The outer space (cosmic) law portal

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

The outer space (cosmic) law portal

Ïîðòàë êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà

Marinich Volodymyr

PhD Candidate in Law of the

National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine; Member of the Scientific Lab NGO “Cosmic Law Portal”

Ìàð³í³÷ Âîëîäèìèð Êîñòÿíòèíîâè÷

çäîáóâà÷ âèùî¿ îñâ³òè ñòóïåíÿ äîêòîðà ô³ëîñîô³¿ çà ñïåö³àëüí³ñòþ «Ïðàâî»

Íàö³îíàëüíîãî óí³âåðñèòåòó á³îðåñóðñ³â ³ ïðèðîäîêîðèñòóâàííÿ Óêðà¿íè; ó÷àñíèê Íàóêîâî¿ ëàáîðàòî𳿠ÃÎ «Ïîðòàë Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà»



Summary

This article presents the research results related to creating the Unified World Analytical Legal Platform of Outer Space Law (Cosmic Law Portal).

The study's results show the uniqueness of Outer Space Law and its distinctive features, without which it is impossible to create an effective mechanism for regulating space activities.

The basis of its uniqueness is the environment of application of Outer Space Law (“Cosmos”), which is not the natural habitat of a human and that nobody owns. cosmic law portal

During the study of Outer Space Law, the processes of gradual formation of terms, theses, and antitheses as well as the emergence of legal conflicts have been identified.

At the same time, it is revealed that the processes of the evolution of theses and antitheses, the formation of terminology, and the creation of interpretation of terms have not occurred naturally and experimentally but through diplomatic proposals and political agreements. In turn, this led to heterogeneity, inconsistency, incompatibility, non-conformities, and ambiguity of most provisions of Outer Space Law and as a consequence the ineffectiveness of the process of regulating space activities.

Thus, the study shows the urgent need for the creation of the Unified World Analytical Legal Platform of Outer Space Law (Cosmic Law Portal) and the universal cosmic language of terms.

During the research process, the following elements and characteristics of the Cosmic Law Portal have been identified, the pres- ence of which is necessary for the formation of effective Outer Space Law: 1) a database of international and national acts and documents regulating space activities; 2) mechanisms that monitor and control the evolution of legal theses and the emergence of antitheses and legal conflicts; 3) mechanisms to provide open and interactive access to professionals and scientists around the world; 4) mechanisms of legal analysis; 5) open access mechanisms for the entire world community with the possibility of voting. At the same time, the author has identified 7 main stages necessary to create the Cosmic Law Portal: 1) the comprehensive study of international and national legal regulation of space activities from the beginning to the present day; 2) the comprehen- sive study of the terminology of space activities and Outer Space Law; 3) the study of the principles of construction of Outer Space Law; 4) the creation of the Cosmic Law Portal; 5) involving specialists and scientists from all over the world in the discus- sion and analysis of legal documents in the field of Outer Space Law; 6) presenting the platform to the world community; 7) the

research and application of public opinion and public position related to Outer Space Law.

Key words: space, space law, outer space law portal, cosmic law portal, the unified world analytical legal platform of outer space law.



Àíîòàö³ÿ

Ó ö³é ñòàòò³ âèñâ³òëåíî ðåçóëüòàòè äîñë³äæåííÿ, ïîâ'ÿçàí³ ç³ ñòâîðåííÿì ªäèíî¿ Ñâ³òîâî¿ Àíàë³òè÷íî¿ Ïðà- âîâî¿ Ïëàòôîðìè Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà (Ïîðòàëó Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà).

Ðåçóëüòàòè äîñë³äæåííÿ ï³äòâåðäèëè óí³êàëüí³ñòü Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà òà éîãî â³äì³íí³ ðèñè, áåç óðàõóâàííÿ ÿêèõ íå- ìîæëèâî ñòâîðèòè åôåêòèâí³ ìåõàí³çìè ðåãóëþâàííÿ êîñì³÷íî¿ ä³ÿëüíîñò³.

