Res Communis

Pacific Rim National Space Law Summit: China / 环太平洋国家空间法会议: 中国

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

After Lunch, Prof. Dr. Li Juqian, Associate Professor Council-Member of China Institute of Space Law, Director of Public International Law Research Institute School of International Law, China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL) Beijing, China presented Current Legal Status and Recent Developments in Chinese Space Law and Its Relevance to Pacific Rim Space Law and Activities.

Prof. Li began with a discussion of the status quo and characteristics of space law in China. He stated that academics think China needs a national space law. However, China’s space law is not as developed as that in other States, and that one must examine the hierarchies of law in China to fully understand its space law regime. He said that China’s space law is low on the hierarchy since it is in the form of ministerial rules and that there is no space law at the national level. He also noted that rules are made by different ministries, and this may result in conflicts.

The next portion of his presentation dealt with the main space regulations in China and their relationship with international space law. He stated that the Chinese ministerial regulations on the Administering Methods on Registration of Space Objects and Provisional Administering Methods on the Permits for Civil Space Launch Activities, which were both promulgated by Commission of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND). He said that these regulations were instrumental in helping China to fulfill its international obligations. COSTIND, however, has not existed since March 2008. Some of its functions have been taken by other ministries and the Chinese Space National Agency (CSNA).

Prof. Li then submitted four factors that should be considered when developing a basic space law for China: compliance with international law, reference to the legislative experience of other countries, integration and codification of existing regulations and other regulatory documents, and developmental trends.

Finally, he addressed the interaction of international treaties and national law. He stated that international conventions must be applied, and that China’s legal system supported the application of treaties and their direct implementation in China. He mentioned that in addition to multilateral treaties, bilateral treaties and the influence of foreign legislation will be valuable in developing Chinese space law.

He concluded that development of the law will not be synchronized with the development of technology; international treaties are very influential on Chinese space law; the effect and executive power of regulatory documents should be more specific; and that Chinese legislation has a long way to go and due to the number on entities that need to be involved it can not be done in a short period of time that is five years.

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

环太平洋国家空间法会议: 中国

午饭后, 中国空间法学会理事、中国政法大学副教授、国际公法研究所所长, 中国政法大学副教授李居迁博士发表了演讲。其演讲题目为“中国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”。

李博士首先就中国空间法律规定的现状与特点进行了概括。他指出虽然中国的有关空间法律规定没有其他国家那么发达，然而为了了解它，必须搞清楚中国法律的等级体系。李博士在演讲中提到中国有关空间的法律规定只有等级体系中最低等级的部门规章，并没有国家层面的空间法。他还强调指出由于该规章由不同部门颁发、因而容易产生冲突。

接着，李博士介绍了中国的主要有关空间的规章及其与国际空间法的关系。李博士所提到的相关规章包括了国防科学技术工业委员会(COSTIND)颁发的《空间物体登记管理办法》与《民用航天发射项目许可证管理暂行办法》。他说为使中国可以履行其相关的国际义务，这两条规章是非常重要的。

随后，李博士提出了中国在制定的一套基本空间法时，所需考虑到的四个因素，即遵守国际法律，参照他国的立法经验，整合与编纂现有的法规及规范性文件及其发展动向。

然后李博士就国际条约与国内法律的相互作用，及中国必须执行的国际条约进行了简要概述。在其概述中李博士指出该法律体系也并不妨碍国际条约的直接执行。除了多边条约之外，还有双边条约和外国立法都为中国发展空间法提供了珍贵的参照。

李博士归纳性总结了人为法律的发展与科技的发展是不相配的；国际条约对中国的空间法的影响是很大的；规范性文件的效力与执行力度应更为具体。最后李博士强调指出中国的空间立法还有很长的路要走，然而由于所涉及到的相关部门繁多，所以不会在近期之内完成。

Pacific Rim National Space Law Summit: Canada / 环太平洋国家空间法会议: 加拿大

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The next presentation, Current Status and Recent Developments in Canada’s National Space Law and Its Relevance to Pacific Rim Space Law and Activities, was given by Bruce Mann, Sr. Counsel, Justice Legal Services Division, Dept. of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Mann began by highlighting Canada’s link to the Pacific Rim. He noted specifically that China is one of the largest customers for Canadian remote sensing data.

