Export Control Policy as a Guide to Secrecy Reform

April 26, 2010 at 8:52 am | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

by Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz with the blog faculty

Source: Secrecy News

“The problem we face,” said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates last week, “is that the current system, which has not been significantly altered since the end of the Cold War, originated and evolved in a very different era with a very different array of concerns in mind.”  He was talking about the U.S. export control process, but with minor differences he might just as well have been speaking about the national security classification system, since an increasingly obsolete model of security underlies both policy regimes.

“America’s decades-old, bureaucratically labyrinthine system does not serve our 21st century security needs or our economic interests,”Secretary Gates said April 20 at an event hosted by Business Executives for National Security.  “Our security interests would be far better served by a more agile, transparent, predictable and efficient regime.  Tinkering around the edges of the current system will not do.”

The White House expressed a similar view in an April 20 fact sheet. The current U.S. export control system, it said, “is overly complicated, contains too many redundancies, and tries to protect too much.”  The scope of export controls is so broad that it “dilutes our ability to adequately control and protect those key items and technologies that must be protected for our national security.  The goal of the reform effort is ‘to build high walls around a smaller yard’ by focusing our enforcement efforts on our ‘crown jewels’,” the White House said.

In fact, the export control system is so messed up, senior defense officials told reporters at an April 19 press briefing, that “the system itself poses a threat to national security.”

The Administration’s proposed solution for export control policy is based on principles of simplification, consolidation and a focus on the highest value items to be controlled.  This translates into a single export control list, a single licensing agency, a single enforcement agency, and a single information technology system for the entire export control program.

A similar approach could be applied to classification policy, perhaps in the following way.

A single classification system:  Currently there are two parallel classification systems, one for general national security information, based on executive order, and one for nuclear weapons-related information, based on the Atomic Energy Act.  In many areas of defense and foreign policy, the two systems overlap, generating unnecessary complexity and confusion.  The dual classification systems also significantly complicate the declassification process.  Moving to a single classification system would simplify the classification process, facilitate training of personnel, and increase declassification productivity.  A useful interim step would be to transfer the nuclear weapons classification category known as “Formerly Restricted Data” (FRD) into the general national security classification system so that FRD records — on topics such as stockpile size and weapon storage locations abroad — could be handled and declassified just like other records containing national security information.

A consolidated set of classification guides:  Currently there are nearly three thousand classification guides in government that prescribe what information is to be classified and at what level.  Instead there could be maybe three– one for defense operations and technology, one for intelligence, and one for foreign policy (and perhaps one more for nuclear weapons information if the two classification systems are combined).  This kind of consolidation would help promote standardization across agencies, including ease of correction and change of classification policies.  It would also facilitate oversight and enforcement of proper classification practices.

An enhanced oversight mechanism:  If there is going to be increased uniformity and consistency in classification across the government, then a strong oversight mechanism will be needed to adjudicate and resolve the inevitable conflicts that will arise among individual agencies, and the deviations between policy and practice.  The existing Information Security Oversight Office could help fulfill this role if the President grants it the power and the responsibility to overrule erroneous or unwise classification decisions.

A drastic reduction in scope of classification:  Just as the export control system “tries to protect too much,” the same is true in spades of the classification system.  (Random example: The total dollar cost of the CIA’s CORONA satellite program, which ended in 1972, is still considered classified information.)  “Frederick the Great’s famous maxim that he who defends everything defends nothing certainly applies to export control,”Secretary Gates said last week.  The corresponding view in classification policy is Justice Potter Stewart’s familiar statement that “when everything is classified, then nothing is classified….”  The forthcoming Fundamental Classification Guidance Review that was required by executive order 13526 should help to reverse the growth of the classification system over the next two years.  But other targeted measures may also be needed to achieve the optimum classification state of “high walls around narrow areas.”