Îñíîâîþ óí³êàëüíîñò³ º ñåðåäîâèùå çàñòîñóâàííÿ Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà (“Cosmos”), ÿêå íå º ïðèðîäíèì ì³ñöåì ³ñíóâàííÿ ëþäèíè ³ í³êîìó íå íàëåæèòü.

Ó ïðîöåñ³ äîñë³äæåííÿ Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà âèÿâëåíî ïðîöåñè ïîñòóïîâîãî ôîðìóâàííÿ òåðì³í³â, óòâîðåííÿ òåç òà àí- òèòåç, à òàêîæ âèíèêíåííÿ ïðàâîâèõ êîë³ç³é.

Ïðè öüîìó âñòàíîâëåíî òå, ùî ïðîöåñè åâîëþö³¿ òåç òà àíòèòåç, ôîðìóâàííÿ òåðì³íîëî㳿 òà ñòâîðåííÿ ³íòåðïðåòàö³¿ òåðì³í³â â³äáóâàëèñÿ íå ïðèðîäíèì ³ äîñë³äíèöüêèì øëÿõîì, à ÷åðåç äèïëîìàòè÷í³ ïðîïîçèö³¿ òà ïîë³òè÷í³ óçãîäæåííÿ. Ó ñâîþ ÷åðãó, öå ïðèçâåëî äî ð³çíîð³äíîñò³, íåïîñë³äîâíîñò³, íåñóì³ñíîñò³, íåâ³äïîâ³äíîñò³ òà íåÿñíîñò³ á³ëüøîñò³ ïîëî- æåíü Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà, ³ ÿê íàñë³äîê -- íååôåêòèâíîñò³ ïðîöåñó ðåãóëþâàííÿ êîñì³÷íî¿ ä³ÿëüíîñò³.

Òàêèì ÷èíîì, äîñë³äæåííÿ âèÿâèëî íàãàëüíó íåîáõ³äí³ñòü ó ñòâîðåíí³ ªäèíî¿ Ñâ³òîâî¿ Àíàë³òè÷íî¿ Ïðàâîâî¿ Ïëàò- ôîðìè Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà (Ïîðòàëó Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà) ³ óí³âåðñàëüíî¿ êîñì³÷íî¿ ìîâè òåðì³í³â.

Ó ïðîöåñ³ äîñë³äæåííÿ áóëî âèä³ëåíî òàê³ åëåìåíòè òà õàðàêòåðèñòèêè Ïîðòàëó Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà, íàÿâí³ñòü ÿêèõ íåîáõ³äíà äëÿ ôîðìóâàííÿ åôåêòèâíîãî Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà: 1) áàçà äàíèõ ì³æíàðîäíèõ òà íàö³îíàëüíèõ àêò³â òà äî- êóìåíò³â, ùî ðåãóëþþòü êîñì³÷íó ä³ÿëüí³ñòü; 2) ìåõàí³çìè, ùî â³äñòåæóþòü òà êîíòðîëþþòü åâîëþö³þ ïðàâîâèõ òåç òà ïîÿâó àíòèòåç òà ïðàâîâèõ êîë³ç³é; 3) ìåõàí³çìè, ùî çàáåçïå÷óþòü â³äêðèòèé òà ³íòåðàêòèâíèé äîñòóï äëÿ ôàõ³âö³â òà íàóêîâö³â óñüîãî ñâ³òó; 4) ìåõàí³çìè ïðàâîâîãî àíàë³çó; 5) ìåõàí³çìè â³äêðèòîãî äîñòóïó äëÿ âñ³º¿ ñâ³òîâî¿ ñï³ëüíîòè, ç ìîæëèâ³ñòþ ãîëîñóâàííÿ.

