London Institute of Space Policy and Law: Risks Associated with Space Activity Seminar Series Seminar III – Commercial and Financial Risk – Updated

October 20, 2009 at 1:10 pm | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

Updated with the new agenda.

The London Institute of Space Policy and Law will host Risks Associated with Space Activity Seminar Series Seminar III: Commercial and Financial Risk on November 2, 2009:

LONDON INSTITUTE OF SPACE POLICY AND LAW
PRACTITIONER AND INDUSTRY SEMINAR
MONDAY 2 NOVEMBER 2009
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH SPACE ACTIVITY SEMINAR SERIES
SEMINAR III
COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL RISK

The risks associated with commercial space activity can differ in nature or quality from those of other large-scale business ventures. Space projects can be more susceptible to some risks and their impact on the business can differ from terrestrial equivalents. In addition, there are certain risks specific to space commerce. These result from the longer term nature of space activities and can arise because they are conducted in outer space. For example, commercial risks associated with the choice of technology, can have a greater impact in space where it cannot be readily changed once it is launched.

The understanding and ability to quantify risk is central to any commercial space venture and its funding. To foster better understanding of these risks and to encourage appropriate policy directions, the Institute is bringing together leading specialists to present a series of Seminars on space risks and their insurance. The Series covers Commercial Risk, including evaluation of market demand, technology choice, competition and timing; Financial Risk, including equity and debt mix, currency choice and pricing; Policy Risk of change in government focus and emphasis; Regulatory Risk including ITU procedures, terms and duration of frequency assignments, and ownership transfer limitations; Physical and Security Risk, addressed in the first Seminar in June 2009; and Insurance, including domestic implementation of international state liability, and coverage of other risks.

These Seminars aim to inform and engage those involved in space activities, policy makers and lawyers who advise them, as well as students and scholars in the field. The third such Seminar on Commercial and Financial Risk, will be held on Monday 2 November 2009.

The Fee for the Seminar is:
Delegate – £50
Academic and Government – £25
Student – Free

To register please send your name and affiliation, by e-mail headed “Risk Seminar III,” to: Info@Space-Institute.org

And send the Fee* to: Co-operative Bank
Sort Code: 08-92-99
Account Number: 65345920
Account Name: London Institute of Space Policy and Law
Reference: [Your name]
*Most banks make no charge for a BACS transfer.

LONDON INSTITUTE OF SPACE POLICY AND LAW
PRACTITIONER AND INDUSTRY SEMINAR
9 AM TO 12.15 PM 2 NOVEMBER 2009
CHARLES CLORE HOUSE 17 RUSSELL SQUARE LONDON WC1B 5DR
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH SPACE ACTIVITY SEMINAR SERIES
SEMINAR III
COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL RISK

9.00 – 9.05 Welcome
Marcus Bicknell, Formerly Commercial Director of Société Européenne des Satellites, Member of the Board of SES, Seminar Chairman

9.05 – 9.15 Introduction
Description of the Series, Summary of Seminar III on Commercial and Financial Risks, outline of remaining topics and schedule
Sa’id Mosteshar, Barrister, Director of the Institute of Space Policy and Law

9.15 – 10.00 Commercial Risk Factors
Evaluation of market demand; Competition and timing
Pacôme Revillon, CEO and Managing Director, Euroconsult

10.00 – 10.45 Technology Risk
Technology choice and impact of market changes
Philippe Francken, Vice President, Risk Management, SES Engineering

10.45 – 11.00 Break

11.00 – 12.00 Financial Risk
Equity and Debt mix; Timing of funds; Nature of investor; Long term investment -
Revenue generation; Currency choice; Pricing; Security and collateral
Andrew Ivison, Partner, CMS Cameron McKenna

12.00 – 12.15 Discussion, Delegate contributions and concluding remarks
Marcus Bicknell, Chairman

Hearing: Strengthening NASA’s Technology Development Programs

October 20, 2009 at 1:03 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The House Science and Technology Committee will hold a hearing titled Strengthening NASA’s Technology Development Programs from 10:00AM – 12:00PM on October 22, 2009 at 2318 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Scheduled witnesses include Dr. Robert D. Braun, Dr. Raymond S. Colladay, and Mr. Christopher Scolese.

Ghana holds chairmanship of ITU Council for 2009-2010

October 20, 2009 at 12:53 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

From the ITU:

Ghana holds chairmanship of ITU Council for 2009-2010
India to host ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference in 2010

Geneva, 20 October 2009 — ITU’s governing body, the Council comprising of 46 Member States, began its annual session today. The Council will review and approve ITU’s biennial budget for 2010-2011 and focus on issues related to implementing the Union’s strategic plan, with the objective of responding to the current demands of a dynamic, rapidly changing telecommunications and ICT environment.