“The proposition that a more focused and streamlined system actually helps our national security can go against conventional wisdom,”Secretary Gates said.  Nevertheless, “I believe it is the right approach, and it is urgently needed, given the harmful effects of continuing with the existing set of outdated processes, institutions and assumptions.”

The Obama Administration is just beginning to consider the possible outlines of a future classification system that is “fundamentally transformed.”

“I … look forward to reviewing recommendations from the study that the National Security Advisor will undertake in cooperation with the Public Interest Declassification Board to design a more fundamental transformation of the security classification system,” President Obamawrote when the latest executive order on classification policy was issued on December 29.

H.R. 5115: To recognize the key contributions of flight support specialists to our Nation’s aviation safety by restoring the retirement treatment of flight support specialists whose functions were outsourced by the Federal Government in 2005

April 23, 2010 at 1:42 pm | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

H.R. 5115: To recognize the key contributions of flight support specialists to our Nation’s aviation safety by restoring the retirement treatment of flight support specialists whose functions were outsourced by the Federal Government in 2005 was introduced on April 22, 2010 by Rep. Mark Schauer (D-MI7).

H.R. 5093: To authorize the Secretary of Education to establish a program for displaced aerospace professionals to become certified elementary, secondary, or vocational school teachers

April 22, 2010 at 3:40 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

H.R. 5093: To authorize the Secretary of Education to establish a program for displaced aerospace professionals to become certified elementary, secondary, or vocational school teachers was introduced on April 21, 2010 by Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL24).

H. Con. Res. 266: Expressing the sense of Congress that Taiwan should be accorded observer status in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

April 22, 2010 at 10:34 am | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

H. Con. Res. 266: Expressing the sense of Congress that Taiwan should be accorded observer status in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was introduced on April 21, 2010 by Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV1):

HCON 266 IH

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. CON. RES. 266

Expressing the sense of Congress that Taiwan should be accorded observer status in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 21, 2010

Ms. BERKLEY (for herself, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, and Mr. GINGREY of Georgia) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that Taiwan should be accorded observer status in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

Whereas the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago, Illinois, on December 7, 1944, and entered into force April 4, 1947, approved the establishment of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), stating ‘The aims and objectives of the Organization are to develop the principles and techniques of international air navigation and to foster the planning and development of international air transport so as to . . . meet the needs of the peoples of the world for safe, regular, efficient and economical air transport’;

Whereas following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the ICAO convened a High-level Ministerial Conference on Aviation Security that endorsed a global strategy for strengthening aviation security worldwide and issued a public declaration that ‘a uniform approach in a global system is essential to ensure aviation security throughout the world and that deficiencies in any part of the system constitute a threat to the entire global system’, and that there should be a commitment to ‘foster international cooperation in the field of aviation security and harmonize the implementation of security measures’;

Whereas, on January 22, 2010, the Secretary General of the ICAO stated, ‘The attempted sabotage of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on 25 December [2009] is a vivid reminder that security threats transcend national boundaries and can only be properly addressed through a global strategy based on effective international cooperation.’;

Whereas the Taipei Flight Information Region, under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China (Taiwan), covers an airspace of 176,000 square nautical miles and provides air traffic control services to over 1,350,000 flights annually along 12 international and 4 domestic air routes;

Whereas over 174,000 international flights carrying more than 35,000,000 passengers travel to and from Taiwan annually, reflecting its importance as an air transport hub linking Northeast and Southeast Asia;

Whereas a total of 30 airlines, 23 of which are foreign-owned, provide scheduled flights to Taiwan;

Whereas airports in Taiwan handle more than 1,580,000 metric tons of air cargo annually;

Whereas Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport was ranked in 2009 by the Airports Council International as the world’s 8th and 18th largest airport by international cargo volume and number of International passengers respectively;

