The commercial use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies has accelerated recently. For example, U.S. space policy has an object of expanding private-sector investment and involvement in civil space and space related activities. This tendency goes beyond the traditional field of space telecommunications and includes commercial space launches as well as remote sensing. Moreover, material processing in space and Solar Power Satellites are planned. The moon is considered as New El Dorado, and the new lunar resources inventory satellite is under study. The other space powers such as ESA, China and Japan become competitors in the space launching or remote sensing market.

Space commercialization is the logical consequence of the progress of space activities. As space exploitative activities are developed, it is recognized that such activities contribute to the social welfare of all mankind if the benefits derived therefrom are used to raise the standard of living. The commercialization on a competitive basis is necessary for generalising the products of space activities at a reasonable price. According to the liberalistic legal policy, the internal law rules relating to commercial space activities are limited to secure compliance with international obligations, public health and security, safety of property, national security interests, and foreign policy interests.

Before entering into details, the clarification of two points seems to be necessary. The first point is to define the concept of commercialization. At present, there is a tendency to confuse "commercialization" and "privatization". It seems that "commercialization" means "sale", that is to say, the profit-making transfer of goods and services (1). The quality of sellers, the means or methods of action are of secondary importance. The subjects of commercialization are not only the private enterprises but also the States or international organizations. "Privatization" means the transition of government owned and operated civilian space activities to strictly private ownership and operation, or civilian space activities originating through private initiative (2). Commercialzation and Privatization are theoretically two successive phases. However, until space technology is completely generalized, official assistance in various forms is required and certain restrictions from the point of view of public order and of national security are imposed on commercial activities.

The second point is that the present paper refers not only to space law but also to astrolaw. "Astro law is the jurisprudence of living in space for prolonged periods (beyond the Shuttle, as a rule of thumb). It focuses on relations between and among persons, both natural and legal, living (functioning for legal persons) and working in space for such prolonged periods" (3). Astrolaw is distinguished from space law by reason of the difference of the subjects and sources of law. The subjects of space law are the States as well as the international governmental organizations, whereas the natural and legal persons become the direct subjects in astrolaw (4). Space law is an autonomous branch of international law. It consists of treaties, customary law and the general principles of law. Astrolaw is substantially national law. Its sources of law are given by the amendment or application by analogy of existing law such as maritime law, air law, criminal law, civil law and NASAct etc. or by new legislation.

Although such differences exist between these two system of law, they are interrelated. Astrolaw rules must be based on the rules of space law. Astrolaw rules may be introduced in space law in the form of the general principles of law. The national law rules adopted by space powers such as the U.S.A. may have a great influence upon the legislation of other States through international cooperatIon. For example, the principle of inter-party waiver of liability or other rules applicable to space insurance, remote sensing or commercial launching may have influence necessarily upon the law of a State entering into cooperation wIth the U.S.A. in the field of space exploration or exploltation.

Article I of the Outer Space Treaty stipulates that "outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development". The same article also stipulates that "there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies". The principle of freedom of outer space includes the right of free acceess, the right of free exploration, and the right of free use. This freedom is granted only to the States.

In the deliberation on resolution 1962(XVIII) of the General Assembly entitled "Declaration on Legal Principles Governing Activities of States in the exploration and use of Outer Space", the Soviets proposed initially that "all activities of any kind pertaining to the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out solely and exclusively by States" (5). This proposal was motivated from "granting private companies a free hand in space could encourage activities in that sphere that French professor Eugène Pépin has rightly described as piracy" (6). According to the view of the U.S.S.R. Government, granting the freedom of outer space to the non governmental entities would cause disorder and confusion.

Such a proposal was not acceptable to the U.S. Government. The U.S. Delegate considered on analogy of the principle of freedom of the seas that "Man should be free to venture into space on the same basis that he has ventured on the high seas - free from any restraints save those imposed by the laws of his own nation and by the rules of international law, including those embodies in the United Nations Charter" (7). The Soviet proposal was not acceptable to the U.S. Government as well as to the other Western Countries. The U.S. Delegate said that it "covered the possibility of a Govemment enlisting the help of a private Coporation or firm, which it might authorize to carry out activities in space subject to continuing Government supervision" (8).

Finally, in September 1963, the Soviet Delegate withdrew his proposal and agreement was reached. According to the Soviet viewpoint, "it would be possible to consider the question of not excluding from the declaration the possibility of activity in outer space by private companies, on the condition that such activity would be subject to the control of the appropriate State, and the State would bear international responsibility for it" (9).