At the opening plenary meeting, Ghana took over the rotating chairmanship from Bulgaria. Mr Haruna Iddrisu, Member of Parliament and Minister of Communications of Ghana, said, “Ghana is committed to the ideals and values of ITU. Our major task is to bridge the digital divide. We must set the tone and agenda on how to strengthen regulatory practices, address issues related to convergence and ensure the smooth functioning of the Internet. We must also address the key challenges of our times, such as harnessing the power of ICTs to combat climate change. At the same time, we must focus on the issues affecting developing countries: how they can build capacity and attract investment in order to achieve the connectivity targets set by the World Summit on the Information Society and meet the 2015 Millennium Development Goals.”

Outgoing Chairman, Plamen Vatchkov of Bulgaria expressed his appreciation of the challenges addressed by ITU and its membership during his tenure. He said, “In the past year we addressed the challenges of strengthening cybersecurity, in particular protecting children online, as well as climate change and emergency communications. The year was marked by a severe economic downturn, but the ICT sector has weathered the storm well. I am confident that ITU, as the leading intergovernmental body for telecommunications and ICT, will continue to support all its stakeholders.”

“This has been a very successful year in raising ITU’s profile on the international stage,” ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré said in his opening remarks at the Council meeting. “ITU has demonstrated that information and communication technologies are vital and beneficial in addressing each and every one of the global issues faced today, particularly in the key areas of climate change, cybersecurity, and the financial crisis — areas where ICTs are now clearly recognized as being part of the solution, not part of the problem.” Dr Touré added that next year “promises to be as exciting as ITU continues to drive and influence the rapidly changing ICT landscape”.

The ITU Council will be in session until 30 October.

Space Scientist Charged with Attempted Espionage

October 20, 2009 at 12:50 pm | Posted in Aerospace Law Interfaces | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

From the Department of Justice:

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, October 19, 2009
Maryland Scientist Charged with Attempted Espionage

A Maryland scientist who once worked in varying capacities for the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has been arrested for attempted espionage, David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Channing D. Phillips, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and Joseph Persichini, Jr., Assistant Director for the FBI’s Washington Field Office, announced today.

A criminal complaint unsealed today in the District of Columbia charges Stewart David Nozette, 52, of Chevy Chase, Maryland, with attempted espionage for knowingly and willfully attempting to communicate, deliver, and transmit classified information relating to the national defense of the United States to an individual that Nozette believed to be an Israeli intelligence officer. The complaint does not allege that the government of Israel or anyone acting on its behalf committed any offense under U.S. laws in this case.

Nozette was arrested earlier today by FBI agents and is expected to make his initial appearance tomorrow in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.

“The conduct alleged in this complaint is serious and should serve as a warning to anyone who would consider compromising our nation’s secrets for profit,” said David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security.

“Those who would put our nation’s defense secrets up for sale can expect to be vigorously prosecuted,” said Channing D. Phillips, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. “This case reflects our firm resolve to hold accountable any individual who betrays the public trust by compromising our national security for his or her own personal gain.”

“The FBI is committed to protecting the nation’s classified information and pursuing those who attempt to profit from its release or sale,” said Joseph Persichini, Jr., Assistant Director for the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

According to an affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, Nozette received a Ph.D. in Planetary Sciences from MIT in 1983, and worked at the White House on the National Space Council, Executive Office of the President, in 1989 and 1990. He developed the Clementine bi-static radar experiment that purportedly discovered water on the south pole of the moon. Nozette also worked at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from approximately 1990 to 1999 where he designed highly advanced technology. At the Department of Energy, Nozette held a special security clearance equivalent to the Defense Department Top Secret and Critical Nuclear Weapon Design Information clearances. Department of Energy clearances apply to access to information specifically relating to atomic or nuclear-related materials.

Nozette was also the President, Treasurer and Director of the Alliance for Competitive Technology (ACT), a non-profit corporation that he organized in March 1990. Between January 2000 and February 2006, Nozette, through his company ACT, entered into several agreements to develop advanced technology for the U.S. government. Nozette performed some of this research and development at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in Arlington, Virginia, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. From 1989 through 2006, Nozette held security clearances as high as Top Secret and had regular, frequent access to classified information and documents related to the U.S. national defense.