Âîäíî÷àñ àâòîðîì ñòàòò³ âèä³ëåíî 7 îñíîâíèõ åòàï³â, íåîáõ³äíèõ äëÿ ñòâîðåííÿ Ïîðòàëó Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà: 1) êîìï- ëåêñíå äîñë³äæåííÿ ì³æíàðîäíîãî òà íàö³îíàëüíîãî ïðàâîâîãî ðåãóëþâàííÿ êîñì³÷íî¿ ä³ÿëüíîñò³ â³ä ïî÷àòêó ¿¿ ðîçâèòêó ³ äî ñüîãîäí³; 2) êîìïëåêñíå äîñë³äæåííÿ òåðì³íîëî㳿 êîñì³÷íî¿ ä³ÿëüíîñò³ òà Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà; 3) âèâ÷åííÿ ïðèíöèï³â ïîáóäîâè Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà; 4) ñòâîðåííÿ Ïîðòàëó Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà; 5) çàëó÷åííÿ ôàõ³âö³â òà íàóêîâö³â óñüîãî ñâ³òó äî îáãîâîðåííÿ òà àíàë³çó ïðàâîâèõ äîêóìåíò³â ó ãàëóç³ Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà; 6) ïðåäñòàâëåííÿ ö³º¿ ïëàòôîðìè ñâ³òîâ³é ñï³ëüíîò³; 7) äîñë³äæåííÿ òà çàñòîñóâàííÿ ãðîìàäñüêî¿ äóìêè òà ñóñï³ëüíî¿ ïîçèö³¿ ç Êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà.

Êëþ÷îâ³ ñëîâà: êîñìîñ, êîñì³÷íå ïðàâî, ïîðòàë êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà, ºäèíà ñâ³òîâà àíàë³òè÷íà ïðàâîâà ïëàòôîðìà êîñì³÷íîãî ïðàâà.



Introduction

Problem Statement. When exploring Outer Space Law, it is necessary to understand that its main creators are diplomats and politicians who have not participated in space activities and/or lack the nec- essary experience in legal scientific, and/or practical activities in this area. Accordingly, all legal acts developed with their participation are full of pathos and demagoguery but have little practical effect.

In this regard, as of today Outer Space Law can hardly be called a system of legal norms or even a complex of legal provisions and theses, and even more so it cannot be called a well-functioning and effective legal mechanism.

It's more than likely that Outer Space Law can be compared to a web consisting of hundreds of interna- tional and national legal acts and thousands of legal norms and theses, often contradictory to each other or existing in parallel and independently of each other. In some ways, current Outer Space Law is some- what reminiscent of the pirate laws of the Middle Ages, which consisted of general pirate non-binding regulations (on the similarity of the Resolutions and Declarations of the United Nations General Assem- bly) and strict pirate ship-specific rules (similar to national legislation).

In this regard, it is difficult not only for an av- erage person but even for a professional lawyer to understand which legal provisions are common and binding for everyone, and which ones contradict each other in the context of international and national legislation.

There are several possible reasons for this state of affairs.

The first reason is the complete absence of an analytical legal database containing all legal acts in the field of regulation of space activities and publicly available legal analysis of specific legal pro- visions and theses of these acts. Furthermore, such a database shall contain legal acts issued by both the United Nations and national legislative bodies. In turn, all lawyers and other specialists in the regu- lation and implementation of space activities from all over the world shall have access to legal analysis and discussion of specific legal provisions and theses of these acts.

The second reason is the inability to track the evolution of the norms and legal theses of Outer Space Law and their changes, additions, or repeals over time.

The third reason is the lack of access for all hu- manity to discuss and vote on the legal provisions of Outer Space Law that make Cosmos the property of a small group of States and space activities inac- cessible to all humanity.

The above reasons have led to Outer Space Law's imperfection, ineffectiveness, and confusion. In turn, the current situation requires immediate sci- entific research in the field of Outer Space Law to find positive solutions that will eliminate the above reasons and, as a result, avoid national rivalry and military conflicts in space activities.