Whereas exclusion from the ICAO since 1971 has impeded the efforts of the Government of Taiwan to maintain civil aviation practices that comport with evolving international standards, due to its inability to contact the ICAO for up-to-date information on aviation standards and norms, secure amendments to the Organization’s regulations in a timely manner, obtain sufficient and timely information needed to prepare for the implementation of new systems and procedures set forth by the ICAO, receive technical assistance in implementing new regulations, and participate in technical and academic seminars hosted by the ICAO;

Whereas, despite these impediments and irrespective of its inability to participate in the ICAO, the Government of Taiwan has made every effort to comply with the operating procedures and guidelines set forth by the organization;

Whereas, despite this effort, the exclusion of Taiwan from the ICAO has prevented the organization from developing a truly global strategy to address security threats based on effective international cooperation, thereby hindering the fulfillment of its overarching mission to ‘meet the needs of the peoples of the world for safe, regular, efficient and economical air transport’;

Whereas the United States, in the 1994 Taiwan Policy Review, clearly declared its support for the participation of Taiwan in appropriate international organizations, in particular, on September 27, 1994, with the announcement by the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs that, pursuant to the Review and recognizing Taiwan’s important role in transnational issues, the United States ‘will support its membership in organizations where statehood is not a prerequisite, and [the United States] will support opportunities for Taiwan’s voice to be heard in organizations where its membership is not possible’;

Whereas section 4(d) of the Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 3303(d)) declares, ‘Nothing in this Act may be construed as a basis for supporting the exclusion or expulsion of Taiwan from continued membership in any international financial institution or any other international organization.’; and

Whereas ICAO rules and existing practices have allowed for the meaningful participation of noncontracting countries as well as other bodies in its meetings and activities through granting of observer status: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that–

(1) meaningful participation by the Government of Taiwan as an observer in the meetings and activities of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) will contribute both to the fulfillment of the ICAO’s overarching mission and to the success of a global strategy to address aviation security threats based on effective international cooperation;

(2) the United States Government should take a leading role in gaining international support for the granting of observer status to Taiwan in the ICAO for the purpose of such participation; and

(3) the United States Department of State should provide briefings to or consult with Congress on any efforts conducted by the United States Government in support of Taiwan’s progress toward observer status in the ICAO.

London Institute of Space Policy and Law: ESA Study Into Use of EO Information as Evidence

April 21, 2010 at 11:25 am | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

From the London Institute of Space Policy and Law:

DOCUMENT ESA-ISPL/EO-12
ESA STUDY INTO USE OF EO INFORMATION AS EVIDENCE
WORKSHOP NOTICE
THURSDAY 1 JULY 2010
CHARLES CLORE HOUSE 17 RUSSELL SQUARE LONDON WC1B 5DR ENGLAND
+44 (0)207 402 2010 WWW.SPACE-INSTITUTE.ORG
HONORARY PRESIDENT PROFESSOR BIN CHENG
DIRECTOR PROFESSOR SA’ID MOSTESHAR
TRUSTEES TONY BALLARD HIS HONOUR SIMON GOLDSTEIN CAROLINE D GRACE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

The Institute is conducting a Study for the European Space Agency, ESA, exploring the evidential value of information derived from Earth Observation, EO, satellites in both administrative and judicial proceedings.

The Study aims to identify the circumstances in which EO information can most effectively be offered as evidence and the advantages and limitations of using EO information in public law and in civil law settings. International, regional and municipal jurisdictions will be compared in their approach and potential acceptance of EO information as evidence. Circumstances in which EO information has been offered in evidence will be analysed, identifying the reasons for its acceptance or rejection.

Another, and critical aspect of the Study is to familiarise the legal community, including judges and practitioners, administrators and enforcement officers, with the range of EO information available and its value as evidence. We aim to learn from the broader legal community and technical experts, how any aspect of the collection, collation and processing of the EO information could be modified to meet specific needs and overcome limitations so as to foster its greater use as evidence. To achieve this interchange and to provide a forum for discussion and exchange of knowledge, we will hold Workshops at which the findings of the Study will be presented, the needs of the legal community explored to inform the Study team. It is our intention to ensure high-level participation of the legal, administrative and technical experts.

