legal issues of satellite telecommunications, the geostationary orbit, and space debris

This article was downloaded by: [University of South Carolina ]On: 05 May 2013, At: 11:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Astropolitics: The InternationalJournal of Space Politics &PolicyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fast20

Legal Issues of SatelliteTelecommunications, TheGeostationary Orbit, and SpaceDebrisRam Jakhu aa Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University,Montreal, CanadaPublished online: 09 Oct 2007.

To cite this article: Ram Jakhu (2007): Legal Issues of Satellite Telecommunications,The Geostationary Orbit, and Space Debris, Astropolitics: The International Journal ofSpace Politics & Policy, 5:2, 173-208

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14777620701580828

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fast20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14777620701580828

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

LEGAL ISSUES OF SATELLITETELECOMMUNICATIONS, THE GEOSTATIONARY

ORBIT, AND SPACE DEBRIS

RAM JAKHU

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

Satellites are the best means for a rapid expansion of telecommunications servicesnationally and globally. However, the level of that expansion is greatly deter-mined by the availability of the two indispensable tools for satellites, whichare orbital positions and radio frequencies. Growing demand for geostationaryorbital (GEO) slots and radio frequencies by a rapidly increasing number of com-mercial satellite operators and expanding dependence on satellites for militarypurposes give rise to shortage of slots and spectrum to allocate as well as anincrease in satellite interference. Concurrently, increasing space activities andanti-satellite (ASAT) tests are generating man-made space pollution, parti-cularly space debris, and consequently are making the use of outer space moreexpensive and dangerous. The problems shortage of appropriate orbital positions,satellite interference and space debris are serious. Unless resolved in a timely fash-ion, they would pose significant barriers and dangers to all (civilian, commercialand military) satellites and could result in denial of access to space in practice byall states. This paper first describes the current situation of shortage of GEO posi-tions and increase in satellite interference. Secondly, current international regu-latory regime governing the access to and use of these tools has been analyzed witha view to highlight the weaknesses therein. Thirdly, the problem of space debris isdiscussed with a view to show how difficult it is becoming to carry on spaceoperations and how important and urgent it is to have an appropriate legalregime in place. Finally, a few recommendations are made emphasizing the needfor international cooperation in order to strengthen the international regulatoryregime so that the required telecommunication services remain readily availableto all and outer space remain pollution-free environment to be used for and byall states.

It is generally known that telecommunications infrastructure andservices are indispensable tools for socioeconomic and culturaldevelopment of a country. Telecommunication ‘‘facilities and

Address correspondence to Prof. Ram Jakhu, Institute of Air and Space Law, Faculty ofLaw, McGill University, 3661 Peel Street, Montreal, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

Astropolitics, 5:173–208Copyright # 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1477-7622 printDOI: 10.1080/14777620701580828

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

services are not only the consequence of economic growth, but aprerequisite for overall development; telecommunications are anintegral part of the national and international development pro-cess.’’1 About two-thirds of world’s population does not havereasonable access to basic telecommunications and the remainingone-third keeps expanding its communications requirements. Thisimplies that there is a need for a major expansion of telecommuni-cations in the world. Consequently, there might be an enormousmarket for telecommunications equipment and services. It is undis-puted that satellites are the best means for a rapid expansion oftelecommunications, particularly for thin-route traffic, and mobileand broadcasting services. Because of the unique advantages ofsatellites, their use is, and will be, expanding. However, the levelof that expansion is, and will be, greatly determined by the avail-ability of the two indispensable tools for satellites, which are orbitalpositions and radio frequencies, i.e., electromagnetic spectrum.

Growing demand for geostationary orbital (GEO) slots andradio frequencies by a rapidly increasing number of commercialsatellite operators and expanding dependence on satellites formilitary purposes give rise to shortages of slots and spectrum toallocate as well as increase the chances of satellite interference.The problem of radio interference, for example, is currently ser-ious and is expected to get worse in the future. The matter of inter-ference is causing distress to commercial satellite companies astheir cost of operations is increasing and is making military estab-lishments worrisome.

In 2007, the world is celebrating the 50th anniversary of thedawn of the space age, which has brought a new era with greatpotential for the betterment of mankind. Concomitantly, increas-ing space activities are generating man-made space pollution, parti-cularly space debris, and consequently are making the use of outerspace more expensive and dangerous. It is generally believed thatthe problem of space debris is serious.2 Pieces of space debris ‘‘tra-vel at speeds over 22,000 miles an hour (or 35,000 kilometers (km)an hour). At such high velocity, even small debris can rip holes in aspacecraft or disable a satellite.’’3 No satellite can be reliably pro-tected against this kind of destructive force. Space debris createdby anti-satellite (ASAT) tests will pose significant danger to civilianand commercial satellites and could result in denial of access tospace in practice to all. In this regard, it becomes an imperative

174 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

to assess the adequacy, and inadequacy, of applicable internationalspace law, and to explore new approaches on how to fill-in lacunaein the current legal regime.

The topics of satellite telecommunications, GEO and spacedebris, are closely linked. In order to operate a telecommunicationsatellite system satisfactorily, one needs access to appropriateorbital positions, the satellite’s radio frequencies must not be inter-fered with, and there must not be any danger to the satellite’sphysical health from any external attacks, including from piecesof space debris. In this article, I first describe the current situationof shortage of GEO positions and increase in satellite interference.Secondly, I analyze the current international regulatory regimegoverning the access to and use of these tools with a view to high-light the weaknesses therein. Thirdly, the problem of space debrisis discussed with a view to show how difficult it is becoming tocarry on space operations and how important and urgent it is tohave an appropriate legal regime in place. Finally, I present afew key recommendations that should be followed in the contextof international cooperation so that the required telecommuni-cation services become readily available to all.

Shortage of Radio Frequency Bands and Orbital Slots

Radio frequency bands and orbital slots are indispensable, butscarce resource. These two indispensable tools for satellite tele-communications are international in their legal status and arescarce (or limited) in their availability. Only a limited portion ofthe radio frequency spectrum is useful for the satellite telecommu-nications. The radio frequencies for satellite telecommunicationsare also shared by terrestrial and other satellite services. Hence,there is a strong competition for the use of radio frequencies.The almost 24-hour ‘‘visibility’’ of a satellite in GEO makes itthe most advantageous, used, and desired orbit. The satellites inlow Earth orbit (LEO) and medium Earth orbit (MEO) can provideeffective service to small hand-held terminals for mobile communi-cations services via satellite. However, that advantage of LEO andMEO has started withering away because of the development oftechnology that allows similar services to be provided from theGEO. Therefore, LEO and MEO might not become popular orbitswith the commercial satellite telecommunication community and

Legal Issues of Space Telecommunications 175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

GEO remains the most favored orbit for all sorts of telecommuni-cations.

Both radio frequencies and orbital positions are a scarceresource, in law and in fact. Since l973, the International Telecom-munications Union’s (ITU’s) constituent legal instruments havebeen declaring radio frequencies and orbital positions as a ‘‘limitednatural resource.’’4 The adjective ‘‘limited’’ signifies that a band offrequencies and various orbits can accommodate only a finite num-ber of satellites without mutual harmful interference. Irrespectiveof extensive technological improvements, it still remains unde-niable and undisputed that the radio frequencies and the satelliteorbits have been, are, and will be a ‘‘limited natural resource.’’Therefore, there arises serious competition and consequently somedisagreements for the acquisition of appropriate radio frequenciesand orbital positions as the demand for them grows.

The demand for satellite communications and the competitionfor appropriate radio frequencies and orbital positions are and willbe growing exponentially. The satellite over-capacity on the orbit,which was mainly caused by the burst of dotcom companies, isbecoming a matter of the past. Satellite industry’s total world rev-enue reached $103 billion in 2004 and could exceed $158 billionby 2010.5 The biggest segment of the space industry is telecom-munication services that are constantly expanding and transform-ing.6 Euroconsult estimates the global ‘‘space industry market at$145 billion over the next 10 years compared to $116 billion from1997 to 2006. The value of the satellite market is projected at$104.5 billion (from $80 billion in the previous decade) whilethe launch market is expected to be valued at $40.5 billion (from$36 billion).’’7

The increasing use of fiber optics and terrestrial wireless tech-nologies is not deterring the demand for satellite capacity, parti-cularly for services like high definition TV, mobilecommunications,8 data and broadband internet, and digital qualitysatellite radio.9 According to Futron’s latest ten year forecast, ‘‘thedemand for commercial satellite services continues to be strongand growing. For example, overall demand for satellite capacityis expected to increase by more than five percent a year.’’10 Theworld satellite industry has been having transponder overcapacity‘‘at a high 60 to 70%’’, but the year 2006 has been considered to bethe start of a real recovery.11 Asia-Pacific region, which is ‘‘a horde

176 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

of developed and soon to be developed economies, will win therace for growth by sheer force’’ of the number of the people inthe region.12

Euroconsult ‘‘expects 960 satellites to be launched worldwideover the next ten years compared to 900 in the previous ten years.Satellite demand will be diversified, with civilian programsexpected to represent two-thirds of the 616 government satellitesto be launched from 2007 to 2016; the remainder will be militarysatellites.’’13 This expected increase in satellite acquisition is due toan increase in demand for more transponders needed for a varietyof telecommunications services. Figure 1 provides a forecast fortransponder demand.

