Proceedings of the 2 nd Author s Workshop Bonn, Germany, June 2009 Volumes II & III: The UN Treaties and GA Resolutions relating to Outer Space

Transcription

1 Proceedings of the 2 nd Author s Workshop Bonn, Germany, June 2009 Volumes II & III: The UN Treaties and GA Resolutions relating to Outer Space DLR STEPHAN HOBE BERNHARD SCHMIDT-TEDD KAI-UWE SCHROGL GÉRARDINE GOH Institute of Air and Space Law of the University of Cologne i Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.v. German Aerospace Center

2 ii

3 Stephan Hobe Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd Kai-Uwe Schrogl Gérardine Goh Proceedings of the Second Authors Workshop, Bonn, Germany, June 2009 for Volumes II & III: The United Nations Treaties and General Assembly Resolutions relating to Outer Space of the Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL) Institute of Air and Space Law of the University of Cologne iii Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.v. German Aerospace Center

4 Preface This document is based on the presentations and round-table discussions from the Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL) Second Authors Workshop held at the premises of the German Aerospace Center (DLR), in Bonn-Oberkassel, Germany, on June The meeting gathered thirty legal academicians, practitioners and scientists to discuss the application of the rule of law to activities in outer space, in particular the relevance and practicability of the United Nations Treaties and General Assembly Resolutions relating to Outer Space. DLR The Workshop was held in the framework of the Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL), a joint undertaking between the Institute of Air and Space Law (ILWR) of the University of Cologne and the DLR. This collaboration builds on the scientific proficiency of the Institute and the technical capacity of the DLR. Leveraging this unique partnership, the CoCoSL Project aims to provide a detailed commentary on the output of forty years of space law-making in the United Nations, in a format useful to academics, practitioners and technicians from the field of space law and beyond. The output of the CoCoSL Project comprises a three-volume, provision-by-provision Commentary on the five United Nations treaties on outer space and the relevant major UN General Assembly resolutions. The CoCoSL Project will take a closer look at the written norms of space law, taking into account space law provisions developed outside the United Nations, as well as the associated State practice, with a special emphasis on the European perspective of space activities and space law. The first Volume of the Commentary has been completed, and is slated for a September 2009 publication date, following on the heels of a very successful First Authors Workshop that was held in Vienna, Austria, on January Volume I of CoCoSL focused on the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 2222 (XXI) and opened for signature on 27 January It entered into force on 10 October 1967, and as of 01 January 2009, has received 100 ratifications and 27 signatures. Volume I of CoCoSL provides a historical overview of the Outer Space Treaty, including a provision-by-provision review as to its present-day applicability. Insights into the negotiations and drafting history, a commentary on the text of each Article, and future perspectives were also considered. A total of twenty Authors contributed to Volume I, with each substantive Article being discussed in a dedicated chapter. The second Volume will see a provision-by-provision Commentary of the four other United Nations Treaties relating to Outer Space: The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space ( Rescue Agreement, or ARRA); iv

5 The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects ( Liability Convention, or LIAB); The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space ( Registration Convention, or REG); and The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies ( Moon Agreement, or MOON). The Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly relating to outer space provide the focal point of the third Volume of the Commentary. Six major resolutions will be addressed, which are: The Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting (UN GA Resolution 37/92 of 10 December 1982) The Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space (UN GA Resolution 41/65 of 03 December 1986) The Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space (UN GA Resolution 47/68 of 14 December 1992) The Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of all States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries (UN GA Resolution 51/122 of 13 December 1996) Application of the concept of the "launching State" (UN GA Resolution 59/115 of 10 December 2004) Recommendations on enhancing the practice of States and international intergovernmental organisations in registering space objects (UN GA Resolution 62/101 of 17 December 2007). The Second Authors Workshop involved members of the Project s Scientific Advisory Board, its Editors, and Authors of Volumes II and III. Work on Volumes II and III is being undertaken simultaneously, with a publication date planned for Several people were instrumental in the organisation of the Second Workshop. Julia Dornbusch, Anne Hurtz, Erik Pellander, Majid Salehi and Kaniska Wiar of the ILWR provided the logistical support that ensured the flawless execution of the Workshop, and also acted as rapporteurs for the Workshop and Splinter Meetings thereafter. Oliver Huth and Julia Neumann provided invaluable assistance as rapporteurs to the first two sessions. We are grateful to the members of the Scientific Advisory Board and to the Authors who participated in the Workshop. It was with the insight, dedication and energy of all the participants that the three-day Workshop resulted in such fruitful and exciting scientific discussions. Stephan Hobe ILWR Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd DLR Kai-Uwe Schrogl ESPI Gérardine Goh DLR / ILWR v

6 Contributors Professor Dr. Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel Member of the Scientific Advisory Board Dr. Ulrike Bohlmann Legal Department, Office for Institutional Relations, European Space Agency Siège, 8 10 rue Mario Nikis, F Paris Cedex 15, France Ulrike.Bohlmann@esa.int Ms. Julia Dornbusch Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D Cologne, Germany juliadornbusch@gmx.de Associate Prof. Steven Freeland Faculty of Law, University of Western Sydney Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South Distribution Centre, NSW 1797, Australia s.freeland@uws.edu.au Professor Dr. Joanne Gabrynowicz Director, National Remote Sensing and Space Law Center University of Mississippi School of Law, University, MS 38677, United States of America jgabryno@olemiss.edu Dr. Gérardine Goh German Aerospace Center Königswinterer Straße , Bonn-Oberkassel, Germany Gerardine.Goh@dlr.de Prof. Ray Harris Executive Dean, Faculty of Social and Historical Science University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom r.harris@geog.ucl.ac.uk Mr. Niklas Hedman Office for Outer Space Affairs, United Nations at Vienna PO Box 600, 1400 Vienna, Austria niklas.hedman@unvienna.org Prof. Dr. Stephan Hobe Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D Cologne, Germany secretariat-hobe@uni-koeln.de Ms. Anne Hurtz Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D Cologne, Germany anne.hurtz@uni-koeln.de vi

7 Mr. Oliver Huth SES L-6815 Château de Betzdorf, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Luxemburg Associate Professor Dr. Ram Jakhu Institute of Air and Space Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University 3661 Peel Street, Montreal QC H3A 1X1, Canada Professor Armel Kerrest Faculté de droit de Bretagne Occidentale 34 route de Milizac, F Guilers, France Professor Vladimír Kopal Member of the Scientfic Advisory Board Professor V.S. Mani Director, School of Law and Governance Jaipur National University, Jagatpura, Jaipur , India Mr. Leopold Mantl European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry Unit H5 - GMES Bureau, B-1049 Brussels, BREY 09/226, Belgium leopold.mantl@ec.europa.eu Professor Dr. Irmgard Marboe Abteilung für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Universität Wien, Schottenbastei 10-16, Stiege 2, 5. Stock, A-1010 Vienna, Austria irmgard.marboe@univie.ac.at Mrs. Tanja Masson-Zwaan International Institute of Air and Space Law, Leiden University Steenschuur 25, PO Box 9520, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands t.l.masson@law.leidenuniv.nl Ms. Julia Neumann c/o Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D Cologne, Germany jneuman@hotmail.de Dr. Daniela Nießen German Aerospace Center Königswinterer Straße , Bonn-Oberkassel, Germany Daniela.Niessen@dlr.de Mr. Erik Pellander Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D Cologne, Germany erik.pellander@gmx.de vii

8 Dr. Nicola Rohner-Willsch German Aerospace Center Linder Höhe, Cologne, Germany Mr. Majid Salehi Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D Cologne, Germany Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd German Aerospace Center Königswinterer Straße , Bonn-Oberkassel, Germany Prof. Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl European Space Policy Institute Schwarzenbergplatz 6, A-1030 Vienna, Austria Prof. Dr. Lesley Jane Smith Weber-Steinhaus & Smith Baumwollboerse Zi 223, Wachtstrasse 17-24, Bremen, Germany / Ms. Olga Stelmakh Chief Specialist, International Relations Department National Space Agency of Ukraine, 8 Moskovska Str.,, Kyiv, Ukraine olga.stelmakh@nkau.gov.ua Dr. Leslie I. Tennen Law Offices of Sterns & Tennen 6903 West Thomas Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85033, United States of America ltennen@astrolaw.com Mr. Kanishka Wiar Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D Cologne, Germany wiar@gmx.de Professor Dr. Haifeng Zhao Professor and Dean, Harbin Institute of Technology School of Law 92 West Dazhi Street, P.O. Box 235, Harbin, , China zhaohaifeng_c@yahoo.com.cn viii

9 Contents Opening 3 The CoCoSL Project: Overview Presentation 5 Programme 14 Session 1: Authors Overview of Volume II Rescue Agreement 18 Presentation 18 Rapporteur s Notes Liability Convention 24 Presentation 24 Rapporteur s Notes Registration Convention 31 Presentation 31 Rapporteur s Notes Moon Agreement 38 Presentation 38 Rapporteur s Notes 43 Session 2: Authors Overview of Volume III Direct Broadcasting Principles 45 Presentation 45 Rapporteur s Notes Remote Sensing Principles 53 Presentation 53 Rapporteur s Notes Nuclear Power Sources 64 Presentation 64 Rapporteur s Notes Space Benefits Declaration 78 Presentation 78 Rapporteur s Notes Launching State Resolution 85 Presentation 85 Rapporteur s Notes Registration Resolution 90 Presentation 90 Rapporteur s Notes 95 Splinter Meetings: Working Group 1 96 Splinter Meetings: Working Group 2 97 Splinter Meetings: Working Group 3 98 Sessions 3 and 4: Report of Working Group Splinter Meetings Part A Volume III 99 1