According to the author, one solution may lie in the development of the unified worldwide analytical legal platform of Outer Space Law (Outer Space Law Portal or Cosmic Law Portal), which shall allow for solving the following tasks:

development of a database of Outer Space Law that shall contain legal acts of the United Nations and national legal acts of all countries as well as a legal analysis of their provisions;

enabling tracking of the evolution of legal theses, provisions, and principles that were formed in the process of adopting the above acts;

providing access to everyone who wants to take part in the regulation and implementation of space activities.

At the same time, to determine the format of the portal it is necessary to analyze the features of Outer Space Law related to its evolution and termi- nology and to conduct a study of official databases that contain legal acts of Outer Space Law.

The status of the issue. Conducting this research,

the author has analyzed many works of notable le- gal scholars in the field of space law, in particu- lar: “Fundamentals of Space Law and Policy” Fabio

Tronchetti [21], “Essays on space law” Natalia Maly- sheva [2], “International space law” Grigorov O. M. [1], “The first quarter-century of spaceflight” Mar- cia S. Smith [18], “Studies in International Space Law” Bin Cheng [4], “The concept of state jurisdic- tion in international space law” Imre Anthony Csa- bafi [5], “International Law and Outer Space Activi- ties” Ogunbanwo O. Ogunsola [16], “Pioneers of space law” Stephan Hobe [7], “Soft law in outer space: the function of non-binding norms in international space law” Irmgard Marboe [10], “War and peace in outer space: law, policy, and ethics” Cassandra Steer and Matthew H. Hersch [19], “An introduction to space law” Diederiks-Verschoor I. H. P. [6], “In- ternational law” Malcolm N. Shaw [17], “The Law of Outer Space” Albert K.Lai [8], “Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space” Asamoah O. Y. [3], and others.

These and many other scientists have studied in

their works the process of creating Outer Space Law and have repeatedly analyzed specific provisions of certain legal acts in this area.

However, to date, none of them have raised the Is. of creating a unified worldwide analytical le- gal platform of Outer Space Law to solve the above problems.

The article aims at determining the format of

the unified worldwide analytical legal platform of Outer Space Law.

In turn, for this it is necessary to study the most important features of Outer Space Law that shall be taken into account when forming the structure of the analytical legal platform, namely, issues of ter- minology and the evolution of legal provisions and theses, using examples of specific legal acts adopted in the period 1958-1963:

the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1148

(XII) “Regulation, limitation and balanced re- duction of all armed forces and all armaments; conclusion of an international convention (treaty) on the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction”, adopted by the UN GA during its 12th session at the 716th plenary meeting, 14 Nov. 1957 (the UN GA Resolution 1148) [22];

the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1348

(XIII) “Question of the peaceful use of outer space”, adopted by the UN GA during its 13th session at the 792nd plenary meeting, 13 Dec. 1958 (the UN GA Resolution 1348) [23];

the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1472

(XIV) “International co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space”, adopted by the UN GA during its 14th session at the 856th plenary meeting, 12 Dec. 1959 (the UN GA Resolution 1472) [24];

the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1721

“International co-operation in the peace-

ful uses of outer space”, adopted by the UN GA during its 16th session, 20 Dec. 1961 (the UN GA Resolution 1721) [25];

the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1802

“International co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space”, adopted by the UN GA during its 17th session at the 1192nd plenary meeting, 14 Dec. 1962 (the UN GA Resolution 1802) [26];

Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the at- mosphere, in outer space, and under water (No. 6964), signed in Moscow (the Union of Soviet So- cialist Republics, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), on 5 August 1963 (the Treaty No. 6964) [20];

the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1884

“Question of general and complete disar- mament”, adopted by the UN GA during its 18th session at the 1244th plenary meeting, 17 Oct. 1963 (the UN GA Resolution 1884) [27];

the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, adopted by the UN GA during its 18th session at the 1280th plenary meeting, 13 Dec. 1963, No. 1962 (XVIII) (the Declaration of Legal Principles) [28];

the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 1963

(XVIII) “International Co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space”, adopted by the UN GA during its 18th session at the 1280th plenary meeting, 13 Dec. 1963 (the UN GA Resolution 1963) [29]. It is also necessary to analyze national and in- ternational Internet platforms containing legal acts in the field of regulation of space activities, using the example of some European countries and the

United Nations.