The first such Workshop will be held in London on Thursday 1 July 2010. This will be a proactive workshop, with full participation by all present. Two Case Studies will be prepared for debate and analysis. We will be delighted if you would attend and take part in the Workshop on that day. You will receive further details of the Workshop closer to the date, but we will be pleased if you could save that date for the event.

Disasters Charter: Volcanic eruption in Iceland

April 21, 2010 at 9:55 am | Posted in Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The Disasters Charter has been activated for the volcanic eruption in Iceland:

Volcanic eruption in Iceland.

Type of Event: Volcanic eruption
Location of Event: Iceland
Date of Charter Activation: 19/04/2010
Charter Requestor: Ministère de l’Intérieur – Direction de la Sécurité Civile – COGIC
Project Management: CNES

Description of the Event:
A volcanic eruption in Iceland spread black smoke and white steam into the air and partly melted a glacier, 700 people have been evacuated. As a consequence of the smoke cloud, most of the european airspace has been progressively closed.

Fact Sheet on the President’s Export Control Reform Initiative

April 21, 2010 at 9:38 am | Posted in Aviation Law, Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

From The White House:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 20, 2010
Fact Sheet on the President’s Export Control Reform Initiative

Earlier today, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates discussed the Administration’s interagency review of the U.S. export control system, which calls for fundamental reform of the current system in order to enhance U.S. national security and strengthen our ability to counter threats such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

President Obama, in August of last year, initiated this comprehensive review to identify possible reforms to the system. Although the United States has one of the most robust export control systems in the world, it is rooted in the Cold War era and must be updated to address the threats we face today and the changing economic and technological landscape.

The assessment was conducted by an interagency task force created at the direction of the President and included all departments and agencies with roles in export controls. The assessment found that the current U.S. export control system does not sufficiently reduce national security risk based on the fact that its structure is overly complicated, contains too many redundancies, and tries to protect too much.

The current system is based on two different control lists administered by two different departments, three different primary licensing agencies, none of whom sees the others licenses, a multitude of enforcement agencies with overlapping and duplicative authorities, and a number of separate information technology systems, none of which are accessible to or easily compatible with the other, or agencies with no IT system at all that issues licenses. The fragmented system, combined with the extensive list of controlled items which resulted in almost 130,000 licenses last year, dilutes our ability to adequately control and protect those key items and technologies that must be protected for our national security. The goal of the reform effort is “to build high walls around a smaller yard” buy focusing our enforcement efforts on our “crown jewels.”

The review’s overall findings have the full support of the President’s senior national security team.

Key Recommendations

The Administration has determined that fundamental reform of the U.S. export control system is needed in each of its four component areas, with transformation to a:

* Single Control List,
* Single Primary Enforcement Coordination Agency,
* Single Information Technology (IT) System, and
* Single Licensing Agency.

Implementation

The Administration will engage with Congress to consult and seek its input on the proposed reforms. To deploy the new system, the Administration has prepared a comprehensive, three-phase approach and is currently moving forward to make specific reforms which can be initiated immediately and implemented without legislation. The approach will make the necessary changes to the current system to transition it to the revised, enhanced system in Phase III:

* Phase I makes significant and immediate improvements to the existing system and establishes the framework necessary to create the new system, including making preparations for any legislative proposals. This phase includes implementing specific reform actions already in process and initiating review of new ones.
o Control List – refine, understand, and harmonize definitions to end jurisdiction confusion between the two lists; establishes new independent control criteria to be used to screen items for control into new tiered control list structure.
o Licensing – implement regulatory-based improvements to streamline licensing processes and standardize policy and processes to increase efficiencies.
o Enforcement – synchronize and de-conflict enforcement by creation of an Enforcement Fusion Center.
o IT – determine enterprise-wide needs and begin the process to reduce confusion by creating a single U.S. Government (USG) point of entry for exporters.
o Phase II results in a fundamentally new U.S. export control system based on the current structure later this year. This phase completes deployment of specific Phase I reforms and initiates new actions contingent upon completion of Phase I items. Congressional notification will be required to remove munitions list controls or transfer items from the munitions list to the dual-use list, and additional funding will be required both for enhanced enforcement and the IT infrastructure.
+ Control List – restructure the two lists into identical tiered structures, apply criteria, remove unilateral controls as appropriate, and submit proposals multilaterally to add or remove controls.
+ Licensing – complete transition to mirrored control list system and fully implement licensing harmonization to allow export authorizations within each control tier to achieve a significant license requirement reduction which is compatible with national security equities.
+ Enforcement – expand outreach and compliance.
+ IT – transition toward a single electronic licensing system.
+ Phase III completes the transition to the new U.S. export control system. Legislation would be required for this phase:
# Control List – merge the two lists into a single list, and implement systematic process to keep current.
# Licensing – implement single licensing agency.
# Enforcement – consolidate certain enforcement activities into a Primary Enforcement Coordination Agency.
# IT – implement a single, enterprise-wide IT system (both licensing and enforcement).

International Conference on Air Transport, Air Law and Regulation, 24 – 26 May 2010

April 20, 2010 at 8:58 am | Posted in Aviation Law Current Event | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

McGill University’s Institute of Air and Space Law, the Singapore Aviation Academy, and the Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore are co-organizing an International Conference on Air Transport, Air Law and Regulation, 24 – 26 May 2010:

OBJECTIVES

This Conference aims to address critical issues facing civil aviation in current challenging times with an emphasis on Asian air transportation. Current and new updates on legal and policy issues relevant to today’s air transportation environment will be addressed.

OUTLINE

Airline Industry: Is It Emerging from the Financial Crisis?

o Economic performance of the airline industry in a deregulated environment

o Sustainable survival strategies

o Economic theories in a challenged financial environment

o How will the industry finance a new generation of aircraft?

Prof Dr Paul Stephen Dempsey

Director, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, Canada

Aviation Security: Are We Adequately Prepared for Another 9/11 Attempt?

o Annex 17 and ICAO Compliance Audits

o Airline, airport and governmental efforts to protect aviation security

o Regulatory challenges and state compliance with SARPs

o Forthcoming diplomatic conference on addressing new terrorism risks

Prof Dr Ludwig Weber

Adjunct Professor, McGill University, and Consultant, ICAO

Rachel Pachoud

Wings Club Fellow, McGill University, Canada

Aviation Safety: ICAO Audits and National “Blacklisting”

o US and EU blacklists

o ICAO Safety Audits of State compliance with SARPs

o Economic impact and legality of unilateral blacklisting of airlines

Prof Dr Paul Stephen Dempsey

Director, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, Canada

Air Traffic Management: Safety, Efficiency and Corporatisation

o ATC – challenges and opportunities

o Financing of advance air navigation technology

o Need of a framework to govern CNS/ATM systems

o Costs and benefits of ATC corporatisation and/or privatisation

o Impact of corporatisation in terms of safety, efficiency and cost

o Impact of criminalisation of safety occurrences on safety

o Will functional airspace blocks help integrate a Single European Sky?

Stefan A Kaiser

Head of Legal Office, NATO AWACS Operations, Germany

Prof Dr Francis Schubert

Adjunct Professor, McGill University, Canada and Corporate Secretary, Skyguide, Switzerland

Jiri Horni, Kocian Solc Balastik, Prague

Environmental Regulation: ICAO Standards, Unilateral Emissions Trading or Taxing Schemes?