10 Session 5: Report of Working Group Splinter Meetings Part B Volume II 100 Closing and Conclusions 101 Appendix A: Photographs 111 Appendix B: Volumes II and III Authors Guidelines 120 Appendix C: Volumes II and III Suggested Literature 126 General Literature Rescue Agreement Liability Convention Registration Convention Moon Agreement UNGAR Direct Broadcasting Principles UNGAR Remote Sensing Principles UNGAR Nuclear Power Sources Principles UNGAR Benefits Declaration UNGAR Concept of the Launching State UNGAR Practice of Registration Resolution 132 Appendix D: Citation Guidelines 133 Appendix E: CoCoSL Project Participants 140 2

11 Opening The Second Authors Workshop of the Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL) started punctually at noon on Thursday, 18 June 2009 with registration and a welcome luncheon for all participants at the premises of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) in Bonn-Oberkassel, Germany. The Editors, Prof. Dr. Stephan Hobe, Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd and Prof. Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl, were on hand to welcome the participants. The informal atmosphere created by the buffet luncheon allowed participants, most of whom were acquainted, to renew working relationships and catch up on recent developments. Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd, as representative of the host German Aerospace Center, welcomed the participants to Bonn. He spoke of the importance of the cooperation between the German Aerospace Center and the Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne, and the many years of history between the two institutions. He also highlighted the significance of the development of space law and policy. Dr. Schmidt-Tedd concluded with the hope that the participants will find the discussions to be fruitful and thought-provoking, and that the Workshop will set the tone for the further progress of the CoCoSL Project. Prof. Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl then addressed the participants, welcoming them to the Workshop as an Editor of the Project. He introduced the Project format and participants, noting that many of the authors for Volumes II and III of the Commentary were also important contributors to the first Volume of the Commentary. He noted that there would be a change in the format of the cooperation. The first Volume took a chapter-per-provision approach in commenting on the Outer Space Treaty. However, Volumes II and III will take a Partby-Part format, with each part commenting on a different UN document. Prof. Dr. Stephan Hobe, acting in his capacity as academic director of DLR the Project, then took the podium to give a brief scientific introduction to the Project. In addition to the high scientific standards of the Project, Prof. Dr. Hobe also underlined the importance of sound research and critical analysis so as to ensure a reliable and practicable commentary to the written norms of space law. Prof. Dr. Hobe also asked authors to raise any contentious issues arising in the course of the preparations of their contributions, especially in the case where there may be conflicting opinions between authors. He emphasised the importance of a coherent, scientific output, and also asked authors to raise any issues relating to logistics, scheduling difficulties or lack of resources. Prof. Dr. Hobe then handed the floor over to Dr. Gérardine Goh for an overview presentation of the CoCoSL Project. Dr. Gérardine Goh, as Project Manger and Assistant Editor of the first Volume of the Commentary, then gave a short status overview and introduction to the second phase of the Project. 3

12 Welcome Address: Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd, Editor, CoCoSL Distinguished members of the Scientific Advisory Board, Prof. Kopal, Prof. Böckstiegel, authors and friends, A very warm welcome here in Bonn on the premises of the DLR Space Agency. I address a particular thank to these participants who came here from far away. Despite the smallness of our group, most regions are represented. This broad regional representation is a special concern of our project. It has now been one and a half year that our first authors workshop following an invitation by ESPI took place in Vienna. The crucial point is that today the plans of that time have been implemented and Volume 1 has been delivered to the publisher this being a prerequisite for the publication in time at the IAC Congress This second CoCoSL authors workshop is on the one hand the kick off meeting for Volumes 2 and 3 and at the same time a sort of midterm review concerning the experience made up so far. What is exceptional about our CoCoSL project is the format of a legal commentary. There are a lot of publications and interpretations of the Outer Space Treaties, among them as well very many individual perspectives. By choosing deliberately the format of a legal commentary we wanted to contribute to a most authentic interpretation of the UN Treaties and underline this as well by the format. Obviously, a commentary is not an anthology of eccentric interpretations. At the beginning of our project, the format was not familiar to everybody. However, the final product of Volume 1 shows conclusive proof that the efforts have been rewarded. We should take advantage of the next days to exchange detailed experiences in order to be better prepared for Volumes 2 and 3. Drawing on very different experiences in our international authors team, there will be a lot of topics of conversation. The common belief in intending to make a best possible contribution to the adequate interpretation of the UN Space Treaties will be crucial as a result. This is today of special importance in view of the (protagonists ) alternation of the generations as only very few remain having a direct own impression of the negotiations of the UN Space Treaties. I think all of us are aware of the fact that the consensus forming the basis of the UN Space Treaties could hardly be reached if the treaties were renegotiated today. Stressing the value of the basic principles contained in the UN Treaties is all the more important in the process of enhancing space law. Everybody approaching solutions of current problems in accordance with this basic conviction will be pleasantly surprised how much perspective substance is contained in the UN Treaties. Dealing with Soft Law in Volume 3 will give an opportunity to look into the difficulties with respect to the enhancement of the Treaties. The program of the workshop is arranged so as to allow ample opportunity to informal talks as well. I hope you will enjoy your stay here in Bonn and take many positive impressions of the region back home. I wish all participants every success and in this workshop. 4

13 The CoCoSL Project: Overview Presentation By Dr. Gérardine Meishan Goh, DLR, Germany 5

14 6

15 7

16 8

17 9

18 10

19 11

20 12

21 13

22 Programme DAY 1: THURSDAY 18 JUNE :00 Registration / Lunch 12:00 Welcome Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI) 12:30 The CoCoSL Project Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne) Session 1: Authors Overview of Volume 2 Chairpersons: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (CoCoSL SAB) Rapporteur: Oliver Huth (SES Astra) 13: Rescue Agreement (ARRA) DLR Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Andre Farand (ESA, in abstentia), Irmgard Marboe (University of Vienna), Julia Neumann (University of Cologne) 13: Liability Convention (LIAB) Armel Kerrest (ECSL / University of Brest), Sergio Marchisio (ECSL / University of Rome, La Sapienza, in abstentia), Lesley Jane Smith (University of Lüneburg) 14: Registration Convention (REG) Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Ulrike M. Bohlmann (ESA), Natalya Malysheva (University of Kiev, in abstentia), Olga S. Stelmakh (National Space Agency of Ukraine), Leslie Tennen (Sterns and Tennen) DLR LR 14: Moon Agreement (MOON) Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Ram Jakhu (McGill University), Steven Freeland (University of Western Sydney) Session 2: Authors Overview of Volume 3 Chairpersons: Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Vladimír Kopal (CoCoSL SAB) Rapporteur: Julia Neumann (University of Cologne) 15: Direct Broadcasting Principles Marco Ferrazzani (ESA, in abstentia), Oliver Huth (SES Astra) 16: Remote Sensing Principles Joanne Gabrynowicz (University of Mississippi), Leopold Mantl (European Commission), Ray Harris (University College London), Balakista Reddy (NALSAR University of Law, in abstentia) 16: Nuclear Power Sources Principles Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne), Tanja Masson-Zwaan (Leiden University) 17: Space Benefits Declaration Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), V.S. Mani (Jaipur National University), Haifeng Zhao (Harbin Institute of Technology) 14

23 17: Resolution on the Definition of the Launching State Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Frank Riemann (ESA, in abstentia) 18: Registration Resolution Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Niklas Hedman (UN OOSA) 19:45 Workshop Dinner DAY 2: FRIDAY 19 JUNE :00 12:30 Working Group Splinter Meetings Working Group 1: Chairpersons: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (REG / Reg. Resolution), Vladimír Kopal (CoCoSL SAB) Rapporteur: Anne Hurtz, Kanishka Wiar Members: Ulrike M. Bohlmann (REG), Olga S. Stelmakh (REG), Leslie Tennen (REG), Niklas Hedman (Registration Resolution), Joanne Gabrynowicz (RS), Leopold Mantl (RS), Ray Harris (RS) Working Group 2: Chairpersons: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ARRA / Launching State), Gérardine Goh (NPS) Rapporteur: Julia Dornbusch Members: Irmgard Marboe (ARRA), Julia Neumann (ARRA), Armel Kerrest (LIAB), Lesley Jane Smith (LIAB), Tanja Masson-Zwaan (NPS) Working Group 3: Chairperson: Stephan Hobe (MOON / Space Benefits), Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (CoCoSL SAB) Rapporteur: Majid Salehi Members: Ram Jakhu (MOON), Steven Freeland (MOON), V.S. Mani (Space Benefits), Haifeng Zhao (Space Benefits), Oliver Huth (DBS) 12:30 Lunch 14:00 15:30 Splinter Group Meetings Session 3: Volume 3 Working Group Results (Part One) Chairperson: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Vladimír Kopal (CoCoSL SAB) Rapporteur: Anne Hurtz (University of Cologne) 16: Direct Broadcasting Principles Marco Ferrazzani (ESA, in abstentia), Oliver Huth (SES Astra) DLR 16: Remote Sensing Principles Joanne Gabrynowicz (University of Mississippi), Leopold Mantl (European Commission), Ray Harris (University College London), Balakista Reddy (NALSAR University of Law, in abstentia) 16: Nuclear Power Sources Principles Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne), Tanja Masson-Zwaan (Leiden University) DLR 15

