The Case Concerning Collisions in Orbit Moot Court 2020 Selection Process - University of Vienna - Manfred Lachs Space Law ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Case Concerning Collisions in Orbit
Moot Court 2020 Selection Process – University of Vienna
1. The states Andamania and Regalia are two highly developed space faring states. After
successful national space activities in the 20th and early 21st century, they
progressively increased cooperation with each other. This cooperation culminated in
the conclusion of a Human Space Station intergovernmental agreement (hereinafter
HSS-IGA). The agreement mirrors the Agreement establishing the legal framework for
the International Space Station. The station’s large singular module has been launched
from Andamania and registered on the national registry of Andamania as well as the
UN registry on behalf of Andamania. Operations aboard the HSS started in 2030 and
proved to be a fruitful and viable common use of resources.
2. Over time, however, tensions started to rise between the members of the space
station crew, largely related to differences in policy between their respective
governments. At all times, there were three astronauts from Andamania and three
from Regalia aboard the HSS, with the position of space station commander rotating
annually between the two states.
3. On 1 October 2040, two collision probability warnings (so-called ”conjunction
warnings“) reached the HSS. The first notice from Regalia predicted a high collision
probability for an incoming asteroid, whereas the second one from Andamania
predicted a very low probability. The Regalian commander of the station trusted in the
first warning and ordered an expensive emergency manoeuvre of the station.
4. One of the Andamanian astronauts, however, questioned the reliability of the Regalian
warning since it only used limited governmental data, whereas Andamania also
factored additional data obtained from private contractors into its analysis. She
complained to the mission commander that the Andamanian practice was in violation
of the guidelines on the long-term sustainability of outer space activities, adopted by
the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.
Page 1 of 35. After a heated debate, the Regalian commander did not change her mind. Therefore,
the aforementioned astronaut from Andamania tried to seize control of the station by
force, thereby injuring a fellow crew member from Regalia. Ultimately, the other crew
members were able to subdue their colleague and perform the evasion manoeuvre.
Due to its changed position, the station collided surprisingly with another asteroid and
had to be abandoned.
6. After the safe return of the crew members to their respective states, Andamania
claimed compensation for the loss of the station from Regalia, whereas Regalia
demanded the extradition of the Andamanian crew member, who had injured an
Regalian astronaut. Negotiations were initiated between Andamania and Regalia to
resolve the conflict. After the negotiations stalled, the parties agreed to submit the
dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). There is no issue of jurisdiction
before the Court.
7. Andamania (the Applicant) requests the Court to adjudge and declare that
a. Regalia violated international law, when the Andamanian crew member
challenged the legitimacy of the Regalian warning.
b. Regalia is liable under international law for the loss of the HSS due to the
maneuver.
c. Andamania has no obligation under international law to extradite the
Andamanian crew member, who injured the Regalian astronaut.
8. Regalia (the Respondent) requests the Court to adjudge and declare that
a. Regalia acted in conformity with international law, when the Andamanian crew
member challenged the legitimacy of the Regalian warning.
b. Regalia is not liable under international law for the loss of the HSS due to the
maneuver.
c. Andamania is obliged under international law to extradite the Andamanian
crew member, who injured the Regalian astronaut, to Regalia.
Page 2 of 39. Both Andamania and Regalia are parties to the UN Charter, the Outer Space Treaty,
the Rescue and Return Agreement, the Liability Convention and the Registration
Convention. Both are parties to the HSS-IGA, the only relevant provisions of which are
printed in the Annex below. While the only relevant operative provisions of the
COPUOS Guidelines on the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space are also printed
below, the whole document may be accessed under this link
(http://www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2018/aac_1052018crp/aac_
1052018crp_20_0_html/AC105_2018_CRP20E.pdf) to provide context.
Page 3 of 3Annex – Excerpts of Relevant Documents
Human Space Station Inter-governmental Agreement (2020) [excerpt]
[…]
Article 5
Registration, Jurisdiction and Control
1. In accordance with Article II of the Registration Convention, each Partner shall register as space
objects the flight elements based in the Annex which it provides, the European Partner having
delegated this responsibility to ESA, acting in its name and on its behalf.
2. Pursuant to Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty and Article 11 of the Registration
Convention, each Partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements it registers in
accordance with paragraph 1 above and over personnel in or on the Space Station who are ist
nationals The exercise of such jurisdiction and control shall be subject to any relevant
provisions of this Agreement, the MOUs, and implementing arrangements, including relevant
procedural mechanisms established therein.
[…]
Article 16
Cross-waiver of liability
1. Each Partner State agrees to a cross-waiver of liability pursuant to which each Partner State
waives all claims against any of the entities listed below based on damage arising out of
Protected Space Operations This cross-waiver shall apply only if the person, entity, or property
causing the damage is involved in Protected Space Operations and the person, entity, or
property damaged is damaged by virtue of its involvement in Protected Space Operations. The
cross-waiver shall apply to any claims for damage, whatever the legal basis for such claims
against
a) another Partner State,
b) a related entity of another Partner State.
2. For avoidance of doubt, this cross-waiver of liability includes a cross-waiver of liability arising
from the Liability Convention when the person, entity, or property causing the damage is
involved in Protected Space Operations and the person, entity, or property damaged is
damaged by virtue of its involvement in Protected Space Operations.
Annex Page 1 of 23. The term “Protected Space Operations” means all launch vehicle activities, Space Station
activities, and payload activities on Earth, in outer space, or in transit between Earth and outer
space in implementation of this Agreement, the MOUs, and implementing arrangements it
includes, but is not limited to
a. research, design, development, test, manufacture, assembly, integration, operation,
or use of launch or transfer vehicles, the Space Station, or a payload, as well as related
support equipment and facilities and services, and
b. all activities related to ground support, test, training, simulation, or guidance and
control equipment and related facilities or services.
“Protected Space Operations” excludes activities on Earth which are conducted on return from
the Space Station to develop further a payload’s product or process for use other than for
Space Station related activities in implementation of this Agreement.
[…]
COPUOS Guidelines on the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities
(2019) [excerpt]
[…]
Guideline B.4
Perform conjunction assessment during all orbital phases of controlled flight
1. Conjunction assessment should be performed for all spacecraft capable of adjusting
trajectories during orbital phases of controlled flight for current and planned spacecraft
trajectories.
2. States and international intergovernmental organizations should, where applicable,
encourage entities under their respective jurisdiction and/or control, including spacecraft
operators and conjunction assessment service providers, to develop or help develop such
approaches and methods to conjunction assessment.
[…]
Annex Page 2 of 2You can also read
