press that this flight in a sense is a prototype of the future international space laboratory and this is going to be an international space laboratory which will work in space for weeks, for months, and probably for years. Then all these questions will come up in my opinion. The question of the registration of the joint system of this laboratory - the question of jurisdiction, a panel for law, for civil law, etc. etc. Many questions will come up. So I think that we lawyers have a good ground to think about for the future on the basis of this

36

flight. But this particular flight did not present any
particular new legal questions.

**MR. FINCH:** I think, Alan, you said that the mission rules were pretty well decided in advance, is that correct?

**ALAN BEAN:** I did. I think talking about Charles for a moment. We didn't spend a lot of time thinking about the space law aspects of it as we developed the mission. And it is interesting that what we came to decide was the common sense way to approach it or the logical or fair way turned out to be the way legally (argued). So it turned out real fine. The things that we thought we would do from an operational common sense way were the things that you all thought were correct from a legal way. The way it ought to be.

**MR. FINCH:** I think the hour is passing along and it's very warm in here and I think we should go on with the concurrence of the other panelists. We would now like to take the fourth question -

**QUESTION:** What training and instruction have the astronauts and cosmonauts been given in implementation of existing international agreements relating to space activities prior to their various space flights?

Would Cosmonaut Filipchenko like to speak to that briefly?

**COSMONAUT FILIPCHENKO:** HE ANSWERED IN RUSSIAN.

37

**MR. FINCH:** Thank you very much. Alan, do you have any comment on that recent question?

**ALAN BEAN:** No, other than to say that we were aware of the acts. We read them. But mostly you tend in an operational sense to try to think of what's fair and what's the humane thing to do and so almost all the decisions were made on the basis of what can you do to make it work out right and help the other guy and get the mission off in the best possible way and be fair about the whole thing.

**MR. FINCH:** Right. Does any other panelist - Neil

**NEIL HOSENBALL:** We lawyers don't worry about these sorts of things, but we do have contingency plans that have been issued before each flight and in those contingency plans we notify our embassies and missions around the world before a flight of the rescue and return mission - I am sure that you are glad to hear that. Under the '68 Treaty which does provide that if a mission is aborted and lands on earth that help be given to the Astronauts and so we do alert our missions around the world particularly in the flight path of the provisions of the treaty including those countries of the signatories and if not signatories we think the treaty is now general accepted international law that every country would abide by. So we do a little bit of planning in the legal areas as well.

**MR. FINCH:** Right. Thank you very much, Neil. Does any other panelist want to comment on that question. If not we shall

38

precede to question No. 6.

**QUESTION:** Should disputes over the interpretation and application of space treaties be resolved between the parties by arbitration?
And if so, what arbitration procedures?

I would ask Dr. Vereshchetin if he would reply to that question.

**DR. VERESHCHETIN:** HE ANSWERED IN RUSSIAN.

**MR. FINCH:** Thank you very much, Professor Zhukov. Would anyone like to comment on the possibility of the COP26 Committee of the United Nations, the committee on peaceful uses of outer space of the United Nations taking up this question of arbitration in connection with the new treaty.

**NEIL HOSENBALL:** As Professor Zhukov pointed out, there is an arbitration provision in the liability convention. It is recommendatory arbitration, that is, it is not binding arbitration. However, there are provisions for the commission stating its reasons for it and its award if there is an award. And there is a provision for furnishing a copy of the claims commission decision or award to the Secretary General of the United Nations. The committee on the peaceful uses of outer space operates on consensus. And it has been a remarkable experience the fact that right now 37 countries - at one time there were 28 - but you have to get an agreement or a consensus at least from 28 member state on the committee of peaceful uses of outer space. Four treaties have come out of that consensus. One of the most difficult problems we had in the liability

39

convention in the committee was this question of binding arbitra-
tion. And I think it was a great step forward that we did set up
procedures - disputes resolution procedures which results in a
recommendatory award of decision with a great deal of publicity
attached to it and requiring the good faith of the country
submitting to the arbitration procedures. The liability
convention does provide that countries can agree before entering
into the claims commission procedure, to be bound by that decision -
in other words binding arbitration rather than non-recommended.
We believe that that is the process that will lead ultimately
to the recognition of binding arbitration as the way to get the
rule of law into existence in international law. So I think
right now the UN does not have this problem before it. It took
some nine or eleven years to wrestle with it in the liability
convention. I think it has set a precedent that in a proper
situation it will be included in future treaties. I think it
has and I think that that is a great step forward.