24 Session 4: Volume 3 Working Group Results (Part Two) Chairpersons: Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR) Rapporteur: Anne Hurtz (University of Cologne) 16: Space Benefits Declaration Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), V.S. Mani (Jaipur National University), Haifeng Zhao (Harbin Institute of Technology) 17: Resolution on the Definition of the Launching State Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Frank Riemann (ESA, in abstentia) 17: Registration Resolution Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Niklas Hedman (UN OOSA) 17:30 Discussion: Wrap-Up of Volume 3 Led by Session Chairs DLR 19:00 Workshop Dinner 2 DAY 3: SATURDAY 20 JUNE 2009 Session 5: Volume 2 Working Group Results Chairpersons: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne) Rapporteur: Anne Hurtz, Kanishka Wiar (both University of Cologne) 09: Rescue Agreement (ARRA) Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Andre Farand (ESA), Irmgard Marboe (University of Vienna), Julia Neumann (University of Cologne) 10: Liability Convention (LIAB) Armel Kerrest (ECSL / University of Brest), Sergio Marchisio (ECSL / University of Rome, La Sapienza, in abstentia), Lesley Jane Smith (University of Lüneburg) 10: Registration Convention (REG) Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Ulrike M. Bohlmann (ESA), Natalya Malysheva (University of Kiev, in abstentia), Olga S. Stelmakh (National Space Agency of Ukraine), Leslie Tennen (Sterns and Tennen) 11: Moon Agreement (MOON) Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Ram Jakhu (McGill University), Steven Freeland (University of Western Sydney) 11:30 Conclusion Discussion led by Session Chairs, Rapporteur: Kanishka Wiar (University of Cologne) 12:30 Working Lunch 16

25 Session 1: Authors Overview of Volume II Thursday, 10 January 2008 Moderators: Professor Dr. Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel Member of the Scientific Advisory Board, CoCoSL Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd Editor, CoCoSL, and Head, Business and Legal Support: Space Agency, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Germany DLR Rapporteur: Mr. Oliver Huth Legal Counsel, SES 13: Rescue Agreement (ARRA) DLR Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Andre Farand (ESA, in abstentia), Irmgard Marboe (University of Vienna), Julia Neumann (University of Cologne) 13: Liability Convention (LIAB) Armel Kerrest (ECSL / University of Brest), Sergio Marchisio (ECSL / University of Rome, La Sapienza, in abstentia), Lesley Jane Smith (University of Lüneburg) 14: Registration Convention (REG) Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Ulrike M. Bohlmann (ESA), Natalya Malysheva (University of Kiev, in abstentia), Olga S. Stelmakh (National Space Agency of Ukraine), Leslie Tennen (Sterns and Tennen) LR 14: Moon Agreement (MOON) Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Ram Jakhu (McGill University), Steven Freeland (University of Western Sydney) 17

26 1968 Rescue Agreement Presentation 18

27 19

28 20

29 21

30 22

31 Rapporteur s Notes (Oliver Huth) The authors overview on the planned article regarding this UN Treaty was given by Ms Julia Neumann (University of Cologne). Julia Neumann stresses that this Treaty was the first after the OST and that its conclusion had been accelerated by casualties (death of astronauts) in The authors will concentrate on the two major subject-matters dealt with under the ARRA : personnel of a spacecraft and space objects. Julia Neumann points out that the ARRA foresees regulation regarding cost bearing for the return of space objects, but not regarding the rescue of personnel. The reasons of the non-regulation of this topic might be an area of further in-depth analysis. The authors will attempt to clarify the reasons for this potential gap. Further subject to discussions will be the definition of personnel of a spacecraft, especially delimiting it against the use of the word astronaut. The team will also focus on the term launching authority (as opposed to Launching State ). The relevance and impact of the ARRA on the ISS IGA will be analysed. Finally, attention will also be given on the benefits that developing countries derive from the ARRA. 23

32 1972 Liability Convention Presentation 24

33 25

34 26

35 27

36 28

37 29

38 Rapporteur s Notes (Oliver Huth) Authors: Armel Kerrest (University of Brest), Sergio Marchisio (ECSL/University of Rome, La Sapienza), Lesley Jane Smith (University of Lüneburg) The overview on the article is presented by Lesley Jane Smith (University of Lüneburg) and Armel Kerrest (ECSL/ University of Brest). The authors highlight the importance of the genesis of the Liability Convention (was already being developed during the negotiations of the OST). They inform that they will focus on the fault/ non-fault dichotomy of the liability regime introduced and will reflect on its appropriateness. Another area of legal analysis will be the issue of applicability of the OST where the Liability Convention does not apply. The topic of apportionment of fault/damages in the case of joint launches as well as with regard to third party states will also be analyzed. The relation and interaction with national space laws constitutes another section of the article. The increasing number of private-lead launching activities and the existing State liability regime are seemingly distant from one another: this commercialization aspect and its impact on the Liability Convention (as well as related enforcement issues) will also be focused on. Finally, the authors point out that the Iridium collision in Jan/Feb 2009 will certainly draw increased attention to their chapter (and thus, the Iridium case will be analyzed to the extent information is available). 30

39 1975 Registration Convention Presentation 31

40 32

41 33

42 34

43 35

44 36

45 Rapporteur s Notes (Oliver Huth) Authors: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Natalya Malysheva (University of Kiev), Olga Stelmakh (National Space Agency of Ukraine) Leslie Tennen (Sterns and Tennen) The article overview is given by Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR). Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd outlines the structure of the planned article, which follows the structure (I) Introduction, (II) Negotiation and Drafting History, (III) Interpretation of Provisions, (IV) Future Perspectives. The basis of the REG, Article VIII OST and the 1961 UN GA Resolution, are of great importance for the history and genesis of the REG. National registries and State registration practices will be presented and analyzed. In relation to such practice, the question of non-acceptance of the REG and the reasons behind such refusal will be clarified. The special case of IGO registries and the problems/issues related to such a registration constitute another area to which the contribution will draw special attention to. 37

46 1979 Moon Agreement Presentation 38

47 39

48 40

49 41

50 42

51 Rapporteur s Notes (Oliver Huth) Authors: Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Ram Jakhu (McGill University), Steven Freeland (University of Western Australia) The presentation of the overview on this article is given by Prof Hobe (University of Cologne). He begins with stating that especially this treaty had been subject to misuse by propaganda in its early days. The agreement is now experiencing a revival, given the new interest by States and their space agencies in the exploration of the moon. The authors of this article will analyze the hesitance of the industrialized nations with regard to ratifying this treaty. Further, the concept of nonappropriation will be commented. In addition, the ideas of non use of force, environmental protection and common heritage of mankind will be put into perspective with regard to the Moon Agreement. Art d) of the Moon Agreement and its relation/potential conflict with the OST will be examined. Finally, comparative analyses will be contemplated with the Antarctica Treaty, the Law of the Sea Convention as well as with the ITU Constitution Governing the Geostationary Orbit. 43

52 Session 2: Authors Overview of Volume III Thursday, 18 June 2009 Moderators: Professor Dr. Vladimír Kopal Member of the Scientific Advisory Board, CoCoSL Professor Dr. Stephan Hobe Editor, CoCoSL and Director, Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne, Germany Rapporteur: Ms. Julia Neumann Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne, Germany DLR 15: Direct Broadcasting Principles Marco Ferrazzani (ESA, in abstentia), Oliver Huth (SES Astra) 16: Remote Sensing Principles Joanne Gabrynowicz (University of Mississippi), Leopold Mantl (European Commission), Ray Harris (University College London), Balakista Reddy (NALSAR University of Law, in abstentia) 16: Nuclear Power Sources Principles Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne), Tanja Masson-Zwaan (Leiden University) 17: Space Benefits Declaration Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), V.S. Mani (Jaipur National University), Haifeng Zhao (Harbin Institute of Technology) 17: Resolution on the Definition of the Launching State Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Frank Riemann (ESA, in abstentia) 18: Registration Resolution Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Niklas Hedman (UN OOSA) 18:30 End of Session 19:45 Workshop Dinner Till late Weinrestaurant Zur Lese, Adenauerallee 37, Bonn 44