Based on the above results, it is essential to de- termine the possible format, technical parameters, and other characteristics that the unified worldwide analytical legal platform of Outer Space Law shall have. At the same time, special emphasis is placed on the completeness of the database of legal acts of Outer Space Law, the possibility of analyzing the evolution of Outer Space Law and the entire process of regulating space activities by scientists around the world as well as the availability of the results of such analysis for the legal and moral reflection of all humanity.

The basic material

The evolution of legal theses

In attempts to regulate space activities, the United Nations General Assembly adopted various Resolutions, Declarations, and Conventions, and at the same time, States entered into Treaties to regulate cooperation in outer space. In most cases, all these documents did not contain a mechanism for enforcing their execution or any liability for non-fulfillment, that is, they were drawn up in the

Conventionalis stipulatio [15].

Thus, since the provisions of these documents can hardly be called rules of law, in this study, the author conditionally describes them as Theses, and the provisions that are essentially opposite of the Theses -- Antitheses.

In other words, in this case, legal Theses and Antitheses mean provisions of legal acts that form certain conditions, rules, and principles as well as obligations and agreements of States and similar legal provisions.

To show the evolution of legal Theses and Antith- eses in the regulation of space activities, it is neces- sary to analyze the changes that took place in Outer Space Law using the example of specific legal acts. This study analyzes the legal acts of the United Nations adopted during 1958-1963, which, accord- ing to the author's previous research, formed three General Principles of Space Activity: “The Principle of Free Cosmos” [11], “The Principle of Peaceful Cos- mos” [11], and “The Principle of Useful Cosmos” [13].

That is this part of the study shows the evolution of the legal Theses that formed these three princi- ples, and their Antitheses (if any appeared).

The evolution of “The Principle of Free Cosmos”

The first initiative about the Free Cosmos was set out in the provisions of the UN GA Resolution 1721 (item “b” of paragraph 1 of article “A”): “Outer space and celestial bodies are free for exploration and use by all States in conformity with international law and are not subject to national appropriation” [25]. At the same time, the United Nations General Assembly has never repealed previous Resolutions and/or their provisions but issued new legal acts, supplementing preceding provisions or restating them in a new way.

So, already in the UN GA Resolution 1802 (para- graph 4 of article “II”), when setting the task of building a network of “rocket launching facilities”, the UN General Assembly declared it “by providing an opportunity for valuable practical training for interested users” [26]. That is the UN General As- sembly offered free participation in space activities to all interested actors (without reference to existing States). In turn, the fact that researchers have free access to the Cosmos also means that not a single element of the Cosmos can belong to anyone.

Later, this initiative was supported in the Dec- laration of Legal Principles as follows (paragraph 2): “Outer space and celestial bodies are free for exploration … by all States based on equality and by international law” [28].

In addition, this initiative was announced as one of the legal principles in the Declaration of Legal Principles, namely: “Outer space and celestial bodies are not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means” [28].

Thus, as a result of the compilation of the above legal theses about the Free Cosmos and taking into account their evolution, at the end of 1963 “The Prin- ciple of Free Cosmos” could be formulated as follows: “Outer space and celestial bodies are free for ex- ploration by all States (on a basis of equality and by international law) as well as by all people, private companies, non-governmental organizations, and oth-er interested parties.

Outer space and celestial bodies are not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, use or occupation, or by any other means” [11, p. 351].

The evolution of “The Principle of Peaceful Cosmos”

The Peaceful Cosmos Initiative dates back to the UN GA Resolution 1148 (item “f” of paragraph 1), in which the UN General Assembly proposed “that the sending of objects through outer space should be exclusively for peaceful and scientific purposes” [22]. Further, in the UN GA Resolution 1348 (pream- ble, items “a” and “b” of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2), the UN General Assembly has already stated that “outer space should be used for peaceful purposes only” [23].