<u>MR. FINCH:</u> Are there any other comments regarding this question
before we pass on to the last formal question that has been
presented to the panel?

All right the last question to be presented.

<u>QUESTION:</u> Does the Soviet Union have a re-usable space shuttle type program, and if not, do you see the Soviet Union using the US space shuttle to launch satellites in future programs?

40

Perhaps Cosmonaut Filipchenko or Dr. Vereshchetin would like to speak to that first.

COSMONAUT FILIPCHENKO: HE ANSWERED IN RUSSIAN

MR. FINCH: Well, thank you very much. Dr. Vereschetin.

DR. VERESCHETIN: HE REplied IN RUSSIAN.

MR. FINCH: In discussion between NASA and the Academy of Sciences at the present time and we hope that agreement will be reached in the next few months in these discussions. Are there any other comments on question No. 1. Alan, do you have any comments?

ALAN BEAN: I do in a way - we are hoping that everybody in the world uses the space shuttle. Soviet Union obviously is great space power and we are hoping that they will launch satellites with it some day and they'll launch experiments and maybe men in space labs. We know, for example, that the Canadians are building a manipulator right now for the space shuttle. The European Space Organization is building a space lab. We are hoping that if they come up with a reasonable space ship or even if they don't, if they allow us to put some of our experiments on their space ships and on there launch vehicles we will do that. The way you achieve relations with other countries that are very positive is to do it. You can't both each sit on each side of the table and not cooperate, if you want to be cooperative countries or individuals. So we are hoping that they cooperate

41

with us and do more things with us and we are hoping that we do
more things with them. And if the whole world joins in and
tries to work together - I mean that's the only way you can, is
to work together. So we are hoping for that.

**MR. FINCH:** Dr. Vereschetin, do you want to comment on Alan Bean's remarks.

**DR. VERESCHETIN:** I agree that we should cooperate in all fields
including the space shuttle.

**MR. FINCH:** The Chair would like to interrupt for one second with a special announcement before we take one question from the floor, from Dr. Peter Glaser on the solar space power system. The first is that the committee is honored and the panel is honored to have present here the Chairman of our International Law Section, Jim Hay. Will you stand up please, Jim, and receive the applause. The second is that I am informed by Neil Hosenball that in approximately 10 minutes there will be launched from Cape Canaveral - I believe the blastoff of the Mars mission. Is that correct, Neil?

**NEIL HOSENBALL:** It's a little bit later than that. I think it is closer to 5. But there will be a viking launch from the Cape at that time to Mars and another one if the one goes off today, there will be a second viking launch in ten days. So it's a major, major scientific mission. It will have a lander that will descend to Mars, do some testing, seek to discover whether there is life on Mars - a question that we have tried to answer for

42

many many centuries - and a major program. Hopefully the weather down in Florida these days as far as thunderstorms are concerned is atrocious about 5 o'clock so we are just keeping our fingers crossed.

**MR. FINCH:** Thank you, Neil. I know our Soviet colleagues on the panel are interested to hear of the progress of this mission and we intend to keep them advised as rapidly as we can.

**ALAN BEAN:** We mentioned something here that in choosing the landing sites for the viking space craft on Mars, we have not only studied our own data from Mars, but we have studied the data that the Soviets have been so nice to give us from their missions to Mars. And I am suspecting while I don't have any information, maybe Neil knows, that when we get some information back from these, they land on July 4, 1976, that we are going to share those with the Soviets. I suspect that we are. I just never read it anywhere.

**MR. FINCH:** Dr. Vereshchetin, do you want to speak to the Mars mission.

**DR. VERESHCHETIN:** First of all I would like to on behalf of our group to wish every success to our American colleagues. It's really going to be a very important mission - in maned flights in the last many years, and we hope that it is a success and I agree completely with Alan Bean that to some probably to a small extent, but we also contributed to this work, not really contributed, but in this field we have categorizations for many

43

years not so spectacular as Soyuz-Apollo mission, but
scientists dealing with planetary investigations met many times
both in the Soviet Union and the United States and they discussed
both the scientific mission, the purposes of this mission, they
exchanged some data and I think and I hope that it will help.