53 1982 Direct Broadcasting Principles Presentation 45

54 46

55 47

56 48

57 49

58 50

59 Rapporteur s Notes (Julia Neumann) 1. Presentation Oliver Huth started his presentation by giving an overview in which he summarized that there are 15 Principles, with Principle 1 being the most important one. He asked for specific feedback on Principle 4 and pointed to state responsibility being dealt with in Principle 8. The contribution will be considering principle by principle, the division of labour still having to be determined. He also emphasised that there are various actors in direct broadcasting by satellites (DBS), such as satellite operators, and that SES was created only 3 years after the DBS Principles. He indicated that the principle of free flow of information was very important to operators such as SES. As to the chapter structure, the author pointed to the issue of different interests between developing states and industrial states. Also, the meaning of eg TV broadcasting should be clarified, and whether internet via satellite can be regarded as such. Huth indicated that cross-references with other UN treaties, or treaty provisions, would be included. Moreover, reference would be made to conflicts with legislation enacted subsequently to the DBS Principles, such as by the Council of Europe and EU legislation. Specifically, he asked whether there existed similar American agreements. Subsequently, the author presented definitions to be agreed upon among authors, such as - broadcasting state - receiving state - international TV DBS. In this respect, Armel Kerrest made the remark that reference should be made to Article VI OST, and Tanja Masson-Zwaan that reference must be made to human rights. Lastly, Huth requested specific feedback on the questions of on which other legal conventions and provisions the authors on the DBS Principles should focus, and whether the subject was already dealt with to some extent in Vol. I. 2. Discussion V. S. Mani started the discussion by pointing to a previous convention on programmes carrying of Joanne Gabrynowicz pointed out that there was an equivalent to the EC telecoms TV frontier directive in the US, and that this was an enormous area of law. She continued by asking to what degree other countries should be brought in. Of all topics, she mentioned, the DBS Principles were influenced by an enormous volume of extra-space law rules. Huth acknowledged this remark and emphasised the need to prioritize in this respect. In the same line, Jakhu commented that there was an enormous amount of documents that should be consulted. He also raised the issue of what can be called space law. Specifically in regard to DBS, he pointed out that the meaning of broadcast had to be defined. The whole ITU regulatory framework, esp. the Radio Regulations and the 2007 amendments hereto (Art. 8 or 15, which defines radio broadcasting) had to be considered. As to the meaning of direct broadcasting, the change of its meaning over time had to be taken into account (ITU-RR; special ITU agreements dealing specifically with satellite broadcasting). Overall, Jakhu was of the view that the ITU regulations were extremely important. Moreover, he pointed to the 1986 Broadcasting Convention and the Brussels Convention. Especially in Europe, legislation with regard to piracy stations should be considered. Jakhu emphasized the importance of Principles 13, 14, 15, and 10 of the DBS Principles. With regard to certain aspects, esp. the exact meaning of the term unavoidable spillover, he indicated the need to go beyond space law. Kai-Uwe Schrogl in turn made some comments on the context of the DBS Principles. In that respect, he outlined the calls for a New World Information and Communication Order (NWIO), which was fought for in UNESCO, ITU and the UN system as a whole. In the ITU framework, WARC 1977 and 1983 were of specific importance. He thus suggested taking a look on how the work on the DBS 51

60 Principles reflects the already existing agreement reached by ITU in these conferences. Moreover, he pointed out that the text of the provisions was interesting, since the terms shall and should are used in different principles. With regard to State practice, he suggested taking a look at cases of deliberate interferences with regard to satellite transmissions. Also Schrogl emphasized that the Chapter on DBS Principles was the place in the Commentary where the regime established by the ITU should be dealt with. Joanne Gabrynowicz drew attention to the fact that DBS was the only set of principles not adopted without vote, but with countervotes and 13 abstentions. She indicated that this should be acknowledged in the contribution. Subsequently, Stephan Hobe asked whether the DBS Principles were still relevant. In this respect, he pointed to the fact that they had resulted from old political tensions and posed the question of whether they were outdated. He proposed to examine their relevance. Vladimir Kopal agreed that the DBS Principles should be considered as an outcome of the past. But it should also be acknowledged that there was not only a strict wall between the East and the West, but also between the West and developing countries the Group of 77 for instance had a unanimous position. Kopal also pointed out that within UNCOPUOS the adoption procedure was not violated, because consensus could not be reached up to the last minute and the Group of 77 decided to go straight forward to the General Assembly (GA), without agreement in UNCOPUOS. The UNGA then decided to vote, not COPUOS, in accordance with its rules of procedure. Ram Jakhu mentioned that the trend today is to use fixed satellite services (FSS) for broadcasting services. This poses serious practical problems. He disagreed with Hobe in that he considered the DBS Principles as still very important today, even more so than in He pointed to a misconception: while there were differences between East and West, and developing countries, also the West was not agreed. Moreover, he indicated that this was the second time after the UNESCO Convention that a lot of countries refused to acknowledge the freedom of broadcasting Steven Freeland made the remark that the freedom of broadcasting in customary law refers essentially to terrestrial broadcasting. The paradigm of broadcasting (including satellite broadcasting) is changing, however, the information flow going no longer in just one direction. Therefore, some of the fundamental arguments have changed and are not valid anymore. Huth commented that there also is the issue of landing rights, eg India and Mexico, and that control mechanisms States try to employ could be considered. In this respect, Freeland referred to the example of Hong Kong and China. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd recommended to take the non-implemented DBS Principles, which had been adopted without consensus in the UNCOPUOS, as an example for the value of the consensus principle. In light of the negative experience with decisions adopted without consensus a particular section could be dedicated to the general working procedure and the consensus principle within the LSC because this procedure turned out to be an effective instrument for the implementation of UNCOPUOS decisions. The example of the DBS Principles illustrates that deviating from this practice is counterproductive to the effectiveness of the body. V. S. Mani came back to the controversial background of the Principles and pointed to a contribution on the subject by R J Lee and S Freeland, and an article by Bin Cheng on the 1963 Space Declaration as customary international law. He also drew attention to the ICJ Nicaragua case, in which the ICJ regarded the Friendly Relations Declaration as opinio iuris and thus as part of customary international law. 52

61 1986 Remote Sensing Principles Presentation 53

62 54

63 55

64 56

65 57

66 58

67 59

68 60

69 61

70 Rapporteur s Notes (Julia Neumann) 1. Presentation Joanne Gabrynowicz started by providing the tentative work distribution. Subsequently, she gave a chapter overview, beginning with the Chapter s introduction. She made reference to the potential Landsat commercialization and emphasized the significance of the Resolution, which was the first to be adopted by consensus after Resolution 1962 of With regard to the negotiations and drafting history, she pointed out that this was still to be determined by the travaux préparatoires, by which the authors would try to establish the context of the Principles. As to the interpretation, it would be necessary to provide definitions and compare them with national statutes. Reference would also be made to subsequent State practice. Gabrynowicz expects Articles IV and XII to require work with a bulk of material. She also mentioned that the term open sky as used by commentators in the previous session, applies only to airplanes. Moreover, she noted that Articles X and XI are of increased relevance. The authors would include empirical material. As to future perspectives, she indicated that the authors would refer to possible developments in the law (esp. at national level), as well as to the present and future applicability of the Resolution (esp. with regard to protection of the environment and humankind). The possible effects on new developments in the field would also be addressed, particularly on commercialization, private spaceflight, national security and international peace. As to the research, emphasis would be placed on the travaux préparatoires, with most of the discussions having taken place between 1983 and An important question to be raised was the line between law and policy. To this end, data policies such as that of ESA, WMO, and EUMETSAT would be taken into account. 2. Discussion Leslie Tannen started the discussion by asking how Google Earth fitted in. Gabrynowicz replied that Google will post everything that it finds, and that the biggest issue was whether it could be used as evidence in court. Ray Harris pointed out that it mainly depended on the data policies of the providers. Niklas Hedman drew attention to the fact that the issue is still very sensitive and very difficult whenever mentioned in UNCOPUOS. Personally, he would like to see it implemented in a Treaty, and also some States would still like to have it as an agenda item. The situation is similar for the DBS Principles, although here only one State pushes for it to be put on the agenda. Steven Freeland disagreed with Harris on Google Earth and provided an example of where they had to withdraw a page on Amsterdam for privacy reasons. Regarding the climate change discussions, he asked whether the use of remote sensing technology didn t impact the law in so far. Harris replied that the term protection of environment was being used, which has expanded hugely and could still be extended. Gabrynowicz added that it depends also on whether climate and environment are perceived as the same and gave the example of the IAEA. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd emphasized that high resolution data is a sensitive subject and is being dealt with by national laws. Regarding the structure of the Chapter, he recommended that it should be pointed out that Principles 2 and 3 reflected a contrast. The current questions should fit into the structure of the text. Gérardine Goh made the remark that an operator did not just sell pictures but usually would create products out of it. She asked whether under the Principles, had such company the obligation to provide images? Gabrynowicz pointed to Principle 1 and mentioned that one of the biggest issues was where to find the line. Vladimir Kopal made two remarks: firstly, that in the LSC the Remote Sensing Principles were often mentioned by the representatives of the sensed countries (eg Brazil), which requested actual access to the data and to the processed information, but that there were different viewpoints. 62