According to the affidavit, on Sept. 3, 2009, Nozette was contacted via telephone by an individual purporting to be an Israeli intelligence officer, but who was in fact an undercover employee of the FBI (UCE). During that call, Nozette agreed to meet with the UCE later that day at a hotel in Washington D.C. According to the affidavit, Nozette met with the UCE that day and discussed his willingness to work for Israeli intelligence.

Nozette allegedly informed the UCE that he had, in the past, held top security clearances and had access to U.S. satellite information. Nozette also allegedly said that he would be willing to answer questions about this information in exchange for money. The UCE explained to Nozette that the Israeli intelligence agency, or “Mossad,” would arrange for a communication system so that Nozette could pass information to the Mossad in a post office box. Nozette agreed to provide regular, continuing information to the UCE and asked for an Israeli passport

According to the affidavit, Nozette and the UCE met again on Sept. 4, 2009, in the same hotel. During the meeting, Nozette allegedly informed the UCE that, although he no longer had legal access to any classified information at a U.S. government facility, he could, nonetheless, recall the classified information to which he had been granted access, indicating that it was all still in his head. In the meeting, Nozette allegedly asked when he could expect to receive his first payment, specifying that he preferred to receive cash amounts “under ten thousand” so he didn’t have to report it. At the conclusion of this meeting, Nozette allegedly informed the UCE, “Well I should tell you my first need is that they should figure out how to pay me . . . they don’t expect me to do this for free.”

On or about Sept. 10, 2009, undercover FBI agents left a letter in the designated post office box for Nozette. In the letter, the FBI asked Nozette to answer a list of questions concerning U.S. satellite information. The undercover agents also provided a $2,000 cash payment for Nozette. The serial numbers of the bills were recorded. Nozette retrieved the questions and the money from the post office the same day.

On or about Sept. 16, 2009, Nozette was captured on videotape leaving a manila envelope in the designated post office box in the District of Columbia. The next day, FBI agents retrieved the sealed manila envelope that Nozette had dropped off and found, among other things, a one-page document containing answers to the questions posed by the undercover agents and an encrypted computer thumb drive. One of answers provided by Nozette contained information classified as Secret, which concerned capabilities of a prototype overhead collection system. In addition, Nozette allegedly offered to reveal additional classified information that directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, and other major weapons systems.

Also on or about Sept. 17, 2009, undercover FBI agents left a second letter in the post office box for Nozette. In the letter, the FBI asked Nozette to answer another list of questions concerning U.S. satellite information. The FBI also left a cash payment of $9,000 in the post office box. Nozette allegedly retrieved the questions and the money from the post office box later that same day.

On or about October 1, 2009, Nozette was filmed on videotape leaving a manila envelope in the post office box. Later that day, FBI agents retrieved the manila envelope left by Nozette and found a second set of answers from him. The answers contained information classified as both Top Secret and Secret that concerned U.S. satellites, early warning systems, means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack, communications intelligence information, and major elements of defense strategy.

This investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Washington Field Office with assistance from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.

The prosecution is being handled by Trial Attorneys Deborah A. Curtis and Heather M. Schmidt, from the Counterespionage Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Asuncion, from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

The public is reminded that a criminal complaint contains mere allegations and that every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Library: A Round-up of Reading

October 19, 2009 at 3:14 pm | Posted in Library | Leave a comment

Articles
Elias, Shaina N. Challenges to inclusion on the “no-fly list” should fly in district court: considering the jurisdictional implications of administrative agency structure. 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1015-1032 (2009).

Gulley, Bethany A. Note. Criminal Law–no right to revoke and avoid search–Ninth Circuit rules that consent to airport screening cannot be revoked in an administrative search. (United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955, 2007.) 31 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 515-541 (2009).

Kenneth Anderson and Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Bombing The Moon, Forbes.com

Air & Space Law, Volume 34, Number 4/5, August/September 2009

# Leading Articles
# Maarten Peeters, The New EC Regulation on Computer Reservation Systems, p.227
# Ulrich Steppler and Angela Klingmüller, EU Emissions Trading Scheme and Aviation: Quo Vadis?, p.253
# Gary Heilbronn and Paul von Nessen, Airline and Aviation Industry Information Retention: Problems for Privacy Law Proposals on Data Breach Notification in Australia?, p.261
# Alan Khee-Jin Tan, Aviation Policy in the Philippines and the Impact of the Proposed Southeast Asian Single Aviation Market, p.285
# Sigmar Stadlmeire and Birgit Rumersdorfer, The Ryanair/Charleroi Case Before the European Court, p.309
# Steven Freeland, Book Reviews, p.319
# P. Nikolai Ehlers, Book Reviews, p.323
# Wybo P. Heere, Bibliography of Air Law 2008, p.327
# Wybo P Heere, Names Index, p.345
# Wybo P. Heere, Subject Index, p.347
# Coming Events, p.349

Martha Neil, Boy, 6, Reported Aloft, Alone in Balloon, Found Alive at Home, ABA Journal Online

Books
Ulrich Steppler and Angelakling Müller, EU Emissions Trading Scheme and Aviation (2009).