It is interesting to note that ‘‘for the first time since the first-generation LEO constellations sputtered early in the decade,demand in that segment is expected to grow, too, as Globalstarand Orbcomm showed last year. . . LEO launches should rampup rapidly over the next decade as operators replenish their exist-ing constellations and launch higher data rate, second-generationnetworks. Euroconsult forecasts 120 launches over the ten-yearperiod, from 12 this year to a peak of 28 in 2011.’’15

FIGURE 1 Forecasts of transponder demand by application.14


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

Satellites are being launched not only for national service butalso for services in foreign countries. The World Trade Organiza-tion (WTO) Agreement on Basic Telecommunications annexed tothe General Agreement on Trade in Services, which was con-cluded on 15 February 1997, is an accord based on world-widecommitments to opening markets, promoting competition, andpreventing anti-competitive conduct. The Agreement covers allsectors of basic telecommunication services including inter aliavoice telephony, data transmission, telex and telegraph, leased cir-cuit services, irrespective of the transmission technology used, i.e.,wire-based, radio-based or satellite-based. The Agreement ensuresthat national telecommunication markets must be made availableto all WTO Members on a nondiscriminatory basis. Severalforeign satellites provide national domestic services. For example,the Indonesian Asian Cellular Satellite System (ACeS) servesChina,16 India,17 and Sri Lanka.18 Similarly, Intelsat satellites(i.e., IS-601, 602, 604, 605, 701, 704, 706, 709, 802, 804, 902,904, 906) and PanAmSat systems (i.e., PAS-2, 4, 7, 8, 10), whichIntelsat acquired in 2005, both serve the Asian-Pacific region.The number of such satellites will increase, as each country mightnot be in a position to launch its own satellites or might not be ableto meet all its telecommunications needs with its national systems.

The existing spacefaring nations are increasing the number oftheir satellites. At the same time, more nations want to launch andown their own satellites. The countries that have planned the acqui-sition of their first satellites include Iran, Norway, Kazakhstan,Sudan, and New Zealand.19 More and more nations, especiallythe developing countries, are expected to undertake their ‘‘satelliteprograms as proven by the establishment of ten new space agen-cies since 2000.’’20 ‘‘The number of satellites owned by Asiancountries at the present time has increased. For example, Japanhas 36 satellites, China has 33 satellites, Thailand has 5 satellites,Indonesia has 4 satellites, Malaysia has 3 satellites, South Koreahas 3 satellites, and the Philippines has 1 satellite.21 ITU datashows that South Korea has notified 48 filings, China 151 filings,and Japan 213 filings. Nevertheless, South Korea launched only3 satellites, China launched 33 satellites, and Japan launched 36satellites.’’22 Since its start of operations in 1972, Telesat Canadahas successfully launched fourteen telecommunications satellites,nine of which are currently in orbit.23 The Government of Canada

178 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

decided recently to license 29 new satellite systems, some of whichwill start proving service in 2009–2010.24

The demand for radio frequencies for military purposes isincreasing as well. The national and international conflicts andcrises, including the global war on terror necessitate instant,reliable, extensive, and versatile communications. Satellites seemto serve such demand readily and efficiently. Therefore, accordingto Peter Galance, ‘‘The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are eating upmassive satellite bandwidth to support coalition military opera-tions. [The] military use will generate 46% of all satellite servicerevenues from 2002 to 2007.’’25 This implies that radio frequenciesrequired for civilian and commercial use become limited.

There is, and will be in the future, an increased demand formore satellite capacity, which necessitates more appropriate radiofrequencies and orbital positions. This fierce competition will notbe resolved with technical means only. The technical solution ofreducing satellite spacing is not always the most viable means foraccommodating more satellites in the orbit. Therefore in order toaccommodate an increasing number of satellites spacing betweenthem is being reduced from nine degrees to five and even to twoalong the orbital arc, depending upon the radio frequencies used,the nature of service provided, and the geographical areas beingserved. However, signal interference increases as high-poweredsignals are generated and transmitted to Earth, particularly for tele-vision, cellular, and broadband applications.

As discussed below, increased demand for appropriate radiofrequencies and orbital positions would result in increasedinterference, disputes and even jamming, and increased costs tooperators, regulatory authorities, and the ITU. The need forinternational cooperation is imperative in order to devise andimplement appropriate rules and implementation processes. Inow assess the current ITU regulatory regime from the perspectiveof its adequacy or inadequacy to meet the increasingly extensiveand complex requirements for radio frequencies and orbitalpositions.

Search for Solutions

The international treaties that specifically regulate the use of radiofrequencies and satellite orbits have been developed mainly


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

through the ITU—the oldest specialized agency of the UnitedNations (UN). These treaties are the ITU Constitution and Con-vention and the Radio Regulations that attempt to assure thatthe radio frequencies and orbital positions are distributed fairlyamongst all states.

The ITU Member States are obliged to limit their demandsfor radio frequencies and orbital slots to the minimum necessaryto provide services and to use them rationally, efficiently, andeconomically so that all countries may have equitable access tothem.26 While emphasizing efficient and economic use of radio fre-quencies and the satellite orbits, Article 44 (2) of the ITU Consti-tution contains no provision to ensure equity, except that itshould be achieved through the adoption of new Radio Regula-tions, which is a long and tedious process. The provisions of Article44(2) have not resulted in any satisfactory ‘‘equitable access’’ by allcountries, except in the case of two a priori allotment plans for twoservices using two frequency bands; i.e., (a) Broadcasting SatelliteService (BSS) operating in 12 gigahertz (GHz) band and associatedfeeder links; and (b) Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) operating in6=4 GHz and 14=11 GHz bands.27 These plans distribute radio fre-quencies and orbital positions to all states on an equitable basis tak-ing into account their requirements.28 The rarity of such plans isattributable to the unwillingness of ITU members to accept restric-tions on their sovereign freedom of action in the use of spec-trum=orbit resources.

In practice, all states remain free to choose and assign parti-cular radio frequencies and orbital positions to their respectivesatellites as they deem appropriate for protecting and enhancingtheir national interests. In the exercise of such freedom, statesare obliged to avoid harmful interference to the radio frequenciesand orbital positions that have been registered earlier with theITU.29 This rule is also called the practice of ‘‘first-come, first-served.’’ In other words, the state that notifies its intention ofstarting a satellite telecommunication service using certain radiofrequencies from a particular orbital position is protected againstharmful interference from the late comers. Such intention is con-sidered to be expressed when registering with ITU the requiredradio frequencies and orbital positions. The process of registrationof the radio frequencies and orbital positions is essential becausethe international rights of states with respect to their frequency

180 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

assignments are derived only from the recording of those assign-ments in the ITU’s Master International Frequency Register.30

For the purpose of registration, the notifying state is requiredto send to the ITU the required information that is published bythe organization. This process is called ‘‘advance publication.’’The state which considers that the newly notified and publishedsatellite system might interfere with its already registered radio fre-quencies is entitled to object to the registration of the later satellitesystem. In such cases, the notifying state may ask for coordinationwith the objecting state. The purpose of this advance publication isto give other states the possibility of looking at the information andcommunicating with the publishing state within four months ifthere is a risk of interference.31

The current system of frequency and orbit allocations forspace services has been initiated by the 1963 ITU ExtraordinaryAdministrative Radio Conference and has been continued byother ITU conferences without any significant change. Today,the ITU’s rules and procedures are considered to be inadequateand have proved to be outdated to meet the needs of states inthe 21st century.32 Because of its inadequacy, the ITU regulatoryregime has also been abused during the past few years due tothe increase in demands and competition among users. The ITUis not a supranational organization and remains unable to enforceits regulations over the sovereign states.

Frequency=Orbital Congestion and ‘‘Paper Satellites’’

Among all the problems relating to the international managementof radio frequencies and orbits, perhaps the most important one isthe frequency=orbital congestion. The right to use radio frequen-cies and orbital positions results from their registration with theITU and not from the actual placing of a satellite in the orbit. Sincethis right is mostly acquired on the first-come, first-served basis, anumber of states have been rushing for filing early registrationswith ITU, often without any serious plans for the acquisition andlaunch of their respective satellites.33 This problem of the so-called‘‘paper satellites’’ is serious as it creates orbital congestion, whichadversely affects the access and use of GEO and imposes an obli-gation of coordination for the late comer states. Due to the excess-ive filings, the ITU registration processing system is seriously


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

clogged as it takes about three years for an application to get pro-cessed raising ITU processing costs.34 At one time, there weremore than 1300 filings (applications) for satellite networks beforethe ITU and about 1200 of them were for paper satellites. Becausethere is a great demand on satellite communications, the use ofGEO and radio frequencies also increases dramatically. This oftenresults in the excessive filings of paper satellites with ITU, whichconsequently overwhelms the ITU process.

In order to reduce the registration of paper satellites, the ITUhas adopted the following three measures: (1) reduction in time forbringing into use the registered satellite systems; (2) administrativedue diligence requiring each state to provide evidence of serious-ness of its intention of establishing a satellite network; and (3)financial due diligence imposing filing fees on the notifying coun-try in order to recover the ITU’s application processing costs.

Reduction in Time for Bringing Into Use Satellite Systems

Earlier there was no specified period between the submission ofthe advance publication information and the date of bringing aregistered satellite system into use. This allowed states to hoardthe registered radio frequencies and orbital positions continuouslywithout any fear of losing them. Recently, the ITU adopted a prin-ciple of ‘‘use it or loose it.’’ Thus, the Radio Regulations impose thetime limitation of seven years before which the registered assign-ments must be put to use.35 ‘‘Any frequency assignment notbrought into use within the required period shall be cancelled bythe [Radiocommunication] Bureau after having informed theadministration at least three months before the expiry of this per-iod.’’36 However, the ITU Radio Regulations do not place anylimitation of time for states to continue occupying radio frequen-cies and orbital slots after they have started using them.