From this fact, we can confirm that our conclusion according to which the freedom of outer space is granted only to the States is correct. According to Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty, each State is internationally responsible for its governmental or non-governmental activities and for securing compliance of these activities with the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty. The space activities of the non-governmental entities necessitate the authorization and supervision of the appropriate State.

Non-governmental entities can carry out space activities although they are not the direct beneficiary of the principle of freedom of outer space. Now it remains the question whether the non-governmental entities can carry out the commercial space activities. In the Outer Space Treaty, the term "exploration and use" is used in an economically and scientifically large sense. In the Moon Agreement, the term "exploitation" means exploitation yielding economic interest. However, we should analyze how commercial space activities conform to the common interest principle which characterises space activities as international public services.

The common interest principle established by Article 1 para. 1 of the Outer Space Treaty provides that "the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind". From the point of view of the policy of the law, it means securing "equitable utilization of outer space" and preventing "legally protected (by international law) interests of other countries from being infringed upon by foreign space activities" (10). Securing equitable utilisation means that "outer space is really utilised in the interests of all and not only in the interests of a single State or of one groupe of States" (11).

The problem of the lawfulness of commercial space activities depends on whether we should consider the common interest principle as a binding treaty obligation or a simple declaration of intent. In doctrine, Prof. Dettmering interpreted that "commercial use should only be admitted, if it is ensured that a possible profit is going to all mankind" (12). In mentioning the exploitation of lunar resources, Prof. Marcoff said that "l 'essence pécuniaIre de la distribution des profits ne sera nullement en contradiction avec I'esprit humaniste de la règle de l'art. 1er, si les moyens matériels obtenus en fin de compte sont vraiment consacrés 'au profit et dans l'intérêt de tous les pays', comme l'exige cette norme" (13).

Contrary to these opinions, Prof. Böckstlegel insisted that the common interest principle must not be interpreted as a ban for commercial use of outer space by private enterprises (14). He justified this conclusion for the following reasons:

1. The views regarding the common interest principle as a binding obligation are not in conformity wIth the majority opinion.

2. The other articles of the Outer Space Treaty such as Articles VI and IX "obviously show the admissibility of private use of outer space" which means commercial use by private activities in a private economy system.

Furthermore, he considered that commercial space activities by private enterprises provide the possibility of participating in the use of outer space to many small States having no financial and technical means.

Prof. Van Bogaert considered that the words of Article 1, para. 1 "are not precise enough to avoid subjective interpretat ions" (15). Prof. Gorove considered that "Something which is thought to be of benefit to a country on the basis of available information and criteria today may be regarded on the basis of new information and criteria detrimental tomorrow" (16). He wondered "who is going to determine whether or not a particular exploration and use is in a given case for the benefit of all nations?" (17). According to him, the question arises "whether or not only the exploration and use must be beneficial to all countries or also the "results", that is, the benefits derived from such exploration and use is a further very important question" (18). "Assuming then for a moment that the results of exploration and use were meant, the question arises whether or not all such results or benefits were intended and, if so, must all such results be shared in order to constitute a benefit to all countries". From these observations, he concluded that "appropriate international agreements would have to be concluded before equal enjoyment of benefits could be regarded as more than a broad statement of general policy" (19).

The present author considered that the common interest principle may be useful, by its general character, for dealing wIth the matters arising in this complicated and changing world. The common interest principle forms a counterpart to the principle of freedom of outer space. It imposes reasonable restrictions on the principle of freedom of outer space in such a way as to avoid the abuse of rights. It is not correct to conclude a danger of subjectlve interpretations only from the vagueness of the common interest principle. The common interest principle fixes a general goal from which the States must not deviate in their space activities. It does not deal with the concrete sharing of benefits of space exploration and use. Even in national law, such a general clause exists as a binding legal rule. From these observations, the present author concludes that the common interest principle is a binding legal rule and that the commercial space activities are in conformity with this princible as long as such activities contribute in a general sense to social welfare through the raising of the standard of living, although its substance is the profit-making transfer of goods and services.

In the system of space law, there is a possibility of admitting the intervention of three (in fact two) countries in the commercial space activities. First, according to Article 8 of the Outer Space Treaty, the State of registry retains jurisdiction and control over a space object and over any personel thereof while in outer space or on a celestial body.