Periodicals
First Committee Monitor (2009 No. 2)

Reports
Open Source Center – Japan — Media Expresses Confidence in Japan’s Future Role in Space Development

Information Security: NASA Needs to Remedy Vulnerabilities in Key Networks. GAO-10-4, October 15.

CRS – Navy F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Aircraft Procurement and Strike Fighter Shortfall: Background and Issues for Congress

Blogs
IAC 2009 – space tourism & Moon sessions – RLV and Space Transport News

Travel Diary: A New Start – Dipnote

Iceland and Norway In – Aviation Law Prof Blog

New Agreement Guidelines Posted by DDTC – Export Law Blog

Senators Take Aim at oneworld’s Application – Aviation Law Prof

Agreement Guidelines Update Updated – Export Law Blog

A step towards ITAR reform, or something else? – Space Politics

Does geospatial data want to be free? – Spatial Sustain

PODCAST: Legal and Policy Issues Associated with the Sharing of Geospatial Data, GEOINT 2009 Panel – Got GEOINT?

Experts Detail Need for Sustainable Outer Space Environment – Key for Future Global Space Activities – Secure World Foundation

Augustine panel update – RLV and Space Transport News

The White House, Sudan, and a meteorite – Space Politics

Chinese Government Has Not Approved Human Moon Mission – Space Policy Online

SWF Technical Advisor presents at IAC 2009 on subject of international civil SSA – Secure World Foundation

US Losing Space Race – DoD Buzz

Unguided Missile Attacks – Export Law Blog

Spy Sat Battle Joined On Hill – DoD Buzz

H.R. 3819: To extend the commercial space transportation liability regime

October 19, 2009 at 1:20 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

H.R. 3819: To extend the commercial space transportation liability regime was introduced on October 15, 2009 by Rep. Barton Gordon (D-TN6):

HR 3819 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3819

To extend the commercial space transportation liability regime.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 15, 2009

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. HALL of Texas, Ms. GIFFORDS, and Mr. OLSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology

A BILL

To extend the commercial space transportation liability regime.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION LIABILITY REGIME EXTENSION.

Section 70113(f) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘December 31, 2009.’ and inserting ‘December 31, 2012.’.

H.R. 3844: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special depreciation allowance and recovery period for noncommercial aircraft property

October 19, 2009 at 1:16 pm | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

United States CongressH.R. 3844: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special depreciation allowance and recovery period for noncommercial aircraft property was introduced on October 15, 2009 by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS4):

HR 3844 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3844

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special depreciation allowance and recovery period for noncommercial aircraft property.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 15, 2009

Mr. TIAHRT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special depreciation allowance and recovery period for noncommercial aircraft property.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SPECIAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE AND RECOVERY PERIOD FOR NONCOMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT PROPERTY.

(a) In General- Section 168 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(o) Special Allowance for Noncommercial Airplanes-

‘(1) ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE-

‘(A) IN GENERAL- In the case of any qualified noncommercial aircraft to which this subparagraph applies–

‘(i) the depreciation deduction provided by section 167(a) for the taxable year in which such property is placed in service shall include an allowance equal to 50 percent of the adjusted basis of the qualified noncommercial aircraft property, and

‘(ii) the adjusted basis of the qualified noncommercial aircraft property shall be reduced by the amount of such deduction before computing the amount otherwise allowable as a depreciation deduction under this chapter for such taxable year and any subsequent taxable year.

‘(B) APPLICATION TO AIRCRAFT PURCHASED IN 2010 OR 2011- Subparagraph (A) applies to qualified noncommercial aircraft property placed in service after December 31, 2009, and before January 1, 2012, which is–

‘(i) acquired by the taxpayer after December 31, 2009, and before January 1, 2012, but only if no written binding contract for the acquisition was in effect before January 1, 2010, or

‘(ii) acquired by the taxpayer pursuant to a written binding contract which was entered into after December 31, 2009, and before January 1, 2012, and

‘(2) RECOVERY PERIOD- For purposes of this section–

‘(A) IN GENERAL- Qualified noncommercial aircraft to which this subparagraph applies shall be treated as 3-year property.