He then began a discussion of licensing issues under the Remote Sensing and Space Systems Act. He stated that three unusual licensing situations had occurred. This first concerned jurisdiction over non-Canadian operating Canadian-registred satellites from abroad. He said that this issue was highlighted by the proposed sale of RADARSAT-2 by MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. (MDA) to Alliant Techsystems Inc. (ATK); this sale was not approved by the Canadian government. He stated that due to the liability convention, Canada would be able to retain jurisdiction over such a satellite, under the Canadian legislation jurisdiction can be extended to a class of persons having a substantial connection to Canada. The next unusual licensing issue concerned satellite-detected marine information. He said that this issue arose from COM DEV’s proposal to receive maritime signals sent by vessels via satellite and gather the data in Canada. Canada determined that the legislation in Canada allowed the licensing of a “remote sensing system” and that since such a system would fall under the definition, thus Canada was competent to issue a license. The third issue dealt with operation of a ground station in Canada using foreign-owned satellites. Since a system includes ground stations as well as satellites, and since the legislation does not require the licensee to own the satellites, a license would be required.

He then moved into the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines. The concern with space debris was catalyzed, according to Mann, by China’s anti-satellite test, the Cosmos-Iridium collision, and debris incidents involving the International Space Station (ISS). He stated that Canada supports the Guidelines. He gave a short summary of how the guidelines minimize the creation of space debris. He stated that Canada does have a Space System Disposal Plan which governs that end of life disposal of satellites. Next he discussed to the governance of non-remote sensing satellites, stating that there was no on point legislation but that operators were asked to comply with International Telecommunication Union (ITU) standards.

Mann then discussed liability in relation to the space debris. He said that the governing law is found in the Liability Convention, and that legal problems for damage caused by debris originate in Article IV. He stated that fault was the controlling factor and not where space debris originated. He stated though that these issues are very complex due to a variety of factors. He noted that there was the potential to allocate fault to a State that failed to take evasive measures, but that it was unclear whether these measures were required. Finally, he concluded that there were numerous unanswered questions in relation to debris, and that the risks were a strong incentive to follow the guidelines.

————
Chinese translation by Ryan Grimm, J.D. Candidate, tulane University:

环太平洋国家空间法会议: 加拿大

与会第三位演讲者为加拿大外交外贸部司法服务厅高级律师布鲁斯•梅(Bruce Mann)，其演讲题目是关于“论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”。

梅先生首先强调了加拿大与环太平洋地区的密切关系，而中国作为加拿大遥感数据最大的客户就足以证明这一关系。

然后，梅先生就几个关系到加拿大《遥感与空间系统法》中的许可证问题进行了陈述。根据梅先生的介绍，最近已出现了三个异常的许可证的状况。第一个异常的许可证状况是涉及到非加拿大卫星操作者在加拿大登记，却于加拿大境外进行操作的管辖权问题。引发此项异常状况的是加拿大公司MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. (MDA)所提出的将该公司的RADARSAT-2 [雷达卫星2号系统] 销售给美国公司Alliant Techsystems Inc. (ATK)的贸易义项。虽然加拿大政府没有批准此项交易，但是梅先生却认为该贸易义项即使获得加拿大政府的批准，按照《责任公约》，加拿大还是可以对该卫星系统保持管辖权，因为加拿大法律中管辖权可以延伸到跟加拿大有重要关系的人；第二个异常的许可证状况涉及到的是卫星所检测的海洋信息。该异常状况来自加拿大COM DEV公司所提出的由加方接受来自船舶所传导的卫星的信号，再由地面站收集来自卫星所传导的海洋信号的数据。由于加拿大政府确定了本国法允许“遥感系统”许可证，而由传导卫星所发射的海洋信息也正属于该系统类型，因此加拿大政府就可以给该项目颁发许可证。第三个异常状况涉及到了加拿大的地面站对加国境外卫星系统的利用。由于任何一套遥感系统包括地面站和卫星，再加上加拿大法律不要求许可证持有者拥有卫星系统，因此持有加拿大政府所颁发的许可证对利用加国境外卫星系统的加拿大地面站是必要的。

梅先生接着谈及机构间空间碎片协调委员会(IADC)空间碎片减缓指南。他认为由于中国反卫星试验、美俄卫星(Cosmos-Iridium)太空相撞以及威胁国际太空战的空间粹片等事件引起了各国对空间粹片的关注。梅先生重申了加拿大政府对该指南的支持。接着他简短介绍了指南会如何减少空间粹片的产生，以及加拿大的空间系统处理计划所规范的对生命终止卫星的处理。随后，他的话题转向了对非遥感卫星的管理。虽然对此加拿大没有相关的立法，但加政府要求操作者根据国际通信联合的标准进行操作。