The term " jurisdiction" means "the rights and authority to exercise not only judicial power (which most often is identified in literature with the notion of jurisdiction), but also legislative and executive power in regard to personnel and objects in outer space, including celestial bodies" (20). Jurisdiction is a manifestation of Sovereignty. This had been observed by the PCIJ in the Lotus case as follows: "All that can be required of a State is that it should not overstep the limits whIch international law places upon its jurisdiction; within these limits, its title to exercise jurisdiction rests in its sovereignty" (21). Prof. R. J . Dupuy observed as follows: "La compétence peut être liêe si le droit impose une certaine attitude; elle peut être discrétionnaire s'll laisse l'age n t juridique maître de son comportement dans tel ou tel domaine, mais elle se sépare radicalement de la souveraineté, car ce domaine lul-même est délimité par le droit" (22). The term "control" is "an element of jurisdiction" and "in the sphere of space activities", "the right to guide a space object and to supervise the activities of its crew in the technical aspect" (23).

Jurisdiction and control of a State of registry are the rights regarding the operatonal activities in outer space because they are locally limited to outer space, including the celestial bodies, and exercised only over a space object and over the personnel thereof.

Secondly, according to Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty, a State who nationally conducts space activities bears international responsibility for assuring that their activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty. In general, a state has no duty to control the activities of private individuals (being its nationals) beyond its frontier (24). However, it is possible to prescribe duties to control the activities of private individuals abroad by convention (25). In the Lotus Case, the PCIJ was of the opinion that "jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention" (26). According to Prof. Brownlie, Article 6 may be cited as an example. A State bears international responsibility for securing compliance of national space activities with the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty even outside its territory.

According to Article 3 of the Outer Space Treaty, a State must carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with internatlonal law, including the Charter of the U.N. This Article implies the respect for soft obligations imposed by the resolutions of the General Assembly in conformity with the U.N. Charter. A State should oblige its non-governmental entities to respect the foregoing obligations.

Thirdly, according to Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty, the appropriate State authorizes and supervises the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies. In the Treaty, the appropriate State is not specified. In doctrine, Prof. Vereshchetin said that "the appropriate State, wIth whose authorization and under whose continuing supervision the activities of non-governmental entities should be carried out (Article VI of the Treaty) include both the State whose nationality the entity has and the State or States on whose territory its activities are done" (27). According to him, the State providing its territory or installations may be considered to become, to a certain extent a participant in joint space activities and to share international political responsibility for such activities on the basis of Article XIII of the Outer Space Treaty (28).

According to Prof. Gorove, "it would appear logical to argue that activities or ownership by a State's nation should be attributed to that State for purposes of imposing liability. However it may be contended that such a conclusion would run contrary to the strict interpretation of the explicit language of the Liability Convention which only speaks of the activities of launching States and does not specifically mention or include in that category a State whose nation conducts launchings, though the latter may perhaps be implied" (29).

Prof. Böckstlegel said that "the correct interpretation of Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty may be in conformity with Article IX to understand the "appropriate State" as the State whose nationality the private enterprise has and therefore to consider a State obliged as to take the respective activities for its nationals as well" (30).

The present author wishes to point out the difference of legal grounds for the powers of these two States. The power of the State whose nation conducts launchings is based on personal jurisdiction whereas that of the launching state results from launching and launching-related activities. In case that a non-governmental entity conducts space activities, including launchings, from the territory of the State whose nationality the entity has or from international territory, the State whose nationality the entity has authorizes and supervises continuously such activities. If a non-governmental entity conducts launchings from the territory of a foreign State or from a foreign facility located in internatioanl territory, the exercise of the power of authorization and of continuing supervision of the State whose nationality the entity has depends on the launching State's admission, because such power based on personal jurisdiction can be exercised in a foreign country only with its consent.

It remains an interpretative problem of the term "authorization and continuing supervision". Prof. Dembling considered that "Article VI requires a certain minimum of licensing and enforced adherence to government-imposed regulations" (31). There is no doubt that the term "authorization" means "a certain minimum of licensing". As to the meaning of the term "continuing supervision", it is necessary to add that the operational activities in outer space or on a celestial body are exempted from the scope of continuing supervision, because only a State of registry retains jurisdiction and control over such activities. The power of the launching State covers the acts directly related to launching, that is the acts starting from launching authorization to the injection of a space object into orbit. The power of the State whose nation conducts space activities can be exercised in parallel with the jurisdiction of the State of registry. For example, supposing that a non-governmental entity conducts space activities, the State whose nationality the entity has can exercise the power to supervise continuously its entity on the grounds that such activities infringe its national law.