o The environmental impacts of air transport: noise and emissions

o Environmental concerns over airport development and aircraft operations,

o as well as aircraft and engine design

o Governments regulations and their impact on airport planning, development

o and operations

Mark Glynn

Dobson Scholar, McGill University, Canada

Yaw Nyampong

Editor, Annals of Air & Space Law, McGill University, Canada

Mr Alejandro Jose Piera Valdes, United Arab Emirates ICAO Council Office

Aviation Liability and Insurance: Is the Sky the Limit for Damages?

o Liability for ANSPs and aircraft manufacturers

o Interpretation and application of the Montreal Convention of 1999

o Which Asian States have ratified which liability regime: Warsaw and its progeny, or Montreal 99?

o Differences in carrier liability for passengers and cargo

o Compensation by aircraft manufacturers to carriers for delivery delays

o How will the rules change for surface damage with the new draft

o Conventions on modernisation of the Rome Convention and carrier liability for acts of unlawful interference?

Kevin Bartlett

Partner, Cooper Grace Ward, Australia

Lee Jae Woon

Assistant Manager, Legal Affairs Department, Korean Air

Peng Lim

Partner, Clyde & Co, Singapore

Urban Olson

Partner, Advokatfirman Urban Olson, Sweden

Tan Siew Huay

Director (Legal), Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore

Air Cargo Liability

o Limits of liability and burdens of proof in the Warsaw, Montreal Protocol No 4 and Montreal Convention Regimes

o The role of insurance in paying and settling claims

Prof Dr Wolf Muller-Rostin

Consultant, Germany

Mickey Shan

Legal Specialist, China Airlines

Aircraft and Infrastructure Finance

o Financing the next generation of aircraft

o Aircraft financing: perspectives in the Middle East and Asia

o Implementation of the Cape Town Convention and the registration of security interests: government challenges

Eric Lippe

Legal Advisor, Co-pilot Air Law, Canada

Prof Dr Ludwig Weber

Adjunct Professor, McGill University, Canada and Consultant, ICAO

Emerging Issues for Airports: Finance, Privatisation, and Environmental Issues

o Enhancing the margin of safety and security without impairing airline efficiency

o New airport and air navigation infrastructure needed to meet growing

demand for air travel

o Impact of airport privatisation/third party management on

infrastructure and charges

o ICAO initiatives to reduce noise pollution and green house gas

emissions

o Are airports a “natural monopoly” and if so, which governance

structure best protects the airlines?

Kevin Bartlett

Partner, Cooper Grace Ward, Australia

Prof Dr Francis Schubert

Adjunct Professor, McGill University, Canada and Corporate Secretary, Skyguide, Switzerland

Tan Siew Huay

Director (Legal), Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore

Liberalisation of Air Transport: Government Regulations, Bilateral, Multilateral and “Unilateral”?

o What is the appropriate role for government vis-�-vis the airline industry?

o Which countries are/are not liberalising and why?

o Challenges for the implementation of a regional ASEAN liberalisation

agreement

o IATA’s initiative for “Unilateral” liberalisation of air transport

Paul Fitzgerald

Lecturer, McGill University, Canada

Alan Tan Khee-Jin

Associate Professor and Vice Dean, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore

Carlos Grau Tanner

Director, Government and Industry Affairs IATA, Geneva

Ian Thomas

Managing Consultant, CAPA Consulting, Australia

Lee Yeong-Heok

Professor, Korea Aerospace University

European Laws Policies and Practices and their Impact on Asia and the Middle East

o EU Aviation Safety: JAA, EASA and the blacklisting of airlines

o EU regulations on pricing and marketing

o US-EU Open Skies Agreement

o EU’s approach to Middle East and Asia

o New rights for air passengers in Europe

o Other recent EU proposals affecting international air transport

Mark Glynn

Dobson Scholar, McGill University, Canada

Roberto Lim C O

Former Senior Vice President, Philippine Airlines

Beatrice Lim

Commercial Director, Association of Asia Pacific Airlines

Juan Carlos Salazar

Air Transport Advisor, General Civil Aviation Authority, United Arab Emirates

Traffic Rights and Air Transport Agreements: Liberalisation, “Open Skies” and Beyond

o Will the world go beyond “open skies” in liberalising traffic rights, cabotage, and ownership and control?

o Will bilateral, plurilateral, and/or multilateral agreements exchange Seventh Freedom and cabotage rights, and allow foreign ownership?

