Res Communis

Pacific Rim National Space Law Summit: Australia / 环太平洋国家空间法会议: 澳大利亚

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The second presentation of the conference was given by Dr. Ricky J. Lee of Schweizer Kobras, Sydney, Australia. It was titled Current Status and Recent Developments in Australia’s National Space Law and its relevance to Pacific Rim Space Law Activities.

Dr. Lee started with a general discussion of Australian space law. He stated that the law was created in response to specific commercial concerns as opposed to a general development of space activities. He stated that as a result of this the Australian space law regime is extraordinarily complex. He stated that there were two major activities with which the law deals. The first is launch activities, governed under Space Activities Act of 1998, and the second is satellite radiocommunications, governed under the Radiocommunications Act of 1992.

He then moved into an overview of the Radiocommunications Act. The act provides for the management and regulation of the Australian communications industry, management of the radiofrequency spectrum, and the implementation of Australia’s obligations in the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). He noted that the act works on a prohibitory foundation, as opposed to a permissive foundation. The act regulates radiocommunications devices and transmissions, and applies to Australian space objects and foreign space objects that use Australian frequencies. Australian space objects are defined as those that have been submitted by Australia to the ITU. After entering into a deed of agreement with the Australia Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), a satellite operator can apply for four types of licenses: Earth license, Earth receive license, space license, and space receive license.

Lee then entered into a discussion of the Space Activities Act. He said that the act has been supplemented by the Space Activities Act, the flight safety code, and the maximum probable loss methodology. He said that the regime seeks to implement Australia’s obligations under the five space treaties, and that it is implemented by the Space Licensing and Safety Office (SLASO).

He stated that there are different licenses under the Space Activities Act that must be obtained in order to engage in space activities: a space license which authorizes flight paths, launch permits which authorize launches, an overseas launch certificate for an Australian “responsible party” to launch a space object abroad, an authorisation of return for the reentry of space objects launched overseas and not licensed in Australia, and exemption certificates in the case of emergencies. He noted that, uniquely, the Australian regime separates flight path licenses from launch permits. He stated that this will create a burden on launch operators that has not yet been felt due to the lack of an Australian launch operator. Specifically, he stated that this could conflict export controls such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTRC). He stated that the overseas launch certificate and the authorisation of return are the only licenses that have been issued by the country.

He next discussed the Australian liability regime. Under the act liability is limited to accidents that occur within 30 days of the launch, and is silent on accidents past this period. Lee noted that under Australia’s common law system, that tort law may affect this presumption. He stated that the law caps liability at maximum probable loss or A$750 million whichever is lower, and that the act may provide for an additional A$3 billion if the claim is brought by and Australian third party. The act does not, however, provide protection to a launch operator for claims brought in foreign courts.

He concluded with a discussion of the Australian law in relation to the Pacific Rim. He noted the extraterritorial affect of the laws which could lead to overlapping licensing regimes. He said that this creates the problem of forum shopping for the lightest regulatory regime, which could hurt the Australian industry due to its regime’s complexity. He called for harmonization and reciprocal recognition in the regulation of multinational private space activities. He also stated that trade restrictions also needed to be harmonized in order to help the satellite industry.

___________
Chinese translation by Ryan Grimm, J.D. Candidate, Tulane University:

环太平洋国家空间法会议: 澳大利亚

与会第二个发言人是澳大利亚西尼史崴泽尔阔伯莱斯(Schweizer Kobras)法律事务所的理查德•李(Dr. Ricky J. Lee)博士，他的演讲题目为“澳大利亚空间法的法律现状与最新发展及其与环太平洋空间法律和活动的相关性”。

李博士首先概括了澳大利亚空间法。该法是以商业活动为出发点考量制定的，并非以普遍空间活动的发展为着眼点而制定， 因此澳大利亚的空间法律就变成了一个非常复杂的制度。它涉及到的主要活动可分为两种: 一是1998年空间活动法规范的发射活动；二是1992年无线通信法规范的卫星无线通信。

此后，李博士就无线通信法、该法管理与调控澳大利亚的通信业、管理无线频谱以及实行澳大利亚作为国际通信联合会签署国的义务进行了具体介绍。据他所介绍，该法是以禁止性的基础产生作用，而非以允许性的基础产生作用。该法针对无形通信器与传输进行调控性管理；即包括澳大利亚空间物体和利用澳大利亚频率的外国空间物体皆受该法调控。澳大利亚空间物体的定义是由澳大利亚递交给国际通信联合会的物体。在与澳大利亚通信媒体局达成协议以后，卫星操作者可申请四种许可证，即地面许可证、地面接受许可证、空间许可证以及空间接受许可证。

李博士接下来就澳大利亚的《空间活动法》进行了介绍。该法已经由飞行安全法与最高可能损失方法论进行了补充。他说几个法规组成的制度尽可能使澳大利亚在五个空间公约下的义务得到履行。而这些法规是由空间许可证与安全厅(SLASO)实施的。

李博士的演讲谈到《空间活动法》中所涉及到的不同空间活动所需的许可证。即空间许可证的功能是授权飞行轨迹的；发射许可证的功能是授权发射的；海外发射许可证的功能是授权澳大利亚作为“责任方”在国外发射空间物体的；返回许可证的功能则是授权在国外发射的，但并没有澳大利亚许可证的空间物体再入以及由于紧急情况而采用的豁免证书。他还提到了澳大利亚相关法规很独特的地方、比如把发射轨迹许可证与发射许可证分别独立出来的。而这种分别又是跟与之相关的出口管制相矛盾的，比如国际武器贸易条例(ITAR)和导弹及其技术控制制度(MTRC)就是彼此冲突的。截至今天，澳大利亚只发行过海外发射许可证与返回许可证这两种证书。

李博士接下来介绍了澳大利亚的责任制度。据其所言，《空间活动法》中的事故责任期限为发射后的三十天，但就超过此期限的事故并未做任何涉及。李博士说在澳大利亚的英美法系中，侵权法可能会影响上述规定。《空间活动法》把赔偿金限制在最高可能损失之内或者7.5亿澳元，按两者中较低者计算、如有澳大利亚第三方起诉，该法也允许最高赔偿金额再另加30亿澳元，但是该法不保护在澳大利亚以外的其他国法庭被起诉的发射操作者。

最后李博士就澳大利亚的空间法与环太平洋的关系发表了自己的见解。他认为该法规在疆界以外的影响可能会造成有重叠性的许可证制度，然而这种状况同时也会促使当事人挑选最松宽的许可证制度以及导致澳大利亚的空间行业遭受损失的恶性后果。究其原因就是这个制度过于复杂。李博士呼唤各方对跨国私营空间活动的管理进行协调与互认、为了帮助卫星行业、各方也该协调贸易管制。