Space Law Committee - Report to the Seventy-First Confernce of the International Law Association

MAUREEN WILLIAMS (PRESIDENT OF ILA SPACE LAW COMMITTEE)

Berlín, Alemania

Congreso; 71st Conference of the International Law Association, Berlin; 2004

International Law Association

At the beginning of the new century a more cautious approach was perceived within the doctrine on the basis that the political will to agree on an international convention was lacking. The possibility of a fresh discussion on the most controversial points related to remote sensing, before actually embarking in possible changes, began to gain support. This was, inter alia, the proposal of a Research Project conducted by the present writer from the University of Buenos Aires, focusing on commercial space activities and the value, as evidence in national and international courts, of the data collected by earth observation satellites. The Ibero American Institute of Air and Space Law (Madrid) has recently followed suit and again included this topic for its next Conference in October 2004 in Lima (Perú). The international arena is now entirely different from 1986, when the Principles were adopted, and we are light years ahead from 1967, when the Space Treaty became effective. Yet, world opinion remains divided. Technology has advanced dramatically in the last years and so has commercial space activity. It remains to be wondered why the model provided by satellite communications and the use of the geostationary orbit -an undoubted commercial activity from the early days- has not managed to inspire other international instruments relating to outer space. The present situation is clearly seen in the LSC of Copuos. On the one side stand the advocates of an international binding agreement on remote sensing and -in a more cautious approach- those who favour the review of state practices and the discussion of the Principles in new light, along the lines suggested by the delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece, Mexico and Perú at the 43rd Session of the Legal Subcommittee of Copuos in April 2004. At the other end of the spectrum are the United States and Japan who, based on the fact that a good number of developing countries are using the technology and that the Principles are operating well and should not be updated, stand for the principle of full freedom concerning the collection, distribution and commercialisation of data obtained by these means.