In other Resolutions and the Declaration of Legal Principles much has been said about the mentioned aspect as well as about “the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes” and the prohi- bition of propaganda of war in space activities. In addition, the Declaration of Legal Principles also stated the need for “the exploration and use of outer space in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co-op- eration and understanding” [28].

Thus, it can be noted that as of the end of 1963, peaceful initiatives in space activities were discussed repeatedly.

However, at the same time, it should be noted that the UN General Assembly failed to extend peace initiatives to “celestial bodies”. Consequently, at this stage, the conduct of military operations by States on “celestial bodies” was theoretically allowed.

Later on, these initiatives were supplemented by the provisions of the Treaty No. 6964:

“… to prohibit, to prevent, and not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nu- clear explosion, at any place under its jurisdiction or control: (a) in the atmosphere; beyond its limits, including outer space; (b) in any other environment if such explosion causes radioactive debris to be pres- ent outside the territorial limits of the State under whose jurisdiction or control such explosion is con- ducted” [20].

“… furthermore to refrain from causing, encourag- ing, or in any way participating in, the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, anywhere which would take place in any of the environments described” [20].

Further, to support this initiative, the UN Gen- eral Assembly adopted the UN GA Resolution 1884 (items “a” and “b” of paragraph 2), which proposed: “a) To refrain from placing in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, installing such weapons on celestial bodies, or stationing such weap- ons in outer space in any other manner; b)To refrain from causing, encouraging or in any way participat- ing in the conduct of the pending activities” [27].

Thus, as a result of the compilation of the above legal theses about the Peaceful Cosmos and taking into account their evolution, at the end of 1963 “The Principle of Free Cosmos” could be formulated as follows:

“All subjects of space activities can explore and use outer space exclusively for peaceful purposes, act only in the interests of maintaining international peace and security as well as for the development of international cooperation and mutual understanding, and have no right to carry out propaganda of war in space activities.

All subjects of space activities shall refrain from placing, installing, and stationing in any other man- ner (and to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the conduct of the foregoing activities) in orbit around the earth and in outer space and on celestial bodies any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction.

At the same time, States undertake not to carry out or take part in carrying out any nuclear weapon test explosion in places that are located in outer space and on celestial bodies, and which are under the jurisdiction or control of these States” [11, p. 353].

The evolution of “The Principle of Useful Cosmos”

Certainly, everyone realizes that all the dreams and fantasies of mankind about conquering the Cos- mos have always contained a mercantile element about its use.

Already in the UN GA Resolution 1348 (pream- ble), it was proposed to perform “the exploitation of outer space for the benefit of mankind” [23]. At the same time, the preamble of this Resolution also un- derlined the need “to avoid the extension of present national rivalries into this new field” [23].

In the UN GA Resolution 1884 (preamble) the UN General Assembly again emphasized: “that the exploration and use of outer space should be only for the betterment of mankind” [27].

Further, in 1963 the Declaration of Legal Princi- ples highlighted the existence of “the common inter- est of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of outer space” [28], and also that “the explo- ration and use of outer space shall be carried on for the benefit and in the interests of all mankind” [28]. Thus, as a result of the compilation of the above legal theses about the Useful Cosmos and taking into account their evolution, as of the end of 1963 “The Principle of Useful Cosmos” could be formulated as follows:

“All States can explore and use outer space exclu- sively for the benefit and interests of humanity, avoid- ing national rivalries into this field” [13, p. 643].

However, as often happens in stories of obtaining material wealth, this Thesis almost immediately had an Antithesis.

So, in the UN GA Resolution 1472 (preamble) the UN General Assembly stated that “the exploration and use of outer space should be only for the better- ment of mankind and to the benefit of States” [24]. Accordingly, the UN General Assembly for the first time officially mentioned the aim of “the ben- efit of States” concerning space activities.