而后梅先生针对空间粹片的责任问题进行了论述。他认为可适用的相关法律条款在《责任公约》中有相关的陈述。此公约的第九条就概括了粹片所造成的损失的法律根源。他认为过失是控制因素造成的，而非空间粹片的来源。多方面的因素直接导致了问题复杂性。尽管没有采取躲避措施的国家有可能被定为过失方，但是到底需要采取哪些躲避措施又是没有明确界定的。最后梅先生概括地总结了仍未找到答案的空间粹片的问题，并据此指出与之相关的风险足够促使各方遵守空间碎片减缓指南。

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。

Pacific Rim National Space Law Summit: Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization / 环太平洋国家空间法会议: 亚太空间合作组织

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The first presentation of the summit was given by Dean Haifeng Zhao of the Harbin Institute of Technology School of Law in Harbin China. The presentation was titled Current Legal Status and Recent Developments in APSCO and Its Relevance to Pacific Rim Space Law Activities.

Prof. Zhao started with a discussion of international cooperation. He stated that international cooperation makes space exploration more efficient by reducing costs and risks associated with the expensive field. With this in mind, he said, the Outer Space Treaty made international cooperation a fundamental principle of international space law. He then went on to say that cooperation was specifically needed in the Asia-Pacific region, which was the impetus for the establishment of Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO) by China, Thailand, and Pakistan. He said that the APSCO convention reflects the Outer Space Treaty in its call for international cooperation amongst developing countries.

He then went into a discussion of space cooperation in Asia. He stated that there were 3 categories of space countries in Asia. The first category includes those with independent space programs such as China, India, and Japan. The second is those that manufacture or utilize space technologies, such as South Korea. The third includes countries that enjoy the benefits of space technology Among these nations, different forms of bilateral cooperation have occurred as well as the Japanese initiated Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum (APRSAF).

He then turned to the establishment of APSCO. He said that this organization is the institutionalization of Asia-Pacific Cooperation efforts. The convention was signed in 2005, and entered into force in 2006. It has 7 members, and the headquarters are in Beijing, China. He noted that a 2009 program of work has been adopted.

Next, Prof. Zhao discussed the legal framework surrounding APSCO. He stated that the APSCO has full international legal status with the attendant benefits, including the ability to conclude treaty. Its objective is to improve the capacity of member states, promote economic development of member states, and increase cooperation of member states through space technology. He said a core principle of the convention was the peaceful use of outer space. He then listed the numerous competencies of APSCO in pursuance of its objectives, noting specifically that it can develop an industrial policy. He also stated that the APSCO convention is very similar to the ESA Convention.

The institutional structure of APSCO includes the Consul and the Secretariat, as well as other bodies to be determined as needed. The Consul is made of of ministers from the State parties, and is the highest decision making body in APSCO. The Secretariat is headed by the Secretary General, and that the independent body has a wide range of responsibilities. According to Zhao, the organization is funded by contributions of the member states, and that disputes are to be resolved either through consultation or through arbitration.

Prof. Zhao next gave an assessment of ways to improve APSCO. He stated that APSCO needed to extend its membership, develop a space cooperation program as soon as possible, enhance cooperation with other space cooperation organization, and that an Asia-Pacific Center for Space Law should be established within the framework of APSCO.
He concluded by discussing the relationship between the law of APSCO and general international space law. He noted that APSCO has its own characteristics but that it complies with and enriches general space law. Because of this, Prof. Zhao asserted that APSCO will promote the development of space activities in the Pacific Rim.
_________
Chinese Translation of this post by Ryan Grimm, J.D. Candidate, Tulane University:

环太平洋国家空间法会议: 亚太空间合作组织

环太平洋国家空间法会议与会代表中第一个发表正式演讲的是哈尔滨工业大学法学院院长赵海峰教授。其演讲题目为“亚空组织现今的法律地位、晚近发展及其与环太平洋空间法和空间活动的关系”。

赵教授首先提到的是国际合作。他认为国际合作使太空探索的效率更高，因为它降低了这个昂贵领域的成本与风险。《外空条约》也是本着这种考虑才把合作 制订为国际空间法的一项根本原则。赵教授说亚太地区就更需要空间合作, 这个动机促进了中国、泰国与巴基斯坦共同建立亚太空间合作组织〔亚空组织〕、该组织也正好体现了《外空条约》对有关发展中国家的国际合作的呼吁。

接下来赵教授将话题转到了亚洲空间合作的现状上去。他说该地区有三类太空国家、第一类是那些拥有独立空间能力、比如中国、印度和日本；第二类国家是 那些能生产或利用空间科技的国家，其中以韩国最为典型。第三类国家主要享受空间科技所带来的利益、在这三类国家之间曾经以不同方式的开展过双边合作，其中 日本还开创了亚太地区空间局论坛。