Astrolaw, that is, national space law, is focused on the idea that outer space is part of transnational space (32). This idea has been often expressed. In the legislative history of the NASAct of 1958, we can find the following passage: "Space is a place, and can include the bottom of the sea or the center of the Earth as well as the atmosphere and so-called empty outer space" (33). At the U.N. in December 1962, Senator Gore said that "outer space is not a new subject, it is just a new place in which the old subjects come up" (34). Outer space is legally a place not under the sovereignty of any State.

As outer space is a place not under the sovereignty of any State, national law is not naturally applicable to an invention in outer space. In order to extend the applicability of U.S. patent law, a "Bill to amend title 35 U.S.C. and the NASAct, with respect to the use of inventions in outer space" was introduced in the Committee on the Judiciary in 1986 (35). The bills of the same content were introduced in 1987 (36). Bill 4316 of 1986 proposed to amend Chapter 10 of Title 35 U.S.C. by adding at the end the following:

"Any invention made or used in outer space on an aeronautical and space vehicle [as defined in section 103(2) of the NASAct of 1958,42 U.S.C. 2452(2)] under the jurisdiction or control of the U.S. shall be considered to be made or used within the U.S. for purposes of this title, except with respect to any space vehicle or component thereof that is specifically identified and otherwise provided for by an intenational agreement to which the U.S. is a party".

According to Section-By-Section Analysis, the term "made" means " the concept ion or first actual reduction or practice of an invention or the making of an invention as used" (37). The term "jurisdiction or control" is apparently different from the term "jurisdiction and control" used in the Outer Space Treaty. According to the foregoing Analysis, this term may be interpreted to determine application of U.S. patent law merely by a physical control such as electronic command or control from the ground terminal.

There are two possibilities of applying national law to private act ivi ties in outer space. The first is to tie activities in outer space to activities on the ground by finding any link. For example, it is possible to apply national patent law on the ground such that a part of the test of an invention made in space is done on the ground. The test of communications equipment which links a space object with a control point on the ground may sometimes justify the application of national law. The second is the case that a State exercises jurisdiction and/or control over a space object registered to it. Such a State can apply its national law by an amendment or by new legislation.

The jurisdiction of a State of registry extends to any personnel on board a space object even if a flight is made by an international crew. That is the reason why certain scolars or practicians insist on the application of the principle of territoriality. However, the jurisdiction of a State of registry is rather functional than quasi-territorial. As Prof. Dessaussore pointed out, the notion of jurisdiction based on territoriality is not appropriate when a space object is composed of space modules of different nationalities (38). The introduction in space law of the principle of territoriality dose not help to solve the problem of the application of national patent law or national law, in general, in outer space.

It seems that, in internal law, strict liability should be applied to personal injuries or damage to property caused by products made in outer space until knowledge about the character of products is popularized through the diffusion of its manufacturing techniques. The manufacturer of a defective product most bear responsibility for product-caused injuries. They are also in the best position to cover the cost of the risk by the price of a product. Strict liability serves as a stimulus to take precautionary measures. If, at the time of distribution of a product by a manufacturer, scientific or technological development is not sufficient to find the defects of such a product, the manufacturer should be exonerated from liability (39).

As to international product liability, the rules of the Hague Convention of 1973 should be applied. Article 4 of the Convention stipulates that if the law of the place of injury coincides with the law of the victims habitual residence, the law of the defendant's place of business or the law of the place of acquisition of the product, applies. According to Article 5, if the law of the victim's habitual residence is also the law of the defendant's place of business or the law of the place of acquisition of the product, it applies in preference to the law of the place of injury. According to Article 6, if no relevant coincidence of factors is found, the law of the defendant's place of business applies, unless the claimant prefers the law of the place of injury. According to Article 7, if a defendant establishes that he could not reasonably have forseen that the product would be marketed in the relevant State, they could avoid the application of the law of the place of injury or the law of the victime's habitual residence. The Hague Convention is the result of a compromise between the traditional approach of "lex loci delicti commissi " and the "grouping of contacts" approach. These rules have a wide applicability.