71 Secondly, he pointed out that the term open skies relates to air law, not space law and that there was a clear provision in this respect in Art. I (2) OST. Kai-Uwe Schrogl mentioned that the set of principles is only laid down in a UNGA resolution, which is very specific and was at the time very relevant. However, the area covered had seen a huge development (monitoring, privacy etc.). He thus asked how these issues will be covered in the future. He raised the issue that UNCOPUOS was not the correct forum, the issue being too sensitive. That raised the question of how to deal with these issues, in which forum and in which format? He gave the example of the Charter on Space Major Disasters which is not a UN instrument so that there were other fora on the global level that could be used. Thus, ways and means exit to deal with these issues outside the UN system. Leopold Mantl added that there were international satellite initiatives. To this end, meteorological works and international initiatives (eg climate change research) would be considered. Harris provided the example of Nigeria, which requested data access for free so long as they were not themselves in the position to provide data, but had difficulties with providing data for free once in the position themselves. Hedman wondered whether it should at all be proposed within COCOSL where, ie in which forum, the issues should be dealt with. Rather, remote sensing data was being increasingly used, and it would be interesting to see whether ICJ decisions and further case law used such data. He asked whether that would be taken into account. Stephan Hobe pointed to the work by the international Law Association (ILA) and the dissertation by Jana Hettling on the use of satellite imagery for verification and enforcement of public international law. Gabrynowicz concluded that she so far did not see evidence on this topic. 63

72 1992 Nuclear Power Sources Presentation 64

73 65

74 66

75 67

76 68

77 69

78 70

79 71

80 72

81 73

82 74

83 75

84 76

85 Rapporteur s Notes (Julia Neumann) 1. Presentation Tanja Masson-Zwaan started by providing an overview of their Chapter. She then pointed to specific issues for the introduction, which clearly focussed on the COSMOS-954 incident as the origin of the NPS Principles. Here, a Canada-led group of States had at the time taken the initiative. Reference would be made to the Preamble and the UN Charter. No reference, however, would be made to Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty (OST); rather, it is assumed that the NPS purposes are peaceful. The Preamble of the Principles recognizes the usefulness of NPS, but only for a nonpropulsive purpose (ie general electrical power on board). The Preamble also foresees revision of the Principles every two years. Taking a look at the several Principles, Masson-Zwaan pointed to Principle 2, which contains terms such as launching State and State launching. Principle 3 appears most complicated, since it contains many imprecise terms. Principle 11 contains the already mentioned revision clause. In practice, regarding safety assessments the US has twice and Russia once reported to the UN Secretary-General. This shows that States are complying with the Principles despite its lack of legally binding force. Regarding national research on space debris, NPS and other related subjects, Masson-Zwaan pointed to the Office for Outer Space Affairs (OOSA) index, and national reporting. As to the actual revision, she took notice of the fact that in the UNCOPUOS LSC there still has been no review after 17 years, despite the issue being on the agenda as a single item. The UNCOPUOS Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (STSC) however provided an example of outside bodies working together, esp. the STSC/IAEA Safety Framework, which referred also to propulsion. Remaining issues were the follow-up, especially in the LSC, and whether the principles will be reviewed. Also the question remains of whether they will be extended to propulsion. 2. Discussion Ram Jakhu underlined the serious definition problem, which was different from other Chapters and should be paid attention to. He also asked whether there have so far really been only three launches with a nuclear record, and what the State practice was in this respect. Also, he posed the question of whether the Principles can be considered customary international law. Goh drew attention to the fact that the existing recording by States was due to planetary protection ideas and not due to taking into account legal principles. Jakhu was of the view that it would still be useful to include a discussion on customary international law. With regard to Principle 3 one could consider to what extent general international law is consistent. In respect of State responsibility it was for instance not clear whether the genuine link is a necessity in this context. Hobe pointed out that the meaning of damage has been enlarged, including damage to the environment, being recognized for the first time. He thought it necessary to make mention of such development. Kopal had two remarks to make: first, Principle 3 (2) and (3) emphasise that it was for the first time that the term sufficiently high orbit was included and defined. Second, principles and declarations usually include legally relevant principles different from other UNGA resolutions. These may become legally binding on the basis of customary international law, which he considered should be mentioned. 77

86 1996 Space Benefits Declaration Presentation 78

87 79

88 80

89 81

90 82

91 Rapporteur s Notes (Julia Neumann) 1. Presentation Also Hobe started out with an overview of the Chapter and subsequently came to speak of the introduction, which would be characterized by the consequent delusion of hard law by soft law, the underlying reason being highly questionable. It would in any case be pointed out that there was a crisis of law-making after the Moon Agreement (MOON). Regarding the legislative history, it would be outlined that the agenda setting in UNCOPUOS was difficult and that there existed different proposals at the time. He considered the interpretation of the provisions as the crucial point. Pursuant to paragraph 2, it is up to States to determine their cooperation. This, Hobe mentioned, was in line with the developments in international economic law (WTO law) and resulted in a freedom of (developed) States to determine how and with whom to share. For an evaluation of the Space Benefits Declaration, it was interesting to note that it was adopted by consensus, that it was of relevance for the interpretation of Article I (1) OST, and that it served as subsequent State practice to Article I OST. Regarding future perspectives, he posed the question of whether the Declaration meant an end to the development struggle for space activities. Mani added that, from a legal point of view, the relationship between the Space Benefits Declaration and the treaty framework was not entirely clear. The Space Benefits Declaration of 1996 had been in the pipeline ever since the UNISPACE II recommendations, the follow-up of which continued through the 1990s. Naturally, States finally wanted to have some resulting document. He pointed to the historical developments with the Cold War and developing countries realizing in the 1970s that there were benefits from outer space activities (satellite communications and remote sensing). Now there are regular programmes, including space applications, where developing countries would like to have a share. He was of the view that the contribution should highlight this, and also the fact that many of the provisions come from the OST. Particularly, the declaration still uses the term mankind. The wording on fair terms in paragraph 2 comes from the Remote Sensing Principles. Even if it is no legal document, the Declaration is still a political document. The role of the UN in this field should be highlighted. Also, countries like India have taken steps (remote sensing centre; institute for space technology). He added that a closer look at space-faring nations and their actions would be taken. In that respect, he mentioned the UNISPACE III Declaration, the Millennium Declaration, and the 2005 Summit Declaration. Moreover, Haifeng Zhao made brief comments. First, he pointed out that there should be many cross-references in this chapter, which would find particular attention. Also, when interpreting, attention would be paid to the actual cooperation activities in outer space, eg regional space cooperation, such as ESA and the newly established Asia-Pacific space cooperation organisation, but also to obstacles for international cooperation, such as MTCI. 2. Discussion Hedman asked why there is a reference to the Space Declaration in the Preamble of the Space Benefits Declaration. Moreover, he indicated that it would be interesting to look at regional cooperation and evolutions, which may be very similar to ESA (eg fair return). Hobe followed up that point and raised doubts as to the indicative value of the ESA-Convention. Schrogl reflected on Hobe s evaluation and agreed that a UN Resolution could not be regarded as an authoritative interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty (here related to Article I). That was not only true for the Space Benefits Declaration but also for the Launching State Resolution. Also, he indicated that UNGA resolutions were not a proper way of developing space law further, but one needed to acknowledge that UNCOPUOS could not work in more decisive ways during the last 83

92 years. As to the negotiation history, Schrogl pointed out that the basic question had emerged from UNISPACE II, where Ambassador Gonzalez (Chile) had raised the idea of a New World Order, which led to the idea for a draft resolution pursued in a UNCOPUOS LSC working group. The content of the draft principles very much related to the New World Order issues. When in the 1990s it became clear that a resolution would not find consensus, esp. Germany and France proposed to find a solution. At the same time, the idea of UNISPACE III emerged, so that there is a clear linkage. All this led to Principle 2, which included the freedom of cooperation but was not introduced brutally. For the first time, commercial cooperation is in principle accepted. He was of the view that in any case the UN system, but also national agencies, should consider space applications as development tools. Moreover, he highlighted that the Declaration mentions regional cooperation for the first time. All these, he admitted, were policy-related aspects and only to some extent relevant for international law. 84

93 2004 Launching State Resolution Presentation 85

94 86

95 87

96 88

97 Rapporteur s Notes (Julia Neumann) 1. Presentation Before going into any detail, Schrogl emphasized once more that the Resolution did not provide an interpretation or definition of the term launching State, but focussed only on the concept of a launching State, thereby trying to push forward a few aspects. In the introduction, he said, the authors would explain the context, especially regarding the commencement of the debate. Schrogl here made reference to a presentation by Armel Kerrest at the IISL Colloquium in As to the significance of the Resolution, he indicated that it served as a tool to make private space activities an issue on the global level, in particular with regard to national space legislation and the transfer of ownership in orbit. An authoritative interpretation of the term launching State was not allowed. Schrogl moved on to describe the negotiation history and indicated cross-references to Article VIII OST, Article I Liability Convention (LIAB) and Article I Registration Convention (REG), and the term space objects. The authors will take a look at the travaux préparatoires and reflect on the context with a multi-year programme. Regarding future perspectives, he outlined possible developments in the law, such as (1) the call to enact national space legislation, (2) inter party agreements (Article V(2) LIAB) and how these are dealt with in practice, (3) transfer in orbit, and (4) harmonization of national space legislations ( flag of convenience ). Regarding possible overlaps, he pointed to the term launching authority as used in the Rescue Agreement (ARRA). 2. Discussion Kopal commented that it was more difficult to reach consensus on the Launching State Resolution than on the Registration Resolution. Schrogl pointed out once more that the Chapter would not provide a definition of the launching State but would only deal with the subject matter of the Resolution, and no definition was included there. 89

