Abstract
The vertical limit of national sovereignty, in relation to the air space or outer space, was addressed by some rare municipal rules that conflict with one another. Thus, it is import to resort to Comparative Law to achieve a comprehensive verification of those few alternatives presented by States for solution of the problem, in order to identify not only legal patterns but also to understand the reasons behind those laws. As taught by Rudolf Schlesinger:
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Pier Giuseppe Monateri (ed.). Methods of Comparative Law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012. p. 1.
- 2.
C. Jayaraj. “Is There a Need for a Comprehensive Convention on Outer Space Law?” Proceedings of the Fiftieth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space. IISL, Hyderabad, 2007.
- 3.
Rudolf B. Schlesinger, Hans W. Baade, Peter E. Herzog and Edward W. Wise. Comparative Law. 6. ed. New York, USA: 1998. p. 2.
- 4.
“O Direito Comparado é a ciência (ou o método) que estuda, por meio de contraste, dois ou mais sistemas jurídicos, analisando suas normas positivas, suas fontes, sua história e os variados fatores sociais e políticos que os influenciam.” Jacob Dolinger. Direito Internacional Privado – Parte Geral. 5. ed. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Renovar, 2000. p. 40.
- 5.
Jacob Dolinger. Direito Internacional Privado – Parte Geral. 5. ed. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Renovar, 2000. p. 43.
- 6.
“O ato normativo unilateral pode casualmente voltar-se para o exterior, em seu objeto, habilitando-se à qualidade de fonte de Direito Internacional na medida em que possa ser invocado por outros Estados em abono de uma vindicação qualquer, ou como esteio da licitude de certo procedimento. Tal é o caso das leis e decretos com que cada Estado determina, observados os limites próprios, a extensão do mar territorial ou da zona econômica exclusiva, o regime de seus portos, ou ainda a franquia de suas águas interiores à navegação estrangeira.” Francisco Rezek. Direito Internacional Público. 11. ed. São Paulo, Brazil: Saraiva, 2008. p. 136.
- 7.
Malcolm N. Shaw. International Law. 5. ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. p. 114. Reference is made to relevant international case law in that regard: Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, Norway vs. Denmark, Permanent Court of Justice, 1933, Ser. A/B, No. 53, 71; Nuclear Tests Case, Australia and New Zealand vs. France, International Court of Justice, 1974, 253, 457.
- 8.
“In the years since the drafting of the Chicago Convention, States have taken different positions on the extent of vertical sovereignty and definitions of their national airspace. There is no consensus today.” Dean Reinhardt. The Vertical Limit of State Sovereignty. Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University. Montreal, Canada: 2005. p. 24.
- 9.
Space Activities Act, n. 34 1998-99, 1998.
- 10.
A/AC.105/865/Add. 1.
- 11.
Air Navigation Law, 1964, art. 1(2).
- 12.
Aeronautic Code, 1961, art. 1.
- 13.
“El espacio situado sobre el territorio nacional, con la extensión y modalidades que establezca el propio derecho internacional.”
- 14.
In accordance with the aerodynamic lift approach, the upper limits of our planet’s atmosphere should, in one way or another, represent Air Law’s jurisdiction, which is based on the premise that States have complete and exclusive sovereignty over the column of air above their territories. Beyond such a standard, outer space should commence, free from national claims.
- 15.
“Section 2 para. 48 of the Rule of the Air (Federal Law Gazette II No. 80/2010), a regulation implementing the Austrian Aviation Law, defines the upper state boundary as the height at which aircrafts can no longer operate by aerodynamic lift but only according to Kepler’s laws.” Official answer from Austria, presented in 2011, to a questionnaire prepared by UNCOPUOS Legal Subcommittee regarding national legislation about the definition and delimitation of outer space. A/AC.105/C.2/2011/CRP.10.
- 16.
Strategic Geographic Advantage Act, 2008.
- 17.