Administrative Due Diligence

Administrative due diligence is a requirement for each state to pro-vide evidence of seriousness of its intention of establishing a satel-lite network.37 Specified information is needed to be supplied tothe ITU’s Radiocommunication Bureau (RB) to demonstrate theseriousness of the intention. The Radio Regulations provide that

182 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

before the coordination process or the notification to the ITU, astate must ‘‘send to the Bureau a general description (i.e., the char-acteristics of the system as listed in Appendix 4 of the ITU RadioRegulations) of the network or system for advance publication inthe International Frequency Information Circular (IFIC) not ear-lier than seven years and preferably not later than two years beforethe planned date of bringing into use of the network or system.’’38

It is believed that the furnishing of such precise information mightdeter states to register with ITU the so-called paper satellites.

Financial Due Diligence and Cost Recovery

Excessive filing of notifications for registrations with the ITU iscosting the organization dearly. As such, the ITU has started imple-menting its approach of charging processing fees for satellite fil-ings, which is a market mechanism in line with the ‘‘user-pay’’principle, so that ITU is in a position to recover administrativeexpenses from the users of radio frequencies and orbital positions.The requirement of processing charges is to be applied to all satel-lite filings received by ITU after 7 November 1998.39 For thispurpose, the ITU Council has established a schedule of fees forvarious classes of satellites network filings.40 However, the adop-tion of exact amount of changes or methodology for calculationof changes is proving difficult. The charging methodology usedin the Council Decision 482 on the ‘‘implementation of cost recov-ery for satellite network filings’’ was based on the number of pub-lished pages in a special section of the RadiocommunicationBureau’s Weekly Information Circular. In 2002, the Council con-sidered a new charging methodology based on the product of spe-cific components of a satellite network filing notice (e.g., number offrequency assignments and number of classes of station). Due toconcerns about the charges applicable under the new method-ology, the Council could only adopt it on a provisional basis, whilebeing studied further by the ad-hoc Group on Cost Recovery forSatellite Network Filings.41 The ITU is struggling without muchsuccess to come up with generally acceptable methodology andscale of charges for the cost recovery of the processing of spacenotices from each applicant.42 Several ITU member states havenot been paying their satellite filing fees.43 The 2006 Plenipoten-tiary Conference carried out an in-depth discussion on the issue


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

of non-payment of cost recovery fees related to satellite networkfilings. It was recognized that the non-payment might have beenprompted by the deviation of the charging methodology for theprocessing of space notices as set out in Council’s Decision 482,leading to large invoices which may have been disproportionateto the amount of work carried out. Unfortunately, the Conferencedid not resolve the issue and agreed to ‘‘authorize the Council todecide on the payment or non-payment of fees in respect of costrecovery for the processing of satellite network filings.’’44

The ITU’s goal for these three measures is to put financialcosts and filing overflow under control. However, as noted earlier,the ITU Radio Regulations do not place any limitation of time forstates to continue occupying radio frequencies and orbital positionsafter they have started using them. There is a possibility of abuse ofprivilege to use particular positions, as a dead satellite can bereplaced on the same orbital position by another satellite with simi-lar technical characteristics. This could provide the earlier operatorwith a ‘‘right’’ to use this orbital position permanently or quasi-per-manently. The ITU’s new regulatory measures are not resulting inany significantly shortening of the processing time and clearing thebacklog of applications.45 The ITU World RadiocommunicationConference-03 (WRC-03) recognized that ‘‘the backlog in theprocessing of satellite filings by the Bureau continues to be a prob-lem’’, and called for adoption of exceptional measures to enablethe Bureau to absorb the backlog in the processing of satellitefilings.46 In addition, the WRC-03 had also decided to improvethe international spectrum regulatory framework so that thislimited resource could be accessed efficiently. For this purpose,the Conference required the Radiocommunication Bureau to con-duct studies the results of which were to be reported to WRC-07.47

The Bureau has submitted its recommendation to the WRC-07 thatwill take place in Geneva, Switzerland, from 22 October–16November 2007.48

Abuse of Allocated Radio Frequencies

Due to the shortage of sufficient radio frequencies, several opera-tors use their telecommunication satellites operating with radio fre-quencies, which are allocated to Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) andregistered with the ITU as such, for television broadcasting

184 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

(i.e., BSS).49 This practice is contrary to the ITU Radio Regula-tions50 and results in the abuse of ITU regulatory rules. Moreover,it further decreases the availability of already scarce radiofrequencies.51

Enforcement Powers and Mechanisms

The aforementioned process of coordination is merely a bilateralnegotiation between states as both states may ‘‘endeavor to coop-erate in joint efforts to resolve any difficulties, with assistance ofthe [Radiocommunication] Bureau, if so requested.’’52 Therefore,the intervention of the Bureau is not automatic. If, after all the con-sultations between the states and after the Bureau’s recommenda-tions the disagreement remains unresolved, ‘‘the Administrationwhich requested coordination shall . . . defer the submission of itsnotice of frequency assignments . . . for six months.’’53 Therefore,the ITU’s Radiocommunication Bureau does not have much auth-ority. At the end, the principle of first-come, first-served regulatesthe problem, and the state that registered its satellite system firsthas no legal obligation to coordinate with, or to accommodate,the late comers. This makes it challenging to solve the issue ofincrease in satellite radio frequency interference discussed below.

Disputes

Increase in Satellite Radio Frequency Interference

Radio frequency interference is increasing to the point that it isbecoming a matter of major concern for satellite operators.54

The Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group (SUIRG) esti-mates that ‘‘something like 4,000 reports of interference incidentsa year, with hundreds or even thousands more that are believedto go unreported.’’55 In 2005, there were 1282 cases of inter-ference, a large majority of them rose in North American region.However, the reported interference incidents for 2006 have beenonly 305. The main cause for interference has been from unknownsources. However, interference from adjacent satellite is increasingand it counts for about 11% of the interference cases in 2006.56

Reports from SUIRG, the Cable and Satellite BroadcastingAssociation of Asia (CASBAA), and the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

Union have summed up the situation clearly, i.e., the ‘‘crowdedspace segments (especially in Asia),’’ have been the main causefor such interference, in addition to ‘‘poorly made uplink equip-ment, poor maintenance and lack of proper training for instal-lers.’’57 It is costing significant amounts of money to theoperators, ‘‘particularly in a crowded market like Asia, which isserved by 27 different regional and global operators, more thanany other region in the world.’’58

In June 2005, Star India suspected sabotage of its signals fromAsiaSat satellite which caused a disruption in the broadcast of itsIndian channels including Star Plus, Star Gold and Star News. StarNews Release stated that ‘‘If deliberate, the interruption seriouslyviolated international telecommunication treaties, contravenedinternational regulations, and was in breach of the normal conductof satellite operations.’’59 Similarly, China’s AsiaSat 3S satellite hasbeen seriously interfered with twice, in March 2005 and November2004, by outside signals disrupting its regular satellite televisionprogramming.60

The increasing demand for radio frequencies for military pur-poses gives rise to satellite interference and could result in jammingand hostile action against a particular satellite or the concernedoperator or country.61 Moreover, ‘‘interferences from the militarycommunication and tracking systems into satellite communicationsis on the increase though both services are supposed to operate indifferent frequency bands. . . ..The secrecy of military R&D andtrial operations and lack of any scrutiny over sophisticated militaryoperations for their impact to the civilian services make resolutionof such interference cases very difficult.’’62

The ITU lacks mandate for the settlement of disputes relatedto harmful interference between two or more states. The ITURadio Regulations establish that all states shall cooperate to findgood solutions of these problems. The ITU RadiocommunicationBureau can only intervene in case a state requires its service. More-over, the only actions that the Bureau is supposed to take at therequest for cooperation of the concerned states are the analysisof the situation, and the adoption of conclusions with a recom-mended action, which it will send to the parties involved. There-fore, the Bureau does not have much authority. The ITURadiocommunication Regulation Board, composed of 12 part-timemembers, is also a weaker body than its predecessor, the

186 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

International Frequency Registration Board (IFRB). Though thenew Board is still the body to provide the last recommendationsin cases of harmful interference after a report from the Directorof the Radiocommunication Bureau; however, in case of a dispute,the problem would be referred to the next WRC.63 PlenaryMeetings of WRC address such cases and makes decisions mainlybased on wider political considerations unrelated to the RadioRegulations. Thus, a strict application of the Rules of Procedures,of the Radio Regulations and an efficient functioning of thedecision-making in the ITU are undermined.

Orbital Positions

During the 1970s, Canada and Australia decided to launch theirGEO telecommunications satellites for the purpose of occupyingstrategically located positions from where nation-wide servicescould be provided. Due to the rush for appropriate orbital posi-tions by some developed countries and international satellite oper-ating organizations, India and Indonesia faced difficulties insecuring appropriate orbital positions for their first domestic satel-lites. Recently, because of high economic benefits and competitionfor scarce orbital positions, serious disputes have arisen. The listbelow represents some of the latest examples of dispute. Of note,is that the ITU remained incapable of resolving these disputes,as was the case discussed above with radio frequencies.