The promotion of private-sector investment and its involvement in national space activities become necessary for the exploitation of the commercial potentialities of outer space. However, space activities need a long period of time in order to develop into viable and profitable industrial ventures. Commercial space activities need a large investment and involves great risk. It is difficult to make the private investors bear all these costs. Private sector interests are directed to materials processing in outer space. However, a rate of the short-time projects directed principally at improving existing products has increased and that of the long-term research projects which could lead to the development of new products or new processes has decreased. "I n most advanced technical countries, industry and government are so closely related that it is some-times difficult to distinguish between them" (40). Don Fuqua, Chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology of the U.S. Congress said that "the apparent dichotomy of differing criteria in the United States for governmental and private sector expenditures need not preclude serving common interests but couId contribute to less than full utilization of national resources and capabilities. Within the American tradition of free enterprise with minimum govemmental interference, new approaches to high technology stimulation need to be throughly explored and evaluated" (41). This understanding gave rise to the idea of establishing an institution functioning as an investment bank in the form of a publicly-owned corporation. This idea was substantiated by a "bill to establish a space industrialization corporation" that was presented to the 96th Congress.

According to the bill, the space industrialization corporation (hereinafter, the "Corporation") would be established as a mixed ownership corporation "to promote, encourage, and assist in the development of new products, processes, and industries of the space environment, by facilitating the transfer of space technology to practical applications, creating an ongoing program for understanding the attributes and opportunities in space-related research, and encouraging the financing and development of products and processes derived from space research" (42). Its major purpose is to "provide capital through direct equity investments, loans and loan guarantees" (43).

The Corporation will be financed initially through a Space Industrialization Trust Fund (hereinafter, the "Fund") $50 million per year for each of the first two fiscal years after the date of enactment.

The Secretary of the Treasury will hold and administer the Fund consisting of appropriation received, repayments of assistance given to industrial ventures, and gifts and banquets made for the general purposes of the Fund or for specific projects, and any other amounts. The Corporation will be subject initially to the Government Corporation Control Act, but, after the proclamation by the Board of Directors recognizing its capabilities of conducting activities effectively and successfully as a private corporation, the Corporation will be regulated by the District of Columbia Business Corporation Act. Its finances would derive from the issuance of capital stock whithout per value and from the issuance of nonvoting securities and bonds. After the repayment of an amount equal to the total of all Congressional appropriat ions from the Fund, the Fund will be transferred from the control of the Secretary of the Treasury to the exclusIve control of the Board of Directors.

The Corporation has such powers as:

1. to conduct or contract for research and development for space industrial systems.
2. to acquire physical facilities and eqipment
3. to purchase satellite launching and related services from the U.S. or other entities approved by the Board of Directors.
4. to contract for the services of space industrial systems.
5. to participate with financial institutions, agencies or foundations in loans or guaranties.

The Corporation would be authorized to grant financial assistance to individuals and companies if their proposals for projects involving the conduct of industrial processes seem acceptable. All rights to intellectual properties and discoveries pertaining to or disclosed in such proposals would be retained by these individuals or companies. In formation relating to these proposals, applications for financial assistane, and management plans for conducting industrial processes in space would exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

The Corporation will be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of 12 membres. Nine membres, including the Chairman, will be selected from the private sector, and three from public sector. The Chairman will serve a term of five years. The other membres will serve staggered terms of five years. Qualifications for ten members in-ci ode special expertise in industrial re-search and development and four of these most be familiar wIth aerospace research and d eve I a pme n t

The Corporation would be required to submit to the President and Congress a comprehensive and detailed report of its operations, activities and accomplishments each year Including a review of its progress toward achieving the purposes of the bill.

It will include the recommendations for changing the Structure or scope of Its mission. The President will supervise the Corporation in order to review and to aid the planning and development of a space industrial system. He will be authorized to coordinate the governmental activities In fields related to space industrialization.

In comparison with the traditional government owned corporat ions, the Corporation is in conformity with the purpose of reducing the government expenditures because:

1. recovering the initial appropriations will become possible although it may take a long time; and

2. after the prospects for probitability of its operations, the Corporation will be changed into a publicly owned corporation.

However, it remains to solve two principal problems. First, the bill proposed that the Corporation is permitted to conduct its own experiments, but it had better limit its function to the evaluation and financing of projects (44). In the present author's opinion, It would better to permit the Corporation to take the initiative in cooperating with the private enterprises in identifying and in executing projects. Secondly, according to the bill, after becoming a publicly-owned Corporation, the Corporation is obliged to avoid too risky projects endangering the shareholder's investment. However, this may be contrary to the financing of long-term research and development projects. In order to solve this contradiction, the evaluation criteria of projects should be based not only on economical profitability but also on social merit, with due regard to the projects being accompanied with the technological innovation or creation in the use of outer space for common interests of whole mankind. These points must be clarified in future discussion.