赵教授接着把话题转到亚空组织的建立上去了。他说该组织是亚太合作的制度化表现。2005年签署的亚空组织公约于2006年即生效了。该组有七个成员国，总部位于中国北京。他还提到该组织2009年的工作方案已通过。

然后赵教授的演讲还涉及到与亚空组织有关的法律框架。亚空组织具有完全的国际法律地位以及所伴随的权利，包括缔结公约。该组织的目的是提高成员国的 能力、促进经济发展以及通过空间技术增加成员国之间的合作。此后，赵教授列出了亚空组织的相关能力、特意强调了该组织具有制定工业政策的能力。同时，他也 谈到《亚空组织公约》相当类似《欧空局公约》。

亚空组织的行政结构包括理事会与秘书处以及将来可增加的机构。理事会是由成员国部长组成的，是该组最高的决策机构，只有占据三分之二的多数票的决策 才可以通过；秘书处则由秘书长领导负责广泛的任务。据赵教授的介绍，该组织的资金来自成员国的会费。成员国之间的纠纷则需通过协商或仲裁来解决。
接下去赵教授评估了使亚空组织完善的方式。他认为该组织需要扩大成员，尽快发展空间合作项目，增进与其他空间合作组织的合作以及建立亚太空间法中心。

最后赵教授谈到关于亚空组织的法律与基本国际空间法的关系。他提到虽然该组织具有自己的特点，但是也须遵守并填补基本国际空间法的遗漏部分，因此赵教授认为该组织会促进亚太地区的空间活动。

Pacific Rim National Space Law Summit: Orientation Dinner / 环太平洋国家空间法会议: 开幕宴会

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The opening evening of the Pacific Rim National Space Law Summit was highlighted by a talk given by Prof. Jon M. Van Dyke from William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa. His presentation was titled Global Governance of Shared Areas.

His presentation started with a brief overview of space law starting with the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty. He pointed out that the Outer Space Treaty was widely ratified while the Moon Treaty was conspicuously not widely ratified, and that the two were very similar. He stated that though a semblance of the common heritage of mankind principle can be found in the Outer Space Treaty’s province of all mankind principle, the Moon Treaty’s major difference is that it requires the development of an international regime to govern exploitation of the resources of celestial bodies, which some states seem reluctant to submit to. He then gave a quick summary of some of the core principles of the Outer Space Treaty such as the “benefit of all mankind” principle, the principle of non-appropriation, and the Article IX duty of cooperation. He also mentioned how geostationary orbits are governed by the International Telecommunications Union.

Next Prof. Van Dyke turned to a discussion of the law of the sea. He stated that the Law of the Sea was initially based on Grotius’ principle of freedom of the seas, but that technology began to present challenges to that principle. One of the issues that brought this to a fore was polymetallic nodules on the deep sea bed, and that this was one of the issues that helped initiate negotiations on the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). According to Van Dyke, the convention contains similarities to the Outer Space Treaty such as Art. 137 ban on appropriating the high seas. He also noted that the deep sea bed was governed as the common heritage of mankind, a concept which initially had support from the United States. This support was lost during the Reagan administration, which led to the negotiation of the Part XI Agreement under the Clinton administration. This agreement created the International Sea Bed Authority which regulates resources found on the deep sea bed.

His discussion of the Law of the Sea continued with fisheries issues. He stated that UNCLOS created a duty to protect and preserve the environment of the high seas as well as a duty to cooperate on fisheries management. However, this did not create a complete regime and holes were then filled by the 1995 Straddling and Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement. He also pointed to regional agreements that govern fisheries such as the 200 Honolulu Convention.

Next, Van Dyke discussed whaling and the problems with regulating whaling. He stated that the core issue with the governance of whaling was whether whales stocks were a resource to be exploited or whether the killing of whales was wrong. These two position may not be reconcilable, according to Prof. Van Dyke. He also noted that technology has changed whaling, in that it is now a much easier task than traditionally was the case. He stated that the Whaling Commission had instituted a global moratorium on on whaling, but that whaling for scientific research was still allowed, and that Japan may be taking advantage of this allowance.

Next, climate change was discussed. He stated that the climate was a shared resource that suffered from a tragedy of the commons situation. International law principles on pollution include a duty to inform, to consult, and to negotiate as well as the duty not to cause significant harm. He pointed to two International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea cases that address these issues. Both the MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. U.K.) (ITLOS 2001) and Land Reclamation Case (ITLOS 10-8-03). He stated that these cases stand for the principle that nations must consult and cooperate when their pollution affects shared resources.