. Since 1992, Indonesia and Tonga have been disputing the use of anorbital position that was already registered by Tonga with the ITU.Controversy continued to become so serious that in 1997 Tonga‘‘accused Indonesia of purposefully jamming the signals of a satelliteoccupying Tonga’s GEO slot. The satellite in that position actuallybelonged to a Hong Kong company that had leased the slot fromTonga. Indonesia demanded that one of its own satellites beallowed to occupy the Tonga slot.’’64 ITU remained incapable ofresolving the problem, which seemed to have vanished when Indo-nesia’s Pacific Satellite Nusantara (PSN) company abandoned itssatellite project in 1998 primarily due to the Asian financial crisis.

. In 2002, Pakistan hurriedly procured an in-orbit used satellitefrom Hughes Global System (HGS) of the United States (U.S.)at a low cost of $30 million for five years. After renaming it as


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

Paksat-1, the satellite was moved to occupy the orbital position at38 degrees East that was registered with ITU by Pakistan. Theprocurement of this satellite seems essentially to occupy theorbital slot, the ITU registration of which was due to expire on19 April 2003. ‘‘If this slot was not protected by bringing in a sat-ellite and placing it there, this strategic asset and any futureopportunity for Pakistan to enter the space would have been lostforever.’’65 On 18 June 2006, Pakistan issued a Request for Pro-posals for drafting a plan to launch by mid 2010 a GEO com-munication satellite called Paksat-1R to meet Pakistan’s needs,which still remain unspecified. This implies that the rush to pro-cure Paksat-1R seems to be a way to continuously occupy itsorbital slot and to develop satellite’s applications during the pro-cess of planning.66

. As a result of serious problems relating to radio frequency coor-dination, Vietnam’s telecommunications satellite, VINASAT-1,which was planned to be launched in 2005, has been delayedseveral times.67 Vietnam has registered with ITU the 132degrees East orbital position. But, this position has been disputedby Japan and Tonga, and the negotiations on this issue failed.Originally, the orbital slot was to be lost by February 2006, ifnot used.68 Now it appears that ‘‘Vietnam has until the secondquarter of 2008 to put a satellite into GEO before it loses rightsto the orbital slot it reserved several years ago with the ITU.’’69

VINASAT-1 is scheduled to be launched on an Ariane 5 vehiclein 2008. With its 20 C-band and Ku-band transponders, the sat-ellite will provide radio, television, and telephone services inVietnam and the Asia Pacific region.70

Inadequacy of Dispute Resolution and National Regulatory Regimes

A graphic description of the problem of disputes, due to satelliteinterference issues, is shown in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 depictsthe problems in various regions, the ‘‘footprints’’ of the telecom-munication satellites here on Earth. Figure 3 shows the issue withuplink regions. A clear problem exists in the Asia-Pacific region,one that is economically lucrative, and thus, of high value for tele-communications services. To add, the sources of interference arealso an issue as there are no stated ‘‘deliberate’’ interferences.Much interference is attributed to unknown sources (close to

188 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

FIGURE 3 Satellite interference in various uplink regions.75

FIGURE 2 Satellite interference in various oceanic regions.74 CONUS: theContinental United States.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

50%) and to the dispute issues discussed above. This only com-pounds the problems of dispute resolution with harmfulinterference issues and orbital slot allocations.71 A further issuefor dispute resolution is that of inadequate national regulatoryregimes.

In view of a global trend towards the introduction of compe-tition in telecommunication services, telecommunication regulat-ory bodies are being created in almost all countries. In thebeginning of the 1990s, there were only 13 regulatory institutions,but their number in 2005 has increased to more than 120. However,a little attention is being paid to their abilities and capabilities. AnITU Regulatory Survey indicates that 75% of all regulators lack suf-ficient financial, human, and physical staff resources.72 In severalcountries, adequate telecommunication regulatory frameworksare not in place. Generally the existing legislative and regulatoryinstruments do not clearly specify regulator’s mandate and powersto enforce its decisions and orders. At the same time, the concernedgovernments have not given sufficient human and financialresources to their regulators. The ill-equipped regulator cannot bein a position to perform its intended functions. Therefore, nationalregulators in several countries are often slow to respond to orincapable to resolve radio frequency interference cases.73

Problem of Increasing Space Debris

There are various forms of space debris, but it mostly ‘‘consists ofjettisoned spacecraft parts, nuts and bolts, solar cells, abandonedsatellites, paint chips, nuclear reactor cores, spent rocket stages,and solid fuel fragments.’’76 All space missions inevitably createspace debris, e.g., rocket booster stages are expended and releasedto drift in space and exhaust products are created. The testing ofASAT weapons has also created hundreds of pieces of debris. Itis the space powers that have created the problem, particularlythe U.S. and Russia. Together, they have accounted for more than80% of all debris, though the space activities of other space-faringnations are contributing to the problem.

Currently, the U.S. Space Surveillance Network is trackingover 13,000 human-made objects larger than ten centimeters(cm) in diameter orbiting the Earth.77 In addition, there are over100,000 objects measuring between one and ten cm in diameter

190 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

and millions smaller than one cm.78 As of December 27, 2006,9949 of these objects larger than 10 cm have been catalogued.79

Of all the catalogued objects in orbit, only six to seven percentare operational satellites.80 Figure 4 below illustrates this.

It is estimated that 40% of tracked debris results mostly frombreak-ups of spacecraft and rocket bodies.82 There is a trend of asteady increased number of such break-ups. Between June andDecember 2006, there occurred ‘‘eight satellite break-ups for a rateof one per month. Not since 1993 had so many break-ups occurredin one year.’’83 On 11 January 2007, China successfully conductedan ASAT test by using a ground-based medium-range ballisticmissile to destroy one of its weather satellites orbiting in outerspace at an altitude of about 800 km.84 It is estimated that the test‘‘shattered into thousands of pieces that were thrown into a widerange of orbits ranging in altitude from 3,800 km on the highend down to about 200 km at the lowest.’’85 According to NicholasJohnson, NASA’s chief scientist for orbital debris, this ASAT test

FIGURE 4 Number of cataloged objects in Earth orbit by object type.81


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

‘‘is by far the worst satellite fragmentation in the history of thespace age, in the past 50 years.’’86 The ASAT test by China hascaused an international alarm and several countries, including Aus-tralia, Canada, India, Japan, Taiwan, and the U.S., have expressedgrave concerns at the test and worries that the space debris createdby the test will pose significant danger to civilian and commercialsatellites and could result in denial of access to space in practice toall. David McGlade, Chief Executive Officer of Intelsat, the largesttelecommunications commercial space company, expressed hisdisappointment about ‘‘the recent Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT)test, which resulted in a cloud of space debris’’ that ‘‘might denythe advantages of space to future generations . . . . In low Earthorbits, objects and debris will slowly, throughout a decade or so,re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere. In the narrow orbital band areaof GEO, in which a satellite’s orbit precisely matches the rotationof the Earth, thereby keeping the craft fixed over a single geo-graphic location, the debris from a collision would endure for tensof thousands of years, effectively rendering a portion of the GEOarc useless.’’87

According to Wang Ting and David Wright, ‘‘Satellites cannotbe shielded effectively against collisions at this speed with debrislarger than about 1 cm. Moreover, debris smaller than about10 cm cannot be reliably tracked from the ground to give warningof a possible collision.’’88 Also, space debris can remain in orbit forvery long periods of time depending on the altitude and mass ofthe object. Debris in LEO might fall back to Earth over short per-iods of time due to atmospheric drag, but pieces of debris in MEOand GEO will remain in outer space for hundreds or even thou-sands of years.89

There have been several recorded close encounters with spacedebris90 and one confirmed collision, in which the spent third stageof Ariane Flight 16 collided with and disabled the French militarymicro-satellite CERISE on 24 July 1996.91 Several Space Shuttleflights, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Long Duration ExposureFacility, and the International Space Station (ISS) have sufferednumerous times damage due to space debris. In 1985, a U.S. kin-etic energy ASAT test produced over 250 pieces of catalogueddebris, some of which came within 1.3 km of the ISS. The last pieceof debris generated from this test de-orbited almost twenty yearslater in 2002. A collision of a piece of space debris with an active

192 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

military satellite, such as the CERISE accident, during a period ofhigh tension could have very serious implications between the con-cerned states. Debris not only pose a threat to active satellites inorbit, but can also cause damage on the surface of the Earth. Forexample, the Soviet satellite COSMOS 954 disintegrated in 1978and scattered radioactive debris over a large area in NorthernCanada.92

Atmospheric drag, which increases with escalating solaractivity,93 is the only effective method of debris removal knownto date. However, the constant increase and now inevitable growthof the space debris population in LEO has accelerated the urgencyfor mitigation technologies and measures to be developed, andrevealed a new and imperative need for remediation methods.Failure to develop such technologies will endanger space opera-tions in the long term.

Law and Space Debris

The ASAT test by the Chinese intensifies the international debatenot only on how to control weaponization of space, but also how tomaintain outer space as a ‘‘hazard-free’’ environment. In thisregard, it becomes imperative to assess the adequacy, and inad-equacy, of applicable international space law, and to explorenew approaches on how to fill-in lacunae in the current legalregime.

