the rescue agreement and private space carriers

Paper number

IAC-08.E8.2.9

Author

Ms. Zeldine Niamh O'Brien, Trinity College, Ireland

Year

2008

Abstract

The Rescue Agreement imposes several obligations on State parties, specifically in Article III, contracting Parties must extend assistance in search and rescue operations to assure the speedy rescue of spacecraft personnel where they have alighted in any other place not under the jurisdiction of any State if necessary and where they are in a position to do so. There has been much debate as to whether the Rescue Agreement applies to space tourists. The use of both ‘astronaut’ and ‘personnel’ within the Agreement has not clarified the matter. In addition, the extension to spaceflight participants and other non-personnel may be justified on humanitarian grounds. Nonetheless, while the scope of those who may benefit from the application of the duties imposed by the Agreement is unclear, it is certain that only State parties and other contracting international intergovernmental bodies are bound by them. However, it may be envisaged that by the end of this decade, private commercial manned space crafts for the carriage of persons will also be active in low earth orbit and in time, beyond that. This paper will address whether the duties in the Agreement should be extended to bind commercial entities engaged in space carriage, rather than the Agreement itself.

Should a commercial entity be held to have to respond to a distress call in outer space? It may be argued that given the difficulties inherent any space rescue operation, particularly in relation to the ability to in fact reach those in distress, the law should utilise the presence of privately manned vehicles in outer space to minimise any loss of life. If it is accepted that all aboard a space object will benefit from the duties under the Agreement, regardless of whether they are crew or not, it would not seem unreasonable to extend duties to the carriers whose crew and customers benefit from its provisions. In addition, international maritime custom, upon which the Agreement was in part modelled, would analogically favour the creation of such a duty. However, a key difficulty is the question of who must pay for the cost of the rescue. The Agreement itself requires the launching authority to bear the expenses involved in the recovery and return of the space object (Article 5.5) but it does not extend this to the rescue of personnel. It is submitted that the burden should fall on the rescuees, rather that the rescuer in order to encourage acts of rescue. This would also acknowledge that while private carriers may be obliged to divert to respond to distress calls, they are not operating an emergency service but a business for profit. Which rescuees should bear the cost is yet another consideration. These issues will all be addressed.

Abstract document

IAC-08.E8.2.9.pdf

Manuscript document

IAC-08.E8.2.9.pdf (🔒 authorized access only).

To get the manuscript, please contact IAF Secretariat.