MR. FINCH: Thank you very much, Dr. Vereshchetin. I will
entertain one question from the floor. I know the hour is passing
very rapidly and it is very warm today and I would like to ask
Dr. Peter Glaser if he would present a question. Dr. Glaser is
Vice President of Arthur D. Little and Co., and for your
information and the information of the audience, he has worked
about 20 years on solar space power systems.

DR. GLASER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Panel, the concept of
a satellite solar power station to provide power to earth is a
first step leading to what's industrialization of space. How
will the implementation of the concept be effected by the existing
1967 international space treaty? And should thought be given to
modifying the 1956 space treaty to ease the introduction of this
beneficial use of space on a world-wide bases. Thank you.

MR. FINCH: Thank you, Dr. Glaser. I'll ask Neil Hosenball if
he can deal with this one.

NEIL HOSENBALL: Well, I don't see the need to amend the 67 treaty.
We have commercial use of space now. Your communications
satellites are wide spread. Their domestic satellite systems as
well as the international system and their is intra-sputnik of
the Soviet Union. So we have use of space now and I think solar

44

power is just one additional use that will fall within the
umbrella of the 67 treaty. It may have particular problems and
I think what will happen is as it moves towards development,
I think the scientific and technical subcommittee will look at
it to see if it does need some additional regulation in space
and will treat it at that time. I think it falls within the
umbrella of the 67 treaty and it will be studied at the UN,
I am sure, when it starts moving toward development.

**MR. FINCH:** So essentially we feel that it comes within the
existing 67 treaty and would be a very permissible purpose.
Dr. Vereshchetin, maybe you would like to comment briefly on
that.

**DR. VERESHCHETIN:** I agree with the remarks of Neil Hosenball.

**MR. FINCH:** Thank you very much. We have time for another
question from the floor. Dr. Matt, would you like to present
a question to the panel? We will be pleased to receive it.

**DR. MATT:** Mr. Chairman, my question is as follows: Is a
link-up between the space objects of two or more contracted
parties to the convention of international liability for
damage for that space object a joint launch? And if so, in
case of damage caused upon the surface (garbled) by the linked
space object, to which state or state would the international
claim for damages be presented? Thank you.

**MR. FINCH:** Thank you, Dr. Matt, for the question. I would like
to ask the past chairman of this committee, General Martin Menter

45

if he would take the mike, and perhaps give the panel a word
on Article V of the 67 treaty.

GENERAL MENTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the panelists
are equally or more so aware of the answer. This is a joint
flight whether it takes off separately from different parts of
the world and joins up together. It is envisioned as a joint
flight, and I think both under Article IV and Article V of
the treaty, the nations provide for compensation for anyone who
suffers damages going out of the space flight. The individual
would pursue his remedies through diplomatic channels or through
the Secretary. General of the UN, and he could proceed either at
his election and hold both states collectively responsible, or
either one as under those provisions. The states are both
severly and collectively responsible. As far as collectively
responsible, if action is brought against both or a claim made
against both, and one provides the payment it can work it out
with the other state as to how they want to divey up the
responsibility, 50-50 or 60-40, and if they can't come to an
agreement than it is 50-50.

MR. FINCH: Thank you very much, General Menter. Does any member
of the panel want to comment on that reply to Dr. Glaser's
question. Neil, do you have any comment on that?

NEIL HOSENBALL: Under the convention as Marty says, each party
is liable as a launching state and so you would bring a claim

46

against both states whether you want to call it a joint launch
or not a joint launch. The fact is that each state is a
launching state by virtue of launching their own satellites.
I think that there would be a recovery obviously under the
liability convention.

**MR. FINCH:** All right. Do I see any questions from the floor?
I see Dr. Steven Gorel. We recognize Dr. Gorel, University of
Mississippi.

**DR. GOREL:** Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the panel.
Several of you have referred to the treaty which is being
negotiated on direct broadcast satellites and I understand one
of the major issues there is the question of prior consent versus
freedom of information as a fundamental human right. I would
like to ask you to tell me what are the possible alternatives
that you can see for a solution in this matter?