The UN General Assembly, through its Committee on Peace-ful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) has drafted and adopted fiveinternational space treaties that specifically govern outer space andspace activities.94 In relation to space debris, the two main anddirectly applicable treaties are the 1967 Outer Space Treaty95

and the 1972 Liability Convention.96 According to the OuterSpace Treaty, a launching state is internationally responsible andcan be held liable for damage caused by its space object.97 Alaunching state is absolutely liable for damage caused by its spaceobject on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in flight, i.e., noneed of proof of fault.98 However, if damage is caused elsewhere(e.g., in outer space), a launching state is liable only if its fault isproved, i.e., the victim of an accident in outer space must provefault on the part of the respondent.99 This could be very difficult,especially if the damage is caused by a small piece of debris.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

The term ‘‘space object’’ has been defined to include ‘‘compo-nent parts of a space object as well as its launch vehicle and partsthereof.’’100 The state of registration of a space object retainsjurisdiction and control over such objects.101 There is no inter-nationally agreed upon definition of space debris. Whether ornot space debris a space object? There are various opinions onthe definition of space debris. It has been agreed upon that a spaceobject includes its component parts. An inactive or dead satelliteremains a space object. Also, a dead component part of a satelliteor launch vehicle also remains a space object. Inactive or deadsatellites are generally believed to be space debris. Therefore, frag-ments of a space object must be considered space objects as theyonce were the component parts of that space object. However, dif-ficulty may arise in identification of certain fragments of aspace object. Yet, the technical means for monitoring objects inspace are improving. This can potentially solve the issue to someextent.

Current international space law, including the 1967 OuterSpace Treaty and the 1972 Liability Convention, does not fullyand effectively regulate or control space debris. Albeit, accordingto Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty: ‘‘In the exploration anduse of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies,States Parties to the Treaty shall be guided by the principle ofco-operation and mutual assistance and shall conduct all theiractivities in outer space, including the moon and other celestialbodies, with due regard to the corresponding interests of all otherStates Parties to the Treaty.’’ Therefore, states must not intention-ally create hazards like space debris that could adversely affect thesafe conduct of space activities by other states. A state party shallbe considered acting contrary to Article IX, if it conducts an ASATtest generating space debris, which poses threats to space assets ormissions of other states. This article also imposes obligations onspacefaring nations to pursue international consultations if theirplanned space activities ‘‘would cause potentially harmful inter-ference’’ to other states. On the other hand, a state which believesthat a space activity planned by another state would cause poten-tially harmful interference with activities in the peaceful explo-ration and use of outer space may request consultationconcerning the activity or experiment. These provisions relatingto consultations have never been directly used and invoked.

194 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

As the total debris population continues to increase, there isa growing awareness of the impact of space debris upon thesafety of space operations and space assets. This situation hasencouraged space actors to take steps to mitigate the productionof new debris through the development and implementation ofinternational (UN-related) and national debris mitigation policies.At the international level, the problem of space debris was noteven seriously acknowledged to exist until early 1980s. For thefirst time, intergovernmental discussions on this issue took placeat the 1982 UNISPACE II Conference. The Conference recom-mended that ‘‘studies are undertaken to seek viable methods tominimize the probability of collision between active space objectsand space debris; some of these methods could include theremoval of inactive satellites from their orbits; based on such stu-dies, appropriate regulatory measures should be taken.’’ In 1983,COPUOS acknowledged the seriousness of the problem and onlyafter five years, in 1988, the UN General Assembly recognizedthat space debris is a serious potential hazard to space activities.It was only in 1993, that COPUOS agreed to include an itemdealing with space debris in its agenda and in 1994, for the firsttime, the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of COPUOSconsidered, on a priority basis, the problem of space debris. Thisrepresented a major positive step in international policy and law-making on space debris. Since then, the Subcommittee has beendiscussing and studying the issue of space debris. Meanwhile in1999, the UNISPCE III Conference decided to recommend thatin the future an action should be taken by the UN to ‘‘improvethe protection of the near and outer space environments throughfurther research in and implementation of mitigation measuresfor space debris.’’102

The Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of COPUOS hasbeen discussing the issue of space debris since 1994. Even aftermore than a decade of deliberations, the Subcommittee did notachieve anything concrete in law, except that the Subcommitteehas drafted space debris mitigation guidelines based on and con-sistent with the guidelines promulgated by the Interagency DebrisCommittee (IADC). The COPUOS Space Debris MitigationGuidelines present general recommendations in the form of sevenguidelines to be implemented through national legislation.103

These guidelines may be of some limited use, but they are


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

voluntary and non-binding in nature,104 and do not contain anyimplementation, verification, or compliance measures. The guide-lines will be insufficient in the long-run. In addition, the Legal Sub-committee of COPOUS is still not discussing any regulatorymatters related to space debris.

At national level, several spacefaring nations support the miti-gation of space debris production, though there are some differ-ences among their respective debris mitigation guidelines. In2002, the European Space Agency (ESA) issued the EuropeanSpace Debris Safety and Mitigation Standard,105 and in 2003 itannounced new debris mitigation guidelines. The 2006 U.S.National Space Policy reiterates the policy established previously,in the 1996 National Space Policy, making it the policy of the U.S.to ‘‘seek to minimize the creation of space debris.’’106 In 2006,China released a white paper entitled, ‘‘China’s Space Activities,’’in which it reports actively participating in debris mitigationmechanisms and policy efforts at the international level. Allnational guidelines address issues related to the minimization ofdebris released during normal operations.

Several states, especially the major spacefaring nations, havebeen reluctant to the adoption of international legal rules to regu-late space debris. This could be only due to the fact that they havenot been willing to accept any legal controls on their freedom ofaction. Such freedom is also relied upon by states in the conductof ASAT tests and weaponization of space that would lead to theclustering of outer space with debris. The international andnational initiatives surveyed here may be useful in the short-term,but the effectiveness of national regulatory initiatives would be lim-ited since a single major accident could create hazards for spaceactivities of all states as the Chinese ASAT test clearly demon-strated.

Conclusions and Recommendations

More and more satellites are being, and will be, placed in space.This means that there is increased pressure on the already scarceand extremely congested radio frequency spectrum without whichno satellite telecommunications system can be operated. The com-petition for appropriate radio frequencies and also orbital positions

196 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

is fierce as the demand for telecommunications increases. Costs foraccessing and using these resources to satellite operators and regu-lators is expected to amplify as access becomes difficult and casesof harmful interference increase. It is also clear that the currentITU regulatory regime is outdated and will not be in a positionto resolve all issues related to the use of radio frequencies andorbital positions. The ITU’s WRC-07 is expected to address‘‘options to improve the international spectrum regulatory frame-work based on the examination of the effectiveness, appropriate-ness, and impact of the ITU Radio Regulations with respect tothe evolution of existing, emerging and future applications, systemsand technologies.’’107 However, this is not sufficient. What isneeded is to expand the role and authority of ITU more as an inter-national telecommunication regulator with compulsory settlementof dispute mechanism, rather than its continuation as an inter-national consultative organization. It is also an imperative thatstates cooperate and devise new regulatory rules for accessingand using orbital positions and radio frequencies at both inter-national and national levels.

In the area of radio frequencies and orbital slot allocations, thefollowing recommendations are offered:

. the regulatory measures that the ITU has recently initiated tocontrol the problem of ‘‘paper satellites’’ must be strengthenedand implemented strictly through compulsory internationaldispute settlement mechanism, which could be similar to theone under the World Trade Organization regime;

. member states of the ITU should adopt flexible allotment plansfor specific services and radio frequency bands for their equi-table distribution by setting up detailed rules and proceduresfor their use of radio frequencies and orbital positions; and

. through cooperative efforts, an international, or at least aregional, independent interference monitoring and disputesettlement rules and systems should be established.

Space debris is a human problem that needs human solutions,and thus, should not be totally left at the mercy of nature. Access toand use of outer space is steadily becoming dangerous and expens-ive due to problem of space debris. Technical means like the hard-ening of satellites to protect them, their removal from their orbits at


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

the end of their useful lives, minimization of production of spacedebris to the maximum extent possible, and other appropriatetechniques are important and must be adopted.

National regulatory measures are important and should beadopted. However, they can not solve effectively internationalproblems as space debris is essentially an international, globalconcern. The resolution of the problem needs concerted inter-national action in the form of a strict and precise binding inter-national treaty through the UN system.108 Private spaceenterprises should also actively strive for the adoption of inter-national solutions to the problem created by space debris. OuterSpace is a ‘‘global commons’’ and space debris hazards will inter-fere with space activities of all countries, and hence, all statesshould be involved in the decision-making process on this impor-tant issue. Consequently, they all can be expected to follow thesedecisions.

Unilateral technical and even regulatory initiatives alone, andthe continuation of the unregulated competition for the use ofindispensable resources like radio frequencies and orbital posi-tions, will not serve the interests of all nations. It is only throughthe adoption of binding law and cooperative steps that can fosterand make telecommunication services readily available to all andthat can protect the space environment from the hazards spacedebris.

Notes

1. Constitution and Convention of the International TelecommunicationUnion, Decisions, Resolutions and Recommendations adopted in 1998 bythe Plenipotentiary Conference (as amended in 2002 and 2006), ResolutionNo. 31 on ‘‘Telecommunication infrastructure and information andcommunication technologies, for socio-economic and cultural development.’’

2. According to Technical Report on Space Debris by the Scientific andTechnical Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of OuterSpace, ‘‘the known and assessed population of debris is growing, and theprobabilities of potentially damaging collisions will consequently increase,’’http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/isis/pub/sdtechrep1/sect04.html (accessed 4February 2004).

3. Stefan Lovgren, ‘‘Space Junk Cleanup Needed, NASA Experts Warn’’,National Geographic News, January 19, 2006, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0119_060119_space_junk.html (accessed19February 2007)

198 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

4. Article 44 on ‘‘Ensuring equitable access to the radio frequencies and thegeostationary satellite orbit’’ of the presently applicable 1998 Constitutionof ITU, as amended by the 2002 and 2006 Plenipotentiary Conferences.