Alan Tan Khee-Jin

Associate Professor and Vice Dean. Faculty of Law, National University of

Singapore

Paul Fitzgerald

Lecturer, McGill University, Canada

Carlos Grau Tanner

Director, Government and Industry Affairs IATA, Geneva

Jason R Bonin

Research Scholar and PhD Candidate, National University of Singapore

Airline Alliances, Predation, Mergers and the Competition Laws

o Principal benefits and costs of major airline alliances

o What forms of airline behaviour offend the antitrust and competition laws?

o Economic and marketing reasons for airlines entering into alliances

o Impact of alliances on consumers and non-aligned competitors

o Types of airline conduct that may potentially violate antitrust and competition law

o Will three airline alliances come to dominate passenger transportation worldwide?

o How does the extraterritorial reach of domestic antitrust law impact international airlines?

Prof Dr Paul Stephen Dempsey

Director, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, Canada

Robert Ian McEwin

Visiting Professor, National University of Singapore

Philippe Ruttley

Partner, Clyde & Co, London

WHO SHOULD ATTEND
Professionals from civil aviation administrations, airport authorities, air traffic services providers, transport ministries, aviation security providers and personnel directly involved in supporting the aviation business.

Japan-Netherlands Space Cooperation

April 20, 2010 at 8:47 am | Posted in Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

From SRON:

The Netherlands and Japan decide on cooperation in space science
15 Apr 2010

The Netherlands and Japan have decided to cooperate in the development and application of new space science. That was the gist also of an earlier agreement in 2009 between the Japanese space agency JAXA and SRON, but now also the Netherlands Space Office (NSO) and JAXA have signed an agreement in Tokyo. It was signed in the presence of Maria van der Hoeven, Secretary of Economic Affairs. [More in Dutch]

Library: A Round-up of Reading

April 19, 2010 at 2:59 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a comment

Articles
Jeff Foust, Hitting the reset button, The Space Review

G. Ryan Faith, President Obama’s Vision for Space Exploration, The Space Review

Periodicals
Orbital Debris Quarterly News (April 2010)

Blogs
India to Re-Test Ballistic Missile Defense Shield – MDAA

State Department Legal Advisor Defends Drone Attacks – Got GEOINT?

Washington Post Praises Harold Koh Statement on Drones – Opinio Juris

FCC Proposes 2010 Annual Regulatory Fees – Broadcast Law Blog

Robert Wright Is Very Unhappy with Drone Warfare – Opinio Juris

Additional notes about the revised plan and other developments -Space Politics

Obama’s new missile-defence strategy – IISS

More about that COTS funding boost – RLV and Space Transport News

Czechs May Join Missile Defense Warning System – MDAA

Orion Lite won’t reduce NASA Russian dependence – Hyperbola

Missile Defense and the Prague Treaty – Arms Control Wonk

Drone Warfare: The Upbeat News About the Obama Administration – Volokh Conspiracy

Is Harold Koh’s Defense of Drones Also the Defense of Targeting a US Citizen? – Volokh Conspiracy

That’s no moon, it’s a (Chinese) space station – Space Politics

NRO Chief Aims to Beef Up 2012 Tech Budget – Got GEOINT?

Members of Congress weigh in on NASA – Space Politics

A New Low For Air Travel – International Law Prof Blog

Senate Fight Ahead for START – MDAA

Additional reaction to the president’s speech – Space Politics

FAA crew continues to support Haitian relief, rebuilding – DOT Blog

Guest Post: Air Travel and Volcanic Ashes – Aviation Law Prof Blog

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com. | The Pool Theme.
Entries and comments feeds.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.