**MR. FINCH:** Dr., your question now has been limited to
direct broadcast satellites. I wonder if Neil Hosenball would
like to take this one.

**NEIL HOSENBALL:** Direct broadcast satellites have been under
consideration by the Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
primarily in the legal subcommittee and those negotiations and
discussions have been going on, there has been a great deal of
movement, I think, in several years maybe next year or the
year after we will see some sort of consensus coming out. The
form that it will take I think it is too early for me to guess

47

at and I don't want to speculate.

**MR. FINCH:** Thank you very much, Neil. Dr. Vereshchetin, is there any reply to this matter from your point of view.

**DR. VERESHCHETIN:** I think that to this question it is necessary either to speak much and to develope this problem, or not to speak at all, because it requires some time to develop this subject. I certainly can state in short the position of my country at the present moment. And also my personal position and those of my personal position with this respect which in passing I referred in my opening remarks. Probably you will remember that I mentioned that in my opinion the space applications which are now under the discussion in the United Nations require some different approach in comparison with what was before. Namely, we are speaking now about space application which refers not only to the outer space but also has effect on earth. And the problem about the direct broadcasting, this is exactly this kind of problem which in my opinion -- my personal opinion -- I am not going to speak for my state now. My personal opinion is this: That in this case we are dealing with this kind of space application which cannot be regulated only from the point of view of freedom of space and freedom of any activities in space because one thing is to use space for satallite exploration, for exploration of the space itself; but the thing is different when you use outer space as a tool for some kind of activities on other territories, and with direct broadcasting this is exactly an example when we use outer space

48

not for outer space itself for the exploration of outer space
itself, but we use it as a means for some kind of activities on
the other territory. That's why I think that the regulation
should take into account both the principle of freedom of space
and freedom of information which we mentioned, but also the
sovereign right of the states on the earth. And starting from
this these two assumptions and from the (garbled) principles we
should regulate these kinds of activities. This is my position.

**MR. FINCH:** Thank you very much, Dr. Vereshchetin, you have
been tremendously helpful to the entire panel in explaining
positions that have puzzled many of us on my committee for a
long time, and I would say that we extend a special vote of
thanks to you for making a very long trip from Moscow and coming
in late last night and working with us all morning and this
afternoon. We are very much indebted to you for your candidness
and your forth rightness in assisting us in developing appropriate
replies to what are really very difficult international law
space questions. We will take one more question because the
warmness of the afternoon and the lateness of the hour. Do I
see any hands from the floor who would like to present a question?

**UNKNOWN SPEAKER:** Mr. Chairman, question 6 dealt with the problem
of disputes over the interpretation of the space treaties and
possible arbitration procedures. I am interested in knowing
whether there have ever been any such disputes since the space
treaties were adopted and if so, what they were about and what
happened to the arbitration?

49

**MR. FINCH:** Well, we have an arbitration provision in the INTELSAT agreements, which the US is a party, but I'll ask Neil Hosenball to reply.

**NEIL HOSENBALL:** I can speak about the liability convention. There has been no claims presented on the liability convention. There were no claims made even under the outer space treaty of 67. The outer space treaty of 67 does provide for absolute liability in one of its provisions and liability without fault, if you will, for damage on earth caused by space object falling. There have been no claims to my knowledge that have gone to arbitration and to my knowledge there have been no claims period.

**MR. FINCH:** There was damage to a Japanese ship, I believe, in the Pacific by a falling space object and this problem is always with us. We cannot escape the damages problem and that is why we have the 1972 treaty on damages. Do I see any other questions from the floor? I believe there was another question over here. Please take the microphone.

**UNKNOWN SPEAKER:** Thank you. I just wanted to ask the panel whether they felt there was any conflict between the use of space for military reconnaissance and sensing and the 67 treaty prohibiting military uses of space. Thank you.

**MR. FINCH:** This is a question which really is not within the competence of the panel. When we speak about the freedom of outer space and the question of open sky and open outer space

50

policy, it leaves one with the right to use just as you would
use the high seas the freedom of outer space for the purpose
of gaining information. When you do that you bring back
questions to my mind, at least, and I hope some of the other
panelists will comment on this, such as the earth resources
satellite programs and the many, many uses for the benefit of
mankind that outer space now represents in very direct and
practical application. So, unless some other panelists would
like to comment on that, I would like to pass that question
and take one last question. Do you want to speak to that, Alan?