5. See the International Space Business Council Report on the 2005 State of theSpace Industry, ‘‘Space & Satellite Market Surpasses $103B, to Reach $158BBy 2010,’’ Bethesda, MD: SPX,10 August 2005), http://www.spacedaily.-com/news/industry-05zg.html (accessed 10 August 2005).

6. The Latest Trends in the Satellite Communications Industry,’’ (Dublin, Ireland:SPX, May 09, 2006), hhttp://www.spacemart.com/reports/The_Latest_Trends_In_The_Satellite_Communications_Industry.htmli (accessed 17May 2006). See also, Futron Industry Report, ‘‘The Transformation of theSatellite Services Industry,’’ (Bethesda, MD: SPX, Jan 24, 2005) hhttp://www.spacedaily.com/news/satellite-biz-05i.htmli (accessed 8 July 2005).

7. EUROCONSULT, ‘‘The World Space Industry: Back in the Big Time,’’http://www.euroconsult-ec.com/news.php?ref=36 (accessed 22 February2007).

8. Market growth for wireless TV enabled telephone is expected to reach $30billion in the near future: see Gene Koprowski, ‘‘Wireless World 30 Billionin TV Phones,’’ (Chicago, IL: UPI, Feb 19, 2006), hhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Wireless_World_30_Billion_In_TV_Phones.htmli (accessed 22February 2006). See also, Gene Koprowski, ‘‘Wireless World: SatellitePhones on the Rise,’’ (Chicago, IL: UPI, Aug 20, 2004), hhttp://www.spacedaily.com/news/satellite-biz-04zzzzzt.htmli (accessed 26 August 2004).

9. The world-wide market for satellite digital radio that could increase to 22million units by 2009: ‘‘Worldwide Market for Digital Radio To IncreaseTo 22M Units By 2009: R&M,’’ (Dublin, Ireland: SPX, January 16, 2006),http://www.spacedaily.com/news/Market_For_Digital_Radio_To_Increase_To_22M_Units_ By_2009.html (accessed 21 January 2006).

10. ‘‘Satellite Services Demand The Future in High Def,’’ (Bethesda, MD: SPX,Jun 16, 2006), http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Satellite_Services_Demand_The_Future_in_High_Def.html (accessed 20 June 2006).

11. Peter I. Galace, ‘‘Asia’s Satellite Industry: Winning by the Numbers,’’SatMagazine.com, June 2006, http://www.nsr.com/Content/satmag-cover-story.pdf (accessed 5 July 2006).

12. Ibid. Direct-to-home (DTH) Broadcasting will be Asia’s dominant potentialas a satellite services market. According Peter Galace, ‘‘China may becomethe world’s largest DTH market in less than a decade with some 260 millionhouseholds as potential market for DTH. (And India, on the other hand) ispoised to become Asia’s leading cable market by 2010, the largest satellitemarket by 2008 and the most lucrative pay TV market by 2015.’’ Ibid.

13. EUROCONSULT World Space Industry (note 7).14. EUROCONSULT, Strategic Issues for the FSS Business: World Satellite

Communications & Broadcasting Markets Survey, Market Forecasts to2015 at http://www.euroconsult-ec.com/pdf_news/synthese-ws2-financial-community-final-4a.pdf (accessed 22 February 2007).

15. Michael A. Taverna, ‘‘Satellite Analysts Predict Accelerating Satellite IndustryRecovery,’’ Aviation Week And Space Technology, Feb 18, 2007, http://www.aviation


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

week.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw021907p1.xml&headline=Satellite%20Analysts%20Predict%20Accelerating%20Satellite%20Industry%20Recovery(accessed 20 February 2007).

16. ‘‘ACeS Extends Its Reach To China,’’ (Singapore: SPX, 8 November 2004),http://www.spacedaily.com/news/satellite-biz-04zzzzzzzzm.html (accessed8 November 2004).

17. ‘‘ACeS Receives Indian License,’’ http://www.spacenewsfeed.co.uk/2001/4February2001.html#Satcoms (accessed 5 July 2006).

18. ‘‘ACeS Satellite Service Launch In Sri Lanka,’’ http://www.comlinks.com/satcom/aces.htm (accessed 5 July 2006).

19. Space Security 2006, http://www.spacesecurity.org/SSI2006.pdf (accessed 5July 2006), p 40.

20. EUROCONSULT, World Space Industry (note 7).21. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/satellite_database.html

(accessed 22 February 2007).22. Sethaporn Cusripituck comments on Ram Jakhu’s Paper, ‘‘Reforming the

Regulatory Regimes governing Telecommunications in Asia,’’ presentedat the Space Law Conference 2006: Asian Cooperation in Space Activities:A Common Approach to Legal Matters, Pathumwan Princess Hotel,Bangkok, Thailand, 1–4 August 2006.

23. http://www.telesat.ca/satellites/index.htm (accessed 20 February 2007).24. News Release, ‘‘Industry Canada Announces Assignment Process for

Canadian Satellite Orbital Positions,’’ Ottawa, July 11, 2006, http://www.ic.gc.ca/cmb/welcomeic.nsf/261ce500dfcd725985 2564820068dc6d/85256a5d006b9720852571a80053344a!OpenDocument (accessed 20 February 2007).

25. Galace (note 11).26. Article 44 of the ITU Constitution (note 1) specifies that:

a. Member States shall endeavor to limit the number of frequencies andthe spectrum used to the minimum essential to provide in a satisfac-tory manner the necessary services. To that end, they shall endeavorto apply the latest technical advances as soon as possible.

b. In using frequency bands for radio services, Member States shallbear in mind that radio frequencies and any associated orbits, includ-ing the geostationary-satellite orbit, are limited natural resources andthat they must be used rationally, efficiently and economically, inconformity with the provisions of the Radio Regulations, so thatcountries or groups of countries may have equitable access to thoseorbits and frequencies, taking into account the special needs of thedeveloping countries and the geographical situation of particularcountries.

27. ITU Radio Regulations (ITU, Geneva, Edition 2004); Appendix 30, 30A,and 30B.

28. It is interesting to note that the 1979 ITU World Administrative Radio Con-ference—under its Resolution 507—considered the a priori planningapproach imperative for broadcasting satellite service in order ‘‘to make

200 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

the best possible use of the geostationary-satellite orbit and of the frequencybands allocated to the broadcasting-satellite service’’ since a ‘‘great numberof receiving installations using such directional antennae as could be set upfor a broadcasting-satellite service may be an obstacle to changing thelocation of space stations in that service on the geostationary-satellite orbit,as of the date of their being brought into use.’’

29. ITU Constitution (note 1): Article 45, ‘‘All stations, whatever their purpose,must be established and operated in such a manner as not to cause harmfulinterference to the radio services or communications of other Members or ofrecognized operating agencies, or of other duly authorized operating agen-cies which carry on a radio service, and which operate in accordance withthe provisions of the Radio Regulations.’’

30. ITU Radio Regulations (note 27): Articles 8.1 and 8.3.31. ITU Radio Regulations (note 27): Article 9.3.32. ‘‘The emergence of new wireless applications, introduction of advanced sys-

tems and effective convergence of radio technology are challenging theestablished rules and practices in spectrum management at national andinternational levels,’’ ‘‘ITU Council Working Group on the WorldSummit on the Information Society,’’ ITU Document WG-WSIS 7=12-E,3 December 2004.

33. Generally see, F. Lyall, ‘‘Paralysis by Phantom: Problems of the ITU FilingProcedures’’ (1996) Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Colloquium on the Lawof Outer Space, (Reston, 1997), p. 187; ‘‘Divergent Views Remain on Howto Solve ‘Paper’ Satellite Problems,’’ Satellite Week (9 September 1996);‘‘Export Licensing and Orbital Slots Top Satellite Issues for 1999,’’ SatelliteWeek (8 February 1999).

34. ‘‘Satellite interference: still a problem,’’ Telecom Asia, Mar 7, 2006, http://www.telecomasia.net/telecomasia/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=310993 (accessed5 June 2006): ‘‘The ITU’s frequency coordination process isn’t much faster,with some requests reportedly backlogged by up to three years.’’

35. ITU Radio Regulations (note 27) Article11.44.36. Ibid. Before revision by the WRC-03, the ITU Radio Regualtions (note 27)

Article 11.44 specified: ‘‘The notified date of bringing into use of any assign-ment to a space station of a satellite network shall be no later than five yearsfollowing the date of receipt by the Bureau of the relevant information underNo. 9.1. The notified date of bringing into use may be extended at therequest of the notifying administration by not more than two years, onlyunder the conditions specified under Nos. 11.44B to 11.44I. Any frequencyassignment not brought into use within the required period shall be can-celled by the Bureau after having informed the administration at least threemonths before the expiry of this period’’. See also, Article 5.3.1 of Appendix30, (as modified by the WRC-03).

37. ITU Radio Regulations (note 27): Article 9, footnote 4, make Resolution 49(Rev.WRC-2003) applicable to satellite networks and satellite systemsthat are subject to this Article. ITU, Administrative Due Diligence Applicableto Some Satellite Communication Services, ITU Res. 49, Annex 2, World


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

Radiocommunications Conference. Res. 49, Annex 2, calls for the inclusionof the following information:

a) Identity of the satellite network: (a) Identity of the satellite network; (b)Name of the Administration; (c) Country symbol; (d) Reference to theadvance publication information . . .; (e) Reference to the request forcoordination; (f) Frequency band(s); (g) Name of the operator; (h) Nameof the satellite; (i) Orbital Characteristics.

b) Spacecraft Manufacturer: (a) Name of the spacecraft manufacturer; (b)Date of execution of the contract; (c) Contractual ‘‘delivery window’’[planned period, beginning and end dates]; (d) Number of satellitesprocured.

c) (C)Launch Services provider: (a) Name of the launch vehicle provider;(b) Date of execution of the contract; (c) Anticipated launch or in-orbitdelivery window; (d) Name of the launch facility; (e) Name and locationof the launch facility.

d) In 1998, the RB published a letter for all member States with a form to befilled in order to comply with the administrative due diligence provisions.Furthermore, it gave instructions to the States to include the relevant data.ITU, Radiocommunication Bureau, Forms for use when submitting theadministrative due diligence information to the Radiocommunication Bureau,ITU Circular Letter CR=96, Forms RS49 (1998). This document specifiesmore the required information indicated above. For example, relating tothe information of the satellite network, it requires some technicalinformation, such as the nominal orbital longitude, the inclination angle,the apogee, perigee, the number of satellites, and the number of orbitalplanes. As well, relating the launch services provider, it specifies the nameof the locality by which the launch facility is known or in which it islocated, the country, and the geographical coordinates.

38. ITU Radio Regulations (as modified by the WRC-03): Article 9.1.39. ITU, Implementation of processing charges for satellite network filings and adminis-

trative procedures, ITU Res. 88. ITU, Instruments amending the Constitution andthe Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (Geneva, 1992) asamended by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto, 1994), Final Acts of the Pleni-potentiary Conference (Minneapolis, 1998), ITU, October 12–November 6,1999.

40. The ITU Council under its Decision 513 on ‘‘Cost Recovery for SatelliteNetwork Filings’’ (approved at the fourteenth plenary meeting), documentc03=88-e, (5–16 May 2003) decided:

(a) that for filings having number of units that exceed 10 times the number ofunits covered by the flat fee, the following charge per excess unit shouldapply:

. 50% of the charge per excess unit for units above 10 times and belowand equal to 20 times the number of units included in the flat fee; and

202 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

. 30% of the charge per excess unit for units above 20 times the numberof units included in the flat fee.

(b) that this additional methodology should be applied only to filings receivedbefore the entry in force of the Decision 482 modified by Council at its2002 session, i.e., the date of entry in force of the ‘‘unit’’ charging method-ology 3rd May 2002, and published after this date.

41. See ‘‘Draft Report from the ad-hoc Group on Cost Recovery for SatelliteNetwork Filings,’’ ITU Document 1-E, 26 April 2004.

42. See, Drafting Group on Charging Methodologies, ‘‘Report on ChargingMethodology Options, ad hoc Group on Cost recovery for Satellite NetworkFilings,’’ ITU Document, 15-E, 6 May 2004.

43. See, Note by the Secretary-General entitled ‘‘Statement of Amounts Owedin Connection with Invoices for the Processing of Satellite Network Filings,’’ITU Document, C06=EP=1-E (28 March 2006).

44. Report by the Secretary-General On ‘‘Implementation of cost recovery forsatellite network filings’’ to ITU Council 2007, Geneva, 4-14 September2007, ITU Document C07=18-E (4 May 2007), paragraph 3.

45. According to the Report of the Chairman of the Satellite Backlog ActionGroup (SAT-BAG) on WRC-03 Actions to the ITU Council, ‘‘there hasbeen an increase in the number of notices for satellite network filed duringthe period of the Conference (WRC-03). Whether this increase in the num-ber of notices received represents the beginning of a general upturn in thenumber of networks received is probably too early to determine, but initialindications suggest the recent trends, of reducing numbers of filingsreceived, may continue. The improvement in the rate of processing bythe Radiocommunication Bureau is continuing and should result in the elim-ination of the backlog by early 2004. However, this situation may not berelied upon to continue and further work is necessary to address the com-plexities that remain in the regulatory provisions. The Council may wishto consider steps to ensure that the work necessary to implement the rel-evant Resolutions from WRC-03 is undertaken in order to achieve the ident-ified improvements.’’ ITU Document, C04=2-E (26 February 2004).

46. WRC-03 Resolution [Com4=9] (WRC-03) on ‘‘Backlog in Satellite Filings;now ITU Radio Regulations (note 27) Resolution 89.

47. WRC-03 Resolution 951 on ‘‘Options to improve the international spectrumregulatory framework.’’

48. Director, Radiocommunication Bureau, Report of the Director on the activi-ties of the radiocommunication sector On Resolution 951 (WRC-03),‘‘Options to improve the international spectrum regulatory framework,’’WRC-07 Document 24-E (9 July 2007).

49. For details, see M.Y.S. Prasad, ‘‘Space-Based Telecommunications includingTele-Education & Telemedicine—Implications to the Area of Space Law,’’in Proceedings of the Space Law Conference 2005: Bringing Space Benefitsto the Asian Region, Bangalore, India, 26–29 June 2005: p. 4.3 et seq.

50. Articles 4.2 and 4.3 of Radio Regulations oblige all ITU Member States toassign radio frequencies to their satellites (space stations) ‘‘in accordance


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

with the Table of Frequency Allocations and other provisions of these Reg-ulations.’’ Moreover, Article 4.4 of the Regulations emphasizes that ‘‘Mem-ber States shall not assign to a station any frequency in derogation of eitherthe Table of Frequency Allocations . . . . or the other provisions of theseRegulations.’’

51. For details, see Ram Jakhu, ‘‘Comments on Mr. M.Y.S. Prasad’s Paper onSpace-Based Telecommunications including Tele-Education & Telemedi-cine—Implications to the Area of Space Law,’’ in Proceedings of theSpace law conference 2005: Bringing Space Benefits to the Asian Region,Bangalore, India, 26–29 June 2005: p. 4–33 et seq.

52. ITU Radio Regulations: Article 9.5B.53. ITU Radio Regulations: Article 9.64.54. John C. Tanner, ‘‘SPACE JAM: Fighting satellite interference from the

ground up,’’ Telecom Asia, Nov 1, 2003, http://www.telecomasia.net/telecomasia/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=73752 (accessed 20 May 06).

55. Satellite Interference (note 34).56. ‘‘Interference Matrix Database,’’ Satellite Users Interference Reduction

Group. http://www.suirg.org/interference/report_display.php (accessed 20May 2006).

57. Satellite Interference (note 34).58. Satellite Interference (note 34).59. ‘‘Star suspects sabotage in satellite signal disruption’’, Indiantelevision.com

Team, 27 June 2005, http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k5/june/june305.htm (accessed 5 June 2006).

60. ‘‘Chinese broadcasting satellite temporarily attacked by outside signals,’’March 16, 2005, http://www.cdi.org/program/issue/document.cfm?DocumentID=2937&IssueID=140&StartRow=11&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=68&issueID=140#6 (accessed 5June 2006).

61. In this regard, it may be noted that the US STRATCOM is now treating allsatellite interferences-disturbances as if they were an attack on US satellites,instead of making the conventional assumption that these abnormalities aredue to the space environment or system failure. See, 19 ‘‘STRATCOMTreating all Satellite Disturbances as Attacks for Practice’’ 12(22) InsideMissile Defense (25 October 2006).

62. Prasad, Space-Based Telecommunications (note 49).63. Article 14, the Constitution of the International Telecommunication Union,

(note 1) as amended by the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh, 2002).64. UC Berkeley Model United Nations, ‘‘The United Nations General

Assembly, Disarmament and International Security,’’ 2006, http://www.ucbmunc.org/Conference/disec.pdf (accessed 5 June 2006).

65. ‘‘PAKSAT-1 Reaches Its Orbital Position,’’ http://www.pakistanidefence.-com/news/MonthlyNewsArchive/2003/Jan2003.htm (accessed 6 March2006). For details, also see, ‘‘The troubled history of Paksat 1. (It’s also beencalled Palapa C1, Hughes HGS 3, & Anatolia 1!) ,’’ http://www.selkirkshire.demon.co.uk/analoguesat/anatoliahistory.html (accessed 5 June 2006);‘‘Access Partnership Assists in Implementation of First Satellite Network

204 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

for Pakistan,’’ April 2003, http://www.accesspartnership.com/connecting-pakistan-satellite.html (accessed 6 March 2006); ‘‘Paksat-1 to become oper-ational from February 1,’’ The Nation, January 16, 2003, http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/s-asia-it/archive/2003/01/msg00031.html (accessed 4 June2006); Salman Siddiqui, ‘‘Is Paksat-1 a vital asset or vitally useless?,’’February 3, 2004, http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00003082&channel=civic%20center (accessed 7 March 2006).

66. See Communications Satellite System (Paksat-1R) Request for Proposals(RFP) for Consultancy, 18 June 2008, http://www.suparco.gov.pk/RFPforPaksat-1RConsultancy.pdf (accessed 1 July 2006).

67. ‘‘Vietnam Satellite Project Attracts Corporate Giants,’’ Hanoi, Vietnam(AFP), Feb 16, 2006, http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Vietnam_Satellite_Project_Attracts_Corporate_Giants.html (accessed 1 July 2006).

68. ‘‘The Vietnamese are working night and day. They have to, because theproject is restricted by the rights to their orbital position—if they don’tlaunch the satellite in February 2006, they lose their rights:’’ ‘‘Clockticking as Vietnam counts down to first satellite launch’’, HANOI (AFP)Sep 17, 2003, http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030917022507.3pqdygjs.html(accessed 14 March 2004). See also, ‘‘Vietnam Satellite Project Delayed OverFrequency Problems’’, Hanoi, Vietnam (AFP), Oct 29, 2004, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/satellite-biz-04zzzzzzzzg.html (accessed 2 November 2004);‘‘CDI Space Security Update #21: Frequency dispute could cancel Vietnamesesatellite program,’’ Center for Defense Information, 1 December 2004, http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm? documentID=2706 (accessed 4June 2006).

69. Space Security 2006, http://www.spacesecurity.org/SSI2006.pdf (accessed:5 July 2006), p. 40.

70. Press Release, ‘‘Arianespace to launch first Vietnamese telecommunicationssatellite,’’ June 20, 2006, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=20129 (accessed 1 July 2006). Also see, ‘‘Vietnam To Invite Formal BidsFor Satellite Project,’’ February 2, 2006, http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Vietnam_To_Invite_Formal_Bids_For_Satellite_Project.html (accessed 3February 06).

71. http://www.suirg.org/interference/report_display.php (accessed 22 February2007).

72. http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2002/05.html (accessed 24December 2006).

73. Satellite Interference (note 34).74. http://www.suirg.org/interference/report_display.php (accessed 22 February

2007).75. Ibid.76. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/solarsystem/earth/spacejunk.shtml

(accessed 18 February 2007)77. Stefan Lovgren, ‘‘Space Junk Cleanup Needed, NASA Experts Warn,’’

National Geographic News, January 19, 2006, http://news.nationalgeo-graphic.com/news/2006/01/0119_060119_space_junk.html (accessed 19February 2007).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

78. Brad Thomas, ‘‘STS 121,’’ ‘‘Space Center Roundup, Lyndon B. JohnsonSpace Center,’’ (April 2006), http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/roundup/online/2006/0406_p8_11.pdf, p. 8. (accessed 27 February 2007)

79. P. Krisko, ‘‘Risk to LEO Spacecraft Due to Small Particle Impacts,’’ inNASA, Orbital Debris Quarterly News, 11.1, (January 2007), p. 5.

80. ‘‘Space Control: Reentry Assessment and Space Surveillance,’’ U.S. Stra-tegic Command Public Affairs, Offutt Air Force Base, Fact Sheet, March2004; D. Mehrholz, L. Leushacke, W. Flury, R. Jehn. H. Klinkrad, andM. Landgraf, ‘‘Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris,’’ ESA Bulletin109 (February 2002), p. 128.

81. NASA, Orbital Debris Quarterly (note 79), p. 8.82. Stefan Lovgren, ‘‘Space Junk Cleanup Needed, NASA Experts Warn,’’

National Geographic News, January 19, 2006, http://news.nationalgeogra-phic.com/news/2006/01/0119_060119_space_junk.html (accessed 19 Feb-ruary 2007)

83. NASA, Orbital Debris Quarterly (note 79), p. 2.84. China confirms satellite downed,’’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/

6289519.stm; ‘‘China missile worries India,’’ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.-com/articleshow/1385433 cms; ‘‘China test sparks space arms fears,’’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6278867.stm (accessed 27 February 2007).

85. Frank Morring, Jr., ‘‘China Asat Test Called Worst Single Debris EventEver,’’ Aviation Week and Space Technology, Feb 11, 2007, http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw021207p2.xml (accessed 27 February 2007).

86. Ibid.87. David McGlade, (CEO Intelsat), ‘‘Preserving the Orbital Environment,’’

Space News, February 19, 2007, p. 27.88. Wang Ting and David Wright, ‘‘Debris from China’s Kinetic Energy ASAT

Test,’’ Space Weapons and Technical Issues, February 2, 2007, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/debris-from-chinas-asat-test.html(accessed 22 February 2007).

89. U.S. National Research Council, Orbital Debris: A Technical Assessment(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995), http://books.nap.edu/books/0309051258/html/index.html, (accessed 22 February 2007) p. 30.

90. For details on space debris, see Orbiting Debris: A Space Environmental Problem,October 1990, OTA-BP-ISC-72; Flury, W., Space Debris, Mission AnalysisSection, ESOC, ESA, http://esapub.esrin.esa.it/pff/pffv4n4/ppfflunr4.htm(accessed 12-Nov-99); ‘‘Keeping Space Free Of Debris,’’ Paris - Nov 27,2003, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/debris-03a.html (accessed 11September 2004); ‘‘Alarm system to help China’s first manned space shuttleavoid collisions,’’ Beijing (AFP) 11 August 2003, http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030811045619.px27s7gd.html (12 March 2004); ‘‘Argentineauthorities seeking US help in identifying piece of space junk,’’ Buenos Aires(AFP) 21 January 2004, http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040121225802.g8r47dqk.html (accessed 23 January 2004); ‘‘Colombia gaze nervously sky-ward, fearing shower from Italian satellite,’’ Bogota (AFP) 26 April2003, http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030426162406.ntkbos42.html (date

206 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

accessed:28 April 2003); Space Debris Note to the UN by Saudi Arabia, UNDoc. A/AC.105/762 of 3 April 2001; ‘‘Insurers fear space junk’’ Italian insurerGenerali warns of debris at Venice space insurance conference, 17 April 1997,http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-1997/0164.html (accessed 05 May 2004);‘‘Earth’s Growing Orbital Ring Of Machines and Debris,’’ Moscow, 14 May2001, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/debris-01b.html (accessed 11 Septem-ber 2004); Anz-Meador, P., ‘‘Constellations Spawn Debris Rings AroundEarth,’’ for Orbital Debris News: JSC Houston, October 2000, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/debris-00d.html (11 September 2004).

91. Space Security 2004 (2005), http://www.spacesecurity.org/SSI2004.pdf (dateaccessed 5 March 2007) p. 5.

92. See Settlement of Claim between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republicsfor Damage Caused by Cosmos 954, Canadian Department of External AffairsCommunique No. 27, Released on 2 April 1981.

93. D. Whitlock, ‘‘Modeling the Effects of High Solar Activity on the OrbitalDebris Environment.’’ Orbital Debris Quarterly News, 10: 2 (2006), p. 4.

94. For more information about the UN’s main regulatory activities, law-makingprocesses and the texts of all space treaties and resolutions, visit: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/index.html (accessed 27 February 2007)

95. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use ofOuter Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies (hereinafter referred toas the Outer Space Treaty); opened for signature on 27 January 1967,entered into force on 10 October 1967; 98 ratifications and 27 signatures,18 UST 2410, TIAS 6347, 610 UNTS 205.

96. The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Liability Convention,’’ adopted by theGeneral Assembly in its resolution 2777 (XXVI)), opened for signature on29 March 1972, entered into force on 1 September 1972; 82 ratifications,25 signatures, and 2 acceptances of rights and obligations, 24 UST 2389,TIAS 7762, 961 UNTS 187.

97. Outer Space Treaty (note 95):Articles VI and VII.98. Liability Convention, (note 96): Article II.99. Ibid, Article III.

100. Ibid, Article I(d).101. Outer Space Treaty, (note 95): Article VIII.102. The Space Millennium: Vienna Declaration on Space and Human Develop-

ment; Third United Nations Conference on the Exploration and PeacefulUses of Outer Space, 19-23 July 1999, New York. UN Doc. A/CONF.184/L.16/Add.2

103. ‘‘Space debris mitigation guidelines of the Scientific and Technical Subcom-mittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space’’, Annex IV toCommittee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, ‘‘Report of the Scientificand Technical Subcommittee on its forty-fourth session, held in Viennafrom 12 to 23 February 2007,’’ United Nations General Assembly, Docu-ment no. A/AC.105/890 of 6 March 2007.

104. Ibid, guideline 3 states that ‘‘These guidelines are applicable to mission plan-ning and operation of newly designed spacecraft and orbital stages and, if


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

possible, to existing ones. They are not legally binding under internationallaw.’’

105. ‘‘European Space Debris Safety and Mitigation Standard,’’ Issue 1, Revision0, 27 September 2000; F. Alby, et al., ‘‘A European Standard for SpaceDebris,’’ 1999, http://www.estec.esa.nl/wmwww/wma/ Collaborations/NoCDebris/Publications/Alby%20et%20al-ANAE-2002.pdf (accessed 27February 2007)

106. ‘‘U.S. National Space Policy,’’ White House National Science and Tech-nology Council, Fact Sheet, 31 August 2006.

107. ITU Council Working Group on the World Summit on the Information Society, ITUDocument, WG-WSIS 7=12-E, 3 December 2004.

108. The dangers posited by space debris are in many ways similar to those byexplosions of nuclear weapons or other devices. Therefore, the 1963 PartialTest Ban Treatycan serve as a relevant precedent that could serve as a basisfor an international treaty for the prohibition of intentional creation of spacedebris. The 1963 Treaty prohibits testing of nuclear weapons in outer space.Currently, there are 117 States Parties to this treaty, which has been consist-ently followed by all Parties to the Treaty. See Treaty Banning Nuclear WeaponTests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, completed on August5, 1963; Entered into force on October 10, 1963, http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4797.htm#signatory (accessed 22 February 2007).

208 R. Jakhu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 1

1:56

05

May

201

3

legal issues of satellite telecommunications, the geostationary orbit, and space debris

Documents