98 2007 Registration Resolution Presentation 90

99 91

100 92

101 93

102 94

103 Rapporteur s Notes (Julia Neumann) 1. Presentation Schmidt-Tedd first gave an overview and presented the draft structure of the Chapter. The division of workload still had to be determined. Regarding interpretation of the provisions, he indicated that the Preamble reflected the motivation of the drafters, ie to effect comprehensive registration. Moreover, new item subjects were included in a sort of back up solution, such as a change in supervision and the proposal for a formal harmonization. Cross-references would include Article VIII and COCOSL Volume II (esp. Articles VI-VIII REG). Subsequently, he indicated several points for discussion, such as: - solutions for the missing launching States agreement - harmonized registration practice - transfer of ownership in orbit - solutions for intergovernmental organizations - space debris, eg tracking system informal instrument - electronic access to the register. Hedman added several aspects. First, certain elements had to be dealt with either in this Chapter or in the REG, such as the status of state practice. Second, the difficulties of including a definition of the term State procuring the launch within the Launching State Resolution were not resolved by the Registration Resolution. Moreover, the transfer of ownership in orbit was a terminology used in the preparation period but was left aside since it was too sensitive, which led to the formulation of paragraph 4. It should be indicated why that was such a sensitive issue, as well as the close link to Article VI OST. He also announced that UNOOSA attempted to implement its obligation under the Resolution and has prepared templates for registration to be used by all States, as well as explanations and guidelines how to fill in the respective forms. Both were presented to the audience. 2. Discussion Kerrest pointed out to paragraph 3 (b) and (c) of the Resolution. Literal (c) refers to the fact that the most appropriate State is that which has international responsibility under Article VI OST, to encounter States tendencies to try and exclude private activity from their national space activities. The following State practice reflected by the Resolution shows that those States are wrong. Kerrest considered this an important aspect. Schmidt-Tedd made the comment that this Resolution presented a step forward in getting the back up solution implemented. Masson-Zwaan in turn posed a practical question, asking whether ESA was ever contacted by JAXA regarding how to register ISS module Kibo. Since the ISS was already registered, there was uncertainty how to proceed, and she could well imagine that similar issues came up with regard to Columbus. Ulrike Bohlmann explained that there is one registration number for the launched vehicle (major part) and then numbers a, b, c etc. would be added for registration of component parts. Hedman added that it was not up to OOSA to reject registration. 95

104 Splinter Meetings: Working Group 1 Friday, 19 June 2009 Chairpersons: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (REG/ Registration Resolution), Vladimir Kopal (SAB) Rapporteurs: Anne Hurtz and Kanishka Wiar (both University of Cologne) Members: Ulrike Bohlmann (REG), Olga Stelmakh (REG), Leslie Tennen (REG), Niklas Hedman (Registration Resolution) 96

105 Splinter Meetings: Working Group 2 Friday, 19 June 2009 Chairpersons: Kai- Uwe Schrogl (ARRA / Launching State), Gérardine Goh (NPS) Rapporteur: Julia Dornbusch (University of Cologne) Members: Irmgard Marboe (ARRA), Julia Neumann (ARRA), Armel Kerrest (LIAB), Lesly Jane Smith (LIAB), Tanja Masson- Zwaan (NPS), Oliver Huth (DBS) joined the session later 97

106 Splinter Meetings: Working Group 3 Friday, 19 June 2009 Chairperson: Stephan Hobe (MOON / Space Benefits) Rapporteur: Majid Salehi (University of Cologne) Members: Ram Jakhu (MOON), Steven Freeland (MOON), V.S. Mani (Space Benefits), Haifeng Zhao (Space Benefits), Oliver Huth (DBS). 98

107 Sessions 3 and 4: Report of Working Group Splinter Meetings Part A Volume III Session 3: Volume 3 Working Group Results (Part One) Chairperson: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Vladimír Kopal (CoCoSL SAB) Rapporteur: Anne Hurtz (University of Cologne) 16: Direct Broadcasting Principles Marco Ferrazzani (ESA, in abstentia), Oliver Huth (SES Astra) 16: Remote Sensing Principles Joanne Gabrynowicz (University of Mississippi), Leopold Mantl (European Commission), Ray Harris (University College London), Balakista Reddy (NALSAR University of Law, in abstentia) 16: Nuclear Power Sources Principles Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne), Tanja Masson-Zwaan (Leiden University) Session 4: Volume 3 Working Group Results (Part Two) Chairpersons: Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR) Rapporteur: Majid Salehi (University of Cologne) 16: Space Benefits Declaration Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), V.S. Mani (Jaipur National University), Haifeng Zhao (Harbin Institute of Technology) 17: Resolution on the Definition of the Launching State Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Frank Riemann (ESA, in abstentia) 17: Registration Resolution Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Niklas Hedman (UN OOSA) 17:30 Discussion: Wrap-Up of Volume 3 Led by Session Chairs 18:00 End of Session 19:00 Workshop Dinner 2 99

108 Session 5: Report of Working Group Splinter Meetings Part B Volume II Saturday, 20 June 2009 DLR Chairpersons: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne) Rapporteurs: Anne Hurtz (University of Cologne) and Kanishka Wiar (University of Cologne) 09: Rescue Agreement (ARRA) Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), Andre Farand (ESA), Irmgard Marboe (University of Vienna), Julia Neumann (University of Cologne) 10: Liability Convention (LIAB) Armel Kerrest (ECSL / University of Brest), Sergio Marchisio (ECSL / University of Rome, La Sapienza, in abstentia), Lesley Jane Smith (University of Lüneburg) 10: Registration Convention (REG) Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Ulrike M. Bohlmann (ESA), Natalya Malysheva (University of Kiev, in abstentia), Olga S. Stelmakh (National Space Agency of Ukraine), Leslie Tennen (Sterns and Tennen) 11: Moon Agreement (MOON) Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Ram Jakhu (McGill University), Steven Freeland (University of Western Sydney) 11:30 Conclusion Discussion led by Session Chairs 12:30 Working Lunch 100

109 Closing and Conclusions The Second CoCoSL Authors Workshop was brought to a close with a round-table discussion, followed by conclusions from the three Editors of CoCoSL, Prof. Dr. Stephan Hobe, Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd and Prof. Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl. Documentation that will be sent to members of the Scientific Advisory Board and the Authors following the Workshop include 1. Proceedings of the Second CoCoSL Authors Workshop 2. CoCoSL Author Guidelines 3. CoCoSL Citation Guidelines 101

110 Summary of the Second Authors Workshop (Anne Maria Hurtz ) The Second Authors Workshop of the Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL) was held at the premises of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) in Bonn-Oberkassel, on June It was organised in the framework of the CoCoSL Project, a joint undertaking between the Institute of Air and Space Law of the University of Cologne and the German Aerospace Centre with the ambition to provide a legal Commentary on the five United Nations (UN) Treaties on activities in Outer Space supplemented by the relevant UN General Assembly Resolutions. 1 Following a successful first conference in Vienna in early 2008 that dealt with the Outer Space Treaty 2, 3 the CoCoSL feeling experienced the year before also spilled over to the second workshop resulting in inspiring and fruitful discussions. Twenty-four legal academics and practitioners from around the globe were involved, focusing on the preparations for Volumes II and III that will cover the other four UN Treaties as well as the analysis of several UN General Assembly Resolutions on activities in outer space. The workshop was opened by a welcome address from the three CoCoSL editors, Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne) as Scientific Director, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR) and Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI). The three thanked in particular the attending contributors to Volume I for their immense work and encouraged all authors to keep up this positive and highly scientific attitude of work in Volumes II and III. In this context, the editors announced the publication date of Volume I in September 2009 and its planned soft launch at the 60 th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Daejon, Korea in October this year. Student Research Assistant, Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne, Germany. 1 For more information see the project website at < accessed 23 June Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (opened for signature 27 January 1967, came into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205 (Outer Space Treaty). 3 For more information on the First Author s Workshop see the report of the Conference: G M Goh, The Cologne Commentary on Space Law: First Authors Workshop January 2008, Vienna, Austria (2008) 57 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht

111 The Workshop was divided into five working sessions, each chaired by the editors and members of the scientific advisory board, with time slots for the presentation and discussion of each treaty or resolution. In the first two sessions the authors presented an overview of the respective treaties to be dealt with in Volume II and the resolutions to be analysed in Volume III, accompanied by additional comments from the audience. All presentations thereby focused in particular on the negotiation and drafting history, the interpretation of the respective provisions as well as on future perspectives. Hereafter, a more detailed exchange of ideas took place in three Working Group Splinter Meetings, each chaired by one of the editors. The fruitful outcome of these splinter meetings was then shared with the other authors in the remaining three Sessions with the chance to address crucial issues in more detail and exchange personal opinions on legal disputes. I. Working Sessions on Volume II The 1968 Rescue Agreement (ARRA) 4 Authors: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI), André Farand (ESA, in absentia), Irmgard Marboe (University of Vienna) and Julia Neumann (University of Cologne) The presentation on the Rescue Agreement Chapter was given by Neumann, who underlined the political and society related background of the elaboration process of this first international space treaty after the entry into force of the Outer Space Treaty (OST). In this context she also pointed out the first two casualties in space exploration in the year 1967 that led to the elaboration of this Agreement. Further attention was drawn to the use of the word astronaut in other space treaties, i.e. the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement (Article V OST, Articles X and XII MOON). One question raised during the presentation was why there is no provision on costs regarding the rescue of personnel, though there is one for the return of space objects (Article V ARRA). Other issues mentioned were the definition of personnel of a spacecraft and space object, the practical relevance of the Rescue Agreement in terms of notifications to the UN Secretary General and actual returns of space objects, as well as the question, whether the use of Contracting Party implies that international organisations are not included. The 1972 Liability Convention (LIAB) 5 4 Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (opened for signature 22 April 1968, came into force 03 December 1968) 672 UNTS 119 (ARRA). 103