Finally, Prof. Van Dyke then turned to the question of “what rules apply in Outer Space?” He pointed out that the space law regime was not as developed as other legal regimes, and that principles from other shared resources may be applicable. He said specifically that there is foremost a duty to consult which requires states to exchange information, listen, respond, and to negotiate agreements or submit disputes to a bodies with the capacity to resolve them.

Chinese Translation of this post by Ryan Grimm, JD Candidate, Tulane University:

环太平洋国家空间法会议: 开幕宴会

环太平洋国家空间法会议开幕大会的亮点是夏威夷大学理查德法律学院约翰•万戴克(Jon M. Van Dyke)教授关于“全球治理的共享地区”的演讲。

万戴克教授首先简短介绍了空间法，特别是《外空条约》与《月亮协定》。他指出了《外空条约》被广泛批准而《月亮协定》只被明显少数国家批准，但除了《月亮协定》中所提到的全体人类的共同财产原则之外，两个条约非常相似。接着他概括总结了《外空条约》中的几个基本原则，比如全人类的利益原则，不得据为己有原则以及第九条的合作义务。在这一部分的演讲中, 他也提到了国际通信联合如何规范对地静止轨道。

然后万戴克教授把话题转到海洋法。他说海洋法一开始时是根据格老秀斯海洋自由原则制定的但后来科技挑战了此原则, 比如深海底的多金属结核就是对格老秀斯海洋自由原则的挑战，不过这种挑战也促进《联合国海洋法公约》的谈判。据万戴克教授，此公约与《外空条约》有相似的地方，比如第一百三十七条禁把公海据为己有就是一例。同时他也注意到了深海底是以全体人类的共同财产的概念规范，他指出此概念一出炉，就被美国政府所支持，但到里根执政时，便失去了支持，而这又促进了克林顿政府针对第十一节协定的谈判协定。正是由于此协定的诞生，才产生了规范深海底发现的能源职能的机构—–国际海底管理局。

万戴克教授还就海洋法中的渔场问题发表了自己的看法。他说《联合国海洋法公约》确定了两个义务：保护与保持公海的环境义务与合作管理渔场的义务，但该公约并没有建立完整的管理体制， 直到1995年的《跨界和高度洄游鱼类资源保护和管理协定》的出炉才弥补这个漏洞。他也提到了管理渔场的区域性协定，比如2000年的《檀香山公约》。

接着万戴克教授又提到了捕鲸业以及管理捕鲸的问题。他认为其核心问题是“鲸类资源是可利用的”与“捕杀鲸鱼是不道德”的两种相互矛盾的观点，万戴克认为这两种观点是不可调解的。他也注意到了使捕鲸变得更为简便的科学技术正在改变着捕鲸业。虽然国际捕鲸委员会颁布了《全球禁止捕鲸令》，但以科学研究为由的捕鲸并未被禁止，而日本却在尽可能利用此漏洞进行捕鲸。

万戴克教授在他的演讲中，也谈到了气候变化，他指出气候是一种公地悲剧性的共享资源。其中针对污染的国际法律原则包括通知义务，咨询义务，协商义务以及不造成重大损害的义务。万戴克教授在此以两个由国际海洋法法庭审的判涉及到上述的义务的案子为例—– MOX Plant Case (爱尔兰诉英国) (ITLOS 2001) 与土地复垦(Land Reclamation Case) (ITLOS 10-8-03)。他认为这两个案件遵循的原则是国家的污染影响共享资源时必须跟有关他国进行咨询与合作.

最后万戴克教授又把话题拉回到了“外空适用哪些规则”上来。他指出了空间法律制度没有其他法律制度那么发达、所以其他共享资源领域的原则也许能适用到空间法中。他具体描述了空间法中应该最重要的义务是咨询。咨询义务要求各国信息交流、听取意见与建议、针对疑点进行答复以及通过谈判协商解决问题或者把纠纷交付拥有解决能力的组织。

Pacific Rim National Space Law Summit/ 环太平洋国家空间法会议

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space law will kick off the Pacific Rim National Space Law Summit at the East-West Center on the University of Hawaii at Manoa Campus. The Summit will be live blogged right here on Res Communis. In addition to the live blogging, the blog posts will be translated into Chinese by Ryan Grimm and posted on Res Communis. Please note that there will be a delay between the English post and the Chinese language post, which will appear below the English portion of the posts.

______________

环太平洋国家空间法会议
主办方： 国家遥感, 航空与空间法研究所
地点： 夏威夷东西方文化与交流中心
举行日期：二零零九年五月二十至二十一日