**ALAN BEAN:** I don't know what everybody is doing but I do know as far as the National Aeronautics in Space Administration is concerned, we are very careful never to take data or anything else like that in points where it would be a problem. I know on (Mr. Finch interjected "Where it would be a jurisdictional problem") SKYLAB we took a lot of earth resources information. We only took it over the United States and over countries that had agreements with the United States, although we could have taken it elsewhere I guess, we just didn't do it. So we are trying in the National Aeronautics Space Administration to insure that we operate in a very friendly and cooperative manner and not take information from somebody that doesn't want any information taken.

**MR. FINCH:** Do I see any more questions from the floor? General Menter.

51

UNKNOWN SPEAKER SPOKE IN RUSSIAN.

MR. FINCH: Thank you very much. I think you heard the translation.
Are there any other questions from the floor? General Menter.

GENERAL MENTER: Mr. Chairman, I was asked if I would present
this question on behalf of the standing committee of aeronautical
law of which I am a member. You may recall that a few years ago
the House of Delegates extended the jurisdiction of the standing
committee, which up to that point had been responsible for the
law pertaining to aviation -- flight of the airplane, was extended
to apply in analogous situations only, in analogous situations
when you got into aerospace flight. You will also recall,
Mr. Chairman, that this mission was the last of the Apollo missions
and the next US manned mission would be the space shuttle and as
we said earlier today, probably beginning in the 1980's. And that
space shuttle as you know will when it comes back to earth it
will look very much like an airplane, in fact, it will land on a
runway and taxi and halt. So the question, Mr. Chairman, that
the standing committee on aeronautical law asked me to present
to the panel is whether they envision that in the future as we
progress that the laws that exist today, application to aeronautics,
to aviation, and the regulations that they are under, the domestic
or national laws and the international laws through the inter-
national organization governing civil aviation headquarters, by
the way is right here in Montreal, whether those laws and
regulations pertaining to aviation can be seen by the panel to
be extended to embrace aerospace flight.

52

**MR. FINCH:** Do you want to speak to this, Professor Zhukov or
Dr. Vereshchetin?

**DR. VERESHCHETIN:** HE ANSWERED IN RUSSIAN AND THEN SWITCHED TO ENGLISH.

I will try to speak in English. In the future it will be some
process of approachment of two kinds of activities, space and
air activities and these two kinds of activities put the question
on what will be rule of space law or air law applied in some
kind of activity, and it will be a problem to resolve in the
future. For instance, if shuttle is in collision with aircraft, what
convention will be applied? It depends if you consider shuttle
as space object. It will be decided or regulated by space
treaty. If you regard it on the end of flight, shuttle as
aircraft, then it would be other answer. But there are some
examples that if on this collision it will cause damage on
the earth the question what convention would be applied?

Aviation convention agreement such cases or space convention?
There are collision between two convention on the same cases.

This is a question of future consideration. I am not ready to
give you an answer since it is necessary to discuss this
interesting question. (Someone interjected, "Which prevails").

I don't think anybody knows which field will prevail. I don't
want to interfere, I am sorry Mr. Chairman, with the title of
your committee. It wouldn't be polite at the end of the meeting
to question the title of this committee. (Mr. Finch interjected:
"Ah, very good, thank you. Very clever.") You call this
aerospace so you have already the answer to the question. But
in your case it does mean that I agree with this. It means

53

that you think the aggregate that prevails here that air law
and space law is something general and I know that Professor
Mott many years ago had written an excellent book which is
also called Air Space Law, but in our country also all the
colleagues know that in our country the different approaches
prevail that these are two different branchs of international
law which have much in common but still nobody knows which
branch will prevail. Do you agree with me?

MR. FINCH: Right. Dr. Vereshchetin, let me reply to you that
the name of our committee used to be the committee on outer
space some years back and the existance of the standing
committee on aeronautical law of this association, of course,
they deal primarily with the law of air space, the atmosphere,
the ionosphere, and the stratosphere and we are concerned in
this committee really with the law of outer space so we do
recognize Dr. Vereshchetin, the distinction in law <u>in</u> which
you said because the jurisdiction of the different committees
of the assocation is very clear. The standing committee on
aeronautical law deals with the air law and near earth space and
I know the definition of outer space has never been defined
but we deal only with outer space wherever that may begin and
wherever the United Nations eventually decides that it begins.
Do we have any further questions for the panel? Hearing no
further questions I would like to ask - awful hot but go ahead.