112 Authors: Armel Kerrest (ECSL / University of Brest), Sergio Marchisio (ECSL / University of Rome, La Sapienza, in absentia) and Lesley Jane Smith (University of Lüneburg) An overview on the Liability Convention commentary was given by Smith and Kerrest, who pointed out the significance of the LIAB during the development of the OST and underlined its lex specialis qualification. Furthermore the authors presented the historical background of the negotiation and drafting by emphasising the elaboration of a United States and a Belgian draft in the context of the early years of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) and against the political background of the Cold War. With respect to recent developments and future perspectives, the authors focused on the establishment of national space laws dealing with liability issues and their interaction with the LIAB. The authors plan to analyse the classification of fault / damages in the case of joint launches as well as the question of third party liability. Finally, the commercialisation of space activities - in particular private spaceflight - and several enforcement issues raised hereby will be discussed in detail. In this regard one particular recent event that was brought to discussion was the Iridium collision early The 1975 Registration Convention (REG) 7 Authors: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR), Ulrike Bohlmann (ESA), Natalya Malysheva (University of Kiev, in absentia), Olga Stelmakh (National Space Agency of Ukraine) and Leslie Tennen (Sterns and Tennen) In the presentation on the Registration Convention, Schmidt-Tedd stressed that special attention should be paid to the diversity in national registration practice. Additionally, the roots of the Convention in Article VIII OST and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1721 B (XVI) 8 were outlined, whereas the author reminded, that the remaining dualism between the registration according to the REG and the 1961 Resolution should not be underestimated. A further issue that 5 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (opened for signature 29 March 1972, came into force 01 September 1972) 961 UNTS 187 (LIAB). 6 For more information on the Collision see J Achenbach, Debris from Satellites Collision Said to Pose Small Risk to Space Station The Washington Post (Washington 12 February 2009) < accessed 23 June Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (adopted 12 November 1974, came into force 15 September 1976) 1023 UNTS 15 (REG). 8 UNGA Res 1721 B (XVI) (20 December 1961). 104

113 arose was the registration practice of international intergovernmental organisations (IGO) and the role of their member states - in particular the interrelation between national registration practice and IGO practice. The 1979 Moon Agreement (MOON) 9 Authors: Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), Ram Jakhu (McGill University) and Steven Freeland (University of Western Sydney) The final presentation of the Working Session on Volume II dealing with the Moon Agreement opened the floor for discussion of provisions from other space law treaties repeated in the Agreement as well as an analysis of the key provisions not mentioned in a treaty before such as non-use of force, environmental protection and common heritage of mankind. Referring to the historical background, Hobe draw the audience s attention to the misuse of the Agreement by propaganda in its early days and the recent revival of this instrument due to an increasing interest by states and space agencies in the exploration of the moon. The author also raised the crucial question as to the reasons for (non)ratification of the Moon Agreement and underlined the importance of an analysis of state practice in relation to the Agreement s main principles. Furthermore, the author indicated the necessity for comparative analysis of other international legal regimes, i.e. the Antarctic Treaty 10, the Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) 11 and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Constitution Governing the Geostationary Orbit 12. II. Working Sessions on Volume III The 1982 Direct Broadcasting Principles (DBS Principles) 13 Authors: Marco Ferrazzani (ESA, in absentia) and Oliver Huth (SES) 9 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 05 December 1979, came into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 21 (MOON). 10 The Antarctic Treaty (signed 01 December 1959, came into force 23 June 1961) 402 UNTS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (concluded 10 December 1982, came into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 396 (UNCLOS). 12 Online accessible on the ITU website < accessed 23 June Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting, UNGA Res 37/92 (10 December 1982) UN Doc A/RES/37/

114 In his presentation on the Chapter dealing with the 15 Principles on International Direct Television Broadcasting adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1982, Huth inter alia focused on an elaboration of the actual significance and impact of the principles with regard to the DTH (Direct- To-Home) business of satellite operators, also stressing the question, if there is any legally binding nature of these principles. The author also pointed out the importance of taking a close look at the interaction of other instruments, conventions and provisions regulating Television Broadcasting via satellites, in particular ITU instruments, the European Convention on Transfrontier Television 14, the European Union (EU) Television without Frontiers Directive 15 as well as the Role of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) 16. In the end of his overview the author also pointed out that with regard to the DBS Principles three terms had to be discussed in depth: broadcasting state, receiving state and international direct television broadcasting by satellite. The 1986 Remote Sensing Principles (RS Principles) 17 Authors: Joanne Gabrynowicz (University of Mississippi), Leopold Mantl (European Commission), Ray Harris (University College London) and Balakista Reddy (NALSAR University of Law, in absentia) Representing the authors of the Remote Sensing Principles Chapter, Gabrynowicz divided her presentation into four pillars: the development of the Principles in the UN, the adoption of national laws and policies, the adoption of bilateral and multilateral agreements and the relationship of the principles to subsequent agreements and practices. Regarding the history of the Principles, the author pointed out, that the object and purpose of the resolution was to balance rights and obligations of the sensed and the sensing state. It was also stressed, that a disproportionate amount of energy was put into the formulation of Principles II, IV and XII and that Articles X and XI were of particular relevance. Regarding the future development, the author emphasised a trend from international to national legislation and a discussion out of UN to external fora. Therefore future legislation and enforcement is expected to take place primarily on the national level. Moreover, it was underlined, that current and future applicability would be of special importance in the area of 14 European Convention on Transfrontier Television (opened for signature 05 May 1989, entered into force 01 May 1993) European Treaty Series (ETS) No. 132, text of the treaty online accessible at < accessed 02 July Relevant documents are available at < accessed 02 July For more information see the website of the EBU < accessed 02 July Principles relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space, UNGA Res 41/65 (03 December 1986) UN Doc A/RES/41/

115 environmental protection, and therefore attention was drawn to the interaction of Articles X and XI with the Disasters Charter 18. Gabrynowicz also addressed the essential question of the line between law and policy and highlighted in this respect that data policies of organisations like the European Space Agency (ESA), the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and EUMETSAT had to be taken into account when analysing the RS Principles. The 1992 Nuclear Power Sources Principles (NPS Principles) 19 Authors: Gérardine Goh (DLR / University of Cologne) and Tanja Masson-Zwaan (Leiden University) The presentation on the Nuclear Power Sources Principles inter alia focused on most recent developments in line with the NPS Principles, i.e. the International Framework Conventions on Radiological Uses and Environmental Protection as well as the European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) Standards 20. Masson-Zwaan pointed out some cross-references in the NPS Principles to other treaty provisions and non-binding regulations. In this context a possible conflict of the term launching state / state launching and a state that has jurisdiction and control was put forward. Referring to the provisions of the OST, the author in particular questioned why there was a divergence in the meaning of the term within the same instrument Article 7 OST would make a broad definition, Article 8 OST would follow a narrower definition. With respect to the legal status, the non-binding character of the principles was stressed. However, it was also underlined that the NPS Principles were adopted without a vote and that in practice states were actually reporting the safety assessment without the principles being legally binding. Highlighting the action taken in the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the UNCOPUOS, attention was drawn to the recently adopted Safety Framework for Nuclear Power Sources Applications in Outer Space 21 that serves the protection of people and the environment in the Earth s biosphere. In the context of the adoption of the Safety Framework the authors raised the question whether in the future more action can be 18 Charter on Cooperation to Achieve the Coordinated Use of Space Facilities in the Event of Natural or Technological Disasters (declared formally operational 01 November 2000) (International Charter on Space and Major Disasters), text of the Charter available at < accessed 02 July Principles relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space; UNGA Res 47/68 (14 December 1992) UN Doc A/RES/47/ For more information see < accessed 02 July UNCOPUOS Safety Framework for Nuclear Power Sources Applications in Outer Space (19 May 2009) UN Doc A/AC.105/