‘(B) APPLICATION TO AIRCRAFT PURCHASED BEFORE 2015- Subparagraph (A) applies to qualified noncommercial aircraft placed in service after the date of the enactment of this subsection and before January 1, 2015, which is–

‘(i) acquired by the taxpayer after the date of the enactment of this subsection and before January 1, 2015, but only if no written binding contract for the acquisition was in effect before such date of the enactment, or

‘(ii) acquired by the taxpayer pursuant to a written binding contract which was entered into after December 31, 2008, and before January 1, 2015, and

‘(3) QUALIFIED NONCOMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT PROPERTY- For purposes of this subsection–

‘(A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘qualified noncommercial aircraft property’ means any aircraft–

‘(i) which is not used in the trade or business of transporting persons or property,

‘(ii) to which this section applies, and

‘(iii) the original use of which commences with the taxpayer after–

‘(I) December 31, 2009, for purposes of paragraph (1), and

‘(II) the date of the enactment of this subsection for purposes of paragraph (2).

‘(B) EXCEPTIONS-

‘(i) BONUS DEPRECIATION PROPERTY UNDER SUBSECTION (k)- The term ‘qualified noncommercial aircraft property’ shall not include any property to which subsection (k)(1) applies.

‘(ii) ALTERNATIVE DEPRECIATION PROPERTY- The term ‘qualified noncommercial aircraft property’ shall not include any property to which the alternative depreciation system under subsection (g) applies, determined–

‘(I) without regard to paragraph (7) of subsection (g) (relating to election to have system apply), and

‘(II) after application of section 280F(b) (relating to listed property with limited business use).

‘(iii) ELECTION OUT- If a taxpayer makes an election under this clause with respect to any class of property for any taxable year, this subsection shall not apply to all property in such class placed in service during such taxable year.

‘(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR SELF-CONSTRUCTED PROPERTY- In the case of a taxpayer manufacturing, constructing, or producing property for the taxpayer’s own use, if the taxpayer begins manufacturing, constructing, or producing the property–

‘(i) after December 31, 2009, and before January 1, 2012, for purposes of paragraph (1), and

‘(ii) after the date of the enactment of this subsection and before January 1, 2015, for purposes of paragraph (2),

the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(B) (as the case may be) shall be treated as met.

‘(D) DEDUCTION ALLOWED IN COMPUTING MINIMUM TAX- For purposes of determining alternative minimum taxable income under section 55, the deduction under subsection (a) for qualified noncommercial aircraft property shall be determined under this section without regard to any adjustment under section 56.’.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to property placed in service after the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such date.

H.R. 3840: To strengthen certain provisions relating to arms export licenses, and for other purposes

October 19, 2009 at 1:13 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

United States CongressH.R. 3840: To strengthen certain provisions relating to arms export licenses, and for other purposes was introduced on October 15, 2009 by Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD2). The bill reads in part:

SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO REMOVE SATELLITES AND RELATED COMPONENTS FROM THE UNITED STATES MUNITIONS LIST.

(a) Authority- Except as provided in subsection (b) and subject to subsection (d), the President is authorized to remove satellites and related components from the United States Munitions List, consistent with the procedures in section 38(f) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(f)).

(b) Exception- The authority of subsection (a) may not be exercised with respect to any satellite or related component that may, directly or indirectly, be transferred to, or launched into outer space by, the People’s Republic of China.

(c) United States Munitions List- In this section, the term ‘United States Munitions List’ means the list referred to in section 38(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(a)(1)).

(d) Effective Date- The President may not exercise the authority provided in this section before the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

European Space Policy

October 19, 2009 at 1:08 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

From EARSC:

Europe tries to relaunch space policy

The European Union is stepping up its efforts to catch up with other global powers on space policy after the temporary collapse of its flagship project for satellite navigation, Galileo.

The EU executive is expected to publish new guidelines in the coming weeks to improve satellite monitoring of the Earth’s climate. . . . [Full Story]

Indian Society for International Law Seventh International Conference: Legal Regimes of Sea, Antarctica, Air and Space

October 19, 2009 at 12:55 pm | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The Indian International Law Society has issued a call for papers for its Seventh International Conference. The Conference’s theme will be Legal Regimes of Sea, Antarctica, Air and Space and will take place January 15-17, 2010, in New Delhi.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.