Subsequently, the UN General Assembly contin- ued to tip the scales of space activities in favor of States. Thus, in the UN GA Resolution 1721 (item “b” of paragraph 1 of article “A”) was stated that “Outer space and celestial bodies are free for use by all States in conformity with international law” [25]. Additionally, in the UN GA Resolution 1802 (paragraph 1 of the article “I”), the main tasks related to space activities and subject to priority solutions were identified (paragraph 1 of the article “I”), namely: “improvement of basic legal principles governing the activities of States in the exploration and use of outer space” [26].

From the above tasks, it becomes clear that the UN General Assembly continued to promote its idea of allowing States to freely use Outer space.

In the UN GA Resolution 1963, the UN General Assembly announced that in space activities it is necessary “to continue and to extend co-operative arrangements so that all Member States can bene- fit from the peaceful exploration and use of outer space” [29].

That is purposeful lobbying of the interests of States has begun to the detriment of “the betterment of mankind”.

Moreover, the UN GA Resolution 1963 (preamble) only underlines Member States as follows “benefit which all Member States would enjoy by participation in international programmes of co-operation in this field” [29].

Further, in the Declaration of Legal Principles, it was again underlined that “the exploration and use of outer space should be carried on for … the benefit of States regardless of their degree of economic or scientific development” [28] and subsequently this position was enshrined as one of the legal principles, namely: “Outer space and celestial bodies are free for … use by all States on the basis of equality and in accordance with international law” [28].

Thus, as a result of the compilation of the above legal provisions about the Useful Cosmos and taking into account their evolution, as of the end of 1963 the Antithesis for “The Principle of Useful Cosmos” could be formulated as follows:

“All States can explore and use outer space exclu- sively for the benefit of States”.

Whereas, the fact that “actions for the benefit of certain States” very rarely coincide with “actions for the benefit of all mankind” does not require scientific justification.

In turn, the presence of Thesis and Antithesis indicates the emergence of the following essentially opposite legal provisions (legal conflicts):

“not subject to national appropriation … by means of use” and “free for use by all States”,

“for the benefit and in the interests of all man- kind” and “for the benefit of States”.

That is, one can conditionally say that “The Prin- ciple of Useful Cosmos” consists of the Thesis and Antithesis.



Conclusion

Based on the analysis of the above legal acts, examples of the evolution of legal provi- sions are shown as well as examples of the emergence of legal conflicts and cases of formation of both Theses and Antitheses in Outer Space Law.

At the same time, these examples have not im- plied the legal elements of the national legislation of different countries, which in turn could further complicate the analysis.

However, even these examples are enough to un- derstand that for the transparency of Outer Space Law and effective regulation of space activities, the state of legal Theses and Antitheses at a particular point in time is of great importance, taking into ac- count their evolution, the presence of legal conflicts and the results of legal analysis. This shall be taken into consideration when forming the structure of the Outer Space (Cosmic) Law Portal.

Issues of terminology (the framework of categories)

In addition, one of the most important features of the process of regulating space activities is its unique terminology, in most cases not previously used.

It is necessary to understand that the formation of terminology in Outer Space Law basically occurred under diplomatic or political influence and often lacked a scientific legal basis. At the same time, the official languages that are applied to present terms and texts on the regulation of space activities (for example, UN Resolutions) are mainly English, Rus- sian, French, Spanish, Arabic, and Chinese.

In turn, even when translating the same texts and terms into different official languages, significant inconsistencies appeared in the correct definition of the object of translation and its interpretation. Pro- vided the text is translated into other languages that are not official UN languages, such inconsistencies may be even more considerable.

The reason for this is that translations of the texts of legal acts were performed by each space State at its discretion (without coordination with other States), which often led to the use of differ- ent terms to describe the same action or subject. In some cases, this changed the meaning and true understanding of the essence of the text, which was laid down by its creators.

Nevertheless, not a single decision was made at the official level regarding the development of a classification of at least basic terms and their an- alogs