116 expected by the Legal-Subcommittee of UNCOPUOS, e.g. if the Principles would be extended to propulsion and if they might evolve into a legally binding instrument. The 1996 Space Benefits Declaration 22 Authors: Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne), V.S. Mani (Jaipur National University) and Haifeng Zhao (Harbin Institute of Technology) The Presentation of the chapter on the Space Benefits Declaration started with Hobe drawing attention to the legislative history and the difficulties with the agenda setting in UNCOPUOS as well as the different proposals presented at the time. After a short overview of the different paragraphs of the Declaration the author underlined the importance of the adoption by consensus for the evaluation of the Declaration. It was also stressed that the Benefits Declaration is of important relevance for the interpretation of the ambiguous wording of Article I Paragraph 1 OST, which leads to the crucial question whether the use of a UN Resolution as a means of interpretation of binding treaty law weakens the principle of the rule of law and if this will lead to the highly questionable issue of the dilution of hard law by so called soft law. Concerning future perspectives, the question was raised whether the Declaration would indicate an end of the development struggle (since the 1960ies) for outer space activities. Regarding the negotiation background of the Declaration Mani added that it been in the pipeline ever since the UNISPACE II recommendations and that the Declaration was the result of the ambition of states to have a resulting document. Considering recent actions taken the author referred to the UNISPACE III Declaration 23, the UN Millennium Declaration 24 and the 2005 Summit Outcome 25. Finally, Zhao added, that attention would have to be paid to the actual cooperation practice in outer space. This would hold true in particular with regard to regional space cooperation by ESA and the newly established Asia Pacific Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO) Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries, UNGA Res 51/122 (13 December 1996) UN Doc A/RES/51/ Vienna Declaration on Space and Human Development (adopted 30 July 1999) online accessible at < accessed 03 July United Nations Millenium Declaration, UNGA Res 55/2 (08 September 2000) UN Doc A/RES/55/ World Summit Outcome, UNGA Res 60/1 (16 September 2005) UN Doc A/RES/60/1. 26 For more information on the Organisation see < accessed 03 July

117 The 2004 Resolution on the Definition of the Launching State 27 Authors: Kai-Uwe Schrogl (ESPI) and Frank Riemann (ESA, in absentia) Schrogl started the presentation on the Resolution on the Definition of the Launching State by stressing the context of growing privatisation in which the Resolution was adopted. Moreover, he highlighted the significance of the Resolution with regard to such private space activities, raising their attention on the global inter-governmental level. As particular issues in this respect, he mentioned national space legislation and the transfer of ownership in orbit. At the same time the author emphasised as crucial that the object and purpose of the Resolution was not an authoritative interpretation of the term launching state, but that it was focused on the concept of the launching state and thus only strived to raise awareness for the issue and the call for action in that regard. The author pointed out the most important cross references to other provisions like Article VII OST, Article I LIAB and Article I REG. Concerning the possible future effect of the Resolution on new developments in the field, Schrogl mentioned further enactment and harmonisation of national space legislation, the provision of information on the transfer of ownership in orbit as well as the conclusion of agreements in accordance with Article V Paragraph 2 LIAB. Finally, the author stressed a possible conflict of definitions, e.g. with the term launching authority as used in the Rescue Agreement (Article VI ARRA). The 2007 Registration Resolution 28 Authors: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd (DLR) and Niklas Hedman (UNOOSA) In the presentation of the chapter dealing with the Registration Resolution Schmidt-Tedd identified the motives of the drafters as being reflected in the preamble, in particular the pursuit of a comprehensive registration. The author also pointed out the interrelation with Article VIII OST, Article VIII REG and with the UN General Assembly Resolution 1721 B 29 and stressed again in this context that the subject of the Resolution was not to be an authoritative interpretation or amendment. Other issues discussed by Schmidt-Tedd were the question of solutions in case of a missing agreement between launching states, of a harmonisation of the registration practice, of 27 Application of the concept of the launching State, UNGA Res 59/115 (10 December 2004) UN Doc A/RES/59/ Recommendations on enhancing the practice of States and international intergovernmental organizations in registering space objects, UNGA Res 62/101 (17 December 2007) UN Doc A/RES/62/ International co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space, UNGA Res 1721 (XVI) (20 December 1961). 109

118 solutions for IGO s, of the transfer of ownership, of the perspectives in the field of registration and of space debris as well as of the implementation of an electronic access to the register. Hedman added, that the terminology transfer of ownership in orbit was used during the negotiation period, but because of political sensitivity was put to an end. Therefore it should also be analysed, why it was such a sensitive issue. Concluding, he also indicated that UNOOSA established templates for registration to be used by all states accompanied by explanations and guidelines how to proceed with the respective forms. III. Conclusions At the end of the workshop inter alia the following conclusions were drawn: - The authors agreed that the object of the CoCoSL Project was the elaboration of a legal commentary which should help both, legal academics as well as practitioners to apply existing legal provisions and act in conformity with relevant resolutions. However, it was pointed out, that CoCoSL is a legal commentary on state practice and not primarily an interpretation that only reflects the authors opinion on certain issues. Current state practice should thus be reflected adequately and interpretation be undertaken where appropriate. - It was also concluded that a clear distinction should be made between binding legal rules, technical standards and non-binding so-called soft law, especially with regard to Volume III. - The authors furthermore agreed that in the recent past a remarkable amount of national space legislation was passed which should be analysed and reviewed with respect to its conformity with international instruments and with a view to its impact on the corpus iuris spatialis. - Finally, any interpretation of international space law should keep into consideration future commercial space activities such as e.g. space tourism. 110

119 Appendix A: Photographs The Editors of the Cologne Commentary on Space Law (standing from left: Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Stephan Hobe and Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd) open the Workshop. Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd gives the Workshop s Opening Address. Kai-Uwe Schrogl introduces the authors of the 2 nd and 3 rd Volumes. 111

120 Workshop Participants Seated, anticlockwise: Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Vladimír Kopal, Julia Neumann, Anne Hurtz, Leslie Tennen, Daniela Nießen, Ulrike M. Bohlmann, Birgitta Staudt, Olga Stelmakh, Oliver Huth, Tanja L. Masson-Zwaan, Gérardine M. Goh, Nicola Rohner-Willsch. Standing, from left: Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd, Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Stephan Hobe. Workshop Participants From top left, clockwise: VS Mani, Haifeng Zhao, Niklas Hedman, Ray Harris, Joanne Gabrynowicz, Armel Kerrest, Steven Freeland (just seen), Ram Jakhu (just seen), Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Vladimír Kopal. Gérardine Goh gives an overview of the Project. 112

121 Workshop Participants Seated, anticlockwise: Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Vladimír Kopal, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd, Irmgard Marboe, Julia Neumann, Anne Hurtz, Leslie Tennen, Daniela Nießen, Ulrike M. Bohlmann, Birgitta Staudt, Olga Stelmakh, Oliver Huth, Tanja L. Masson-Zwaan, Nicola Rohner- Willsch. Workshop Participants From top left, clockwise: VS Mani, Haifeng Zhao, Niklas Hedman, Ray Harris, Joanne Gabrynowicz, Lesley Jane Smith, Armel Kerrest, Steven Freeland, Ram Jakhu, Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Vladimír Kopal, Bernhard Schmidt- Tedd, Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Irmgard Marboe. From left: Lesley Jane Smith, Armel Kerrest, Steven Freeland, Ram Jakhu, Stephan Hobe, Karl- Heinz Böckstiegel, Vladimír Kopal, Bernhard Schmidt- Tedd. 113

122 From left: Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Lesley Jane Smith, Armel Kerrest, Ram Jakhu, Stephan Hobe. Clockwise, from left: VS Mani, Haifeng Zhao, Niklas Hedman, Ray Harris, Joanne Gabrynowicz, Lesley Jane Smith, Armel Kerrest, Steven Freeland, Ram Jakhu, Stephan Hobe, Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel. From left: Steven Freeland, Ram Jakhu, Stephan Hobe, Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd. 114

123 Julia Neumann makes the presentation on the 1968 ARRA. From left: Ray Harris, Joanne Gabrynowicz, Lesley Jane Smith, Armel Kerrest, Ram Jakhu. Armel Kerrest and Lesley Jane Smith make the presentation on the 1972 LIAB. 115

124 Oliver Huth makes the presentation on the DBS Principles. Standing from left: Leopold Mantl, Ray Harris, Joanne Gabrynowicz From left: Haifeng Zhao, Niklas Hedman, Ray Harris, Joanne Gabrynowicz. From left: Stephan Hobe, Vladimír Kopal, Irmgard Marboe, Julia Neumann, Anne Hurtz, Leslie Tennen. 116

125 Workshop Dinner: Restaurant Zur Lese, Bonn From left: Stephan Hobe, Gérardine Goh, Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd. 117

126 Seated from left: VS Mani, Haifeng Zhao, Stephan Hobe, Steven Freeland, Ram Jakhu. Seated from left: Haifeng Zhao, Lesley Jane Smith, Steven Freeland, Ram Jakhu, Stephan Hobe. From left: Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Stephan Hobe, VS Mani, Vladimír Kopal. 118

127 Participants of the Second Workshop Front row, from left: Leslie I Tennen, Gérardine M Goh, Ray Harris, Joanne Gabrynowicz, Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd, Julia Neumann, Olga Stelmakh, Ram Jakhu, Ulrike M Bohlmann, Steven Freeland. Middle row, from left: Niklas Hedman, Stephan Hobe, Armel Kerrest, Irmgard Marboe, Vladimír Kopal, Tanja L Masson-Zwaan, Lesley Jane Smith, Kai-Uwe Schrogl. Third row, from left: VS Mani, Oliver Huth, Haifeng Zhao, Peter Stube, Anne Hurtz. Back row, from left: Julia Dornbusch, Kanishka Wiar. 119