54

**UNKNOWN SPEAKER:** I would like to know what effort is being undertaken in the Soviet Union and in the United States and possibly within the framework of McGill University Institute of Air and Space Law, to cultivate a body of law applicable to long duration space flights in the future. Type of body of law that will be applicable to the unique flight support environment and long duration space flight?

**MR. FINCH:** Alan, do you want to speak to that on long duration space flight?

**ALAN BEAN:** I could speak about long duration space flight, but I don't know a thing about long duration space flight law. So you will have to get somebody else to speak on that.

**NEIL HOSENBALL:** Nothing is being done because we have an awful lot to learn. We have had 52-day or 54-day missions or what 82-day missions. (Alan Bean was asked how long his flight was).

**ALAN BEAN:** We had a 59 and the Soviets just finished with a 63 and then we had an 84, so we are in the business of long duration space flight and no doubt before 10 years is out we are going to be in some sort of joint long duration space flights. So the need is going to exist. I should rephrase that and not say no doubt there will be but it is my opinion that it won't be too long before we are doing joint long duration space flights. There is a lot of research being done in habitation undersea as well as our long flight. And there is a lot of scientific material being developed to see the effect of, if you will, being in a close environment for a long period of time, whether in fact

55

[lc]

the situations are different if you are in a man flight for long periods of time, if there are stresses beyond those that you have on earth. There are some questions involved but I think the answer is that we are going to have to learn a lot more as to reasons why we should have special laws and perhaps like many laws are developed on earth, you respond to a need and when the need is identified then they grow that way. Until we know more I really don't know how to proceed in trying to develope special laws. I think we do need a lot more information about long man space flight. If there is no question as Dr. Vereshchetin said that if you are going to have space stations up there, and you are going to have different nationalities represented, you are going to have to develope a treaty which will lay out certain rules of law. Command and control is a major one - who will be in charge - and if somebody does get obstreperous who can control him and place him for safety of the crew and his own safety and those kind of things we are starting to think about. Now whether we are going beyond that we suspect with the space shuttle you can get somebody down in a hurry. You can get one up there pretty quick and bring him back pretty quick. So I think it's too early to say just what should be done.

MR. FINCH: I might, the Chair might exercise its perrogative, to comment that about 6 weeks ago, particularly for the information of the Soviet panelists, we held at Princeton University a conference for 3 1/2 days in which we discussed nothing but

56

space stations and we even discussed such exodic ideas as
10,000 people living at the Lagrange Point which is known
scientifically as L4 or L5 for extended periods of like four
to five years. This of course is tied up with research
manufacturing in outer space for practical benefits for mankind
on earth. So the question that Mr. Robinson presented, and he
is by the way the author of many distinguished articles in
the various international law journals on outer space, is not
one to be taken lightly. It is a very real question and it
belongs in the world of space pioneering. Do I hear any
further questions from any member of the panel. If not,
Cosmonaut Filipchenko would like to have your ear for a moment.

COSMONAUT FILIPCHENKO: HE REPLIED IN RUSSIAN.

MR. FINCH: Thank you very much. If I hear no further questions
from the floor, Neil.

NEIL HOSENBALL: Charles Rhyne was good enough to bring over
with him to the panel from the Postmaster General of the United
States a milestone collection of space accomplishments in
stamps and celebration of Apollo-Soyuz mission and it contains
a first day cover postmarked Cape Kennedy on the day of the
launch and I like to present those on behalf of the Postmaster
General to the members of the panel.

MR. FINCH: I might say that this brings a special smile to
your Chairman's face because Professor Zhukov walked into my
office in New York about 10 days ago and presented me with a

57

beautiful collection of stamps from the Soviet Union, so we
appreciate this thoughtfulness on part of NASA. Hearing no
further questions, I will declare the Presidential Panel
adjourned and remind you to return your simultaneous translations
instruments to the desk, please. Thank you all for coming.

58