1. M. Bourély, 1986, " Quelque refléxions sur la commercialization des activités spatiales", dans les Annales de Droit Aérlen et Spatial, vol, XI, P.172
2. (anon), 1983, " Policy and legal issues involved in the commercialization of space", Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, 1983, P.23.
3. G P Sloup, " Legal Aspects of Large Space Structures: Factors Leading to the Development of the Jurisprudence of Astrolaw", Proceedings of the 27th Colloquium of the IISL, P.271.
4. J H Glazer, 1986, " Astrolaw Jurisprudence in Space as a Place: Right Reason for the Right Stuff", Brooklyn Journal of International Law, volume XI, Number I, P.3
5. U. N. Doc.A/AC. 105/L.2, 1962, and A/5181, Annex 3, 1962.
6. G Zhukov and Y Kolosov, 1984, " International Space Law", Praeger Publishers, P.65.
7. The statement of Ambassador Stevenson in the Committee 1 (Political and Security) of the General Assembly on December 4, 1961, cited by J .A. Johnson in his paper entitled "Freedom and Control in Outer Space" in the Proceedings of the Conference on Space Science and Space Law, 1963, P.139.
8. U. N. Doc.A/AC. 105/C.2/SR.20, 1963.
9. U. N. Doc A/AC. 105/PV.22, 1966.
10. M G Marcoff, " The International Space Agency Project, the Bogota Declaration and the Common Interest Rule", the Proceedings of the 20th Colloquium of the IISL, P.33.
11. Ibid
12. "Die Rechtsstellung von Menschen Stationen und Niederlassangen auf Himmelskörpern", Diss. Würzburg, 1971, 177, cited by Prof. Böckstiegel In his article "Legal Implications of Commercial Space Activities", Proceedings of the 24th Colloquium of the IISL, P.6.
13. M G Marcoff, 1973, " Le droit international public de l'espace", Presse Universitaire de Fribourg, P.671-672.
14. K H Böckstlegel, " Legal Aspects of Space Activities by Private Enterprises - Introductory Report", Proceedings of the 29th Colloquium of the IISL, P.235.
15. Van Bogaert, 1986, " Aspects of Space Law", Kluwer, P.282.
16. S Gorove, 1982, " Implications of International Space Law for Private Enterprise", Les Annales de Droit Aerien et Spatial, P.321.
17. Ibid, P.322.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. V S Vereschchetin, " Legal Status of International Space Crews", Proceedings of 29th Colloquium of the IISL, P.165.
21. Judgement No.9 - The case of the S.S. Lotus, Collection of Judgements, PCIJ, P.19.
22. R J Dupuy, "Le droit international", P.U.F., Que sais-je?, P.38.
23. Ibid., P.166.
24. I Brownlie, "System of the Law of Nations State Responsibility", Part. 1, 1983, P.165.
25. Ibid.
26. Supra note (21), P.18-19
27. V S Vereshchetin, " Space Activities of "Non-Governmental Entities": Issues of International and Domestic Law", Proceedings of the 26th Colloquium of the IISL, P.263.
28. Ibid.
29. S Gorove, " Space Transportation Systems: Some International Systems: Some International Legal Considerations", Proceedings of 24th Colloquium of the IISL, P.120.
30. Supra note (14), P.235.
31. P G Dembling, " Principles governing the activities of States in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies", in Manual on Space Law, P.17.
32. "Transnational space" extends to "any place or area on, within or beyond planet Earth withdrawn or excepted from national appropriation by custom, policy, consensus, or agreement". Supra note(4) , P.3.
33. H. R. Rep. No.2166, 85th Cong, 2nd Sess. 17, 1958. This was cited by Prof. Glazer in supranote(4), P.9.
34. This statement was cited by E. W. Hughwey in his paper entitled "Criminal Responsibility In Outer Space", Proceedings on the Conference on Space Science and Space Law of 1963, P.150.
35. H. R. 4316, 99th Congress.
36. H. R. 1510 and H. R. 1521 in 1987.
37. H. R. Report. 99-788.
38. H Dessaussure, " Do We Need a Strict, Limited Liability Regime in Outer Space", Proceedings of 22d Colloquium of the IISL, p.113.
39. Refer to the Draft Directive on Product Liabitity presented to the E.C.Council in 1976, and revised in 1979.
40. Space Industrialization Act of 1979, Hearings Before the Subcommitte on Space Science and Applications, May 22, 23 and June 26,27, 1979
41. Don Fuqua, 1980, " Space Industrialization: Some Legal and Policy Considerations for Private Enterprise", in the Journal of Space Law 1980, No.1, P.3-4.
42. Supra note (40), P.206.
43. Supra note (41).
44. Supra note (40), P.32.