Paul Fauchille. Le Domaine Aéreian et Le Régime Juridique de les Aerostats. Paris, France: Pendone, 1901.
- 18.
“Law No. 156-3 of 5 May 1998, on objects belonging exclusively to the State, declares that the airspace above the territory of Belarus is the exclusive property of the State. As regards the issue of the definition and delimitation of outer space, however, Belarus, which embarked on outer space activities only recently, does not yet have separate domestic legislation relating to outer space but is currently developing legislation that will, inter alia, cover that issue. Current law divides the airspace of Belarus into two categories: classified and unclassified. Airspace below an altitude of 20,100 m is classified and flights within it are governed by domestic legislation: the Air Code and the Rules for the Use of Airspace adopted by Order No. 1471 of the Council of Ministers on 4 November 2006. Outside classified airspace (above an altitude of 20,100 m), which is considered outer space, the provisions of international agreements apply.” A/AC.105/865/Add.4.
- 19.
Instruction 11-42, 2003, item 2.2.
- 20.
http://uscode.house.gov/, accessed on 09.02.2012.
- 21.
Regarding the American State of Virginia, it was proposed that the term “suborbital flight” should be understood as those that take place up to 62.5 miles of altitude above mean sea level, during the preparation of amendments to the “Space Flight Liability and Immunity Act, of 2007, but the final wording did not incorporate such suggestion. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+sum+HB3184, accessed on 08.27.2012”. On the other hand, the American State of New Mexico, in its “Gross Receipts and Compensating Tax”, of 2007, defined outer space as anywhere above 60,000 feet of altitude from mean sea level. http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/52-229-gross-receipts-compensating-19871177, accessed on 08.27.2012.
- 22.
Francys Lyall and Paul B. Laursen. Space Law: a Treatise. Farnham, England: Ashgate, 2009. p. 160.
- 23.
“El Estado ecuatoriano ejercerá derechos sobre los segmentos correspondientes de la órbita sincrónica geoestacionaria, los espacios marítimos y la Antártida.”
- 24.
“También son parte de Colombia, el subsuelo, el mar territorial, la zona contigua, la plataforma continental, la zona económica exclusiva, el espacio aéreo, el segmento de la órbita geoestacionaria, el espectro electromagnético y el espacio donde actúa, de conformidad con el Derecho Internacional o con las leyes colombianas a falta de normas internacionales.”
- 25.
Jairo A. Becerra Ortiz. “A Survey of Colombia’s New Outer Space Policy: Reforms in Colombian Law”, Acta Astronautica, Vol. 63, n. 1-4. Washington, USA, July-August 2008. p. 560/563.
- 26.
By the “Bogotá Declaration”, of December 3rd 1976, several equatorial States claimed sovereignty over the geostationary orbit, due to its strategic importance, particularly as far as telecommunications are concerned. Said instrument, in which Brazil took part of the negotiations but later denied being bound to, represented the position of several developing countries crossed by the Equator line. It was also signed by Colombia, Congo, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kenya, Uganda and Zaire.
- 27.
Consideration of the legal regime applicable to the geostationary orbit was included on UNCOPUOS permanent agenda in 1977, and, from the next year on, became a topic to be addressed the study group on delimitation and definition of outer space. For more information: A/32/20.
- 28.
Nandasiri Jasentuliyana. International Space Law and the United Nations. The Hague, the Netherlands: Kluwer, 1999. p. 53. Important to remark that the ITU, in its Regulation of Radio Waves, article S1.64, defines “space station” as “a station located on an object which is beyond, is intended to go beyond, or has been beyond, the major portion of the Earth’s atmosphere”. See also: Frans G. Von der Dunk. “The Sky is the Limit – but Where does it End?” Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space. IISL, Fukuoka, 2005. p. 88.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Oliveira Bittencourt Neto, O. (2015). National Legislation and Comparative Law. In: Defining the Limits of Outer Space for Regulatory Purposes. SpringerBriefs in Space Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16685-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16685-8_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16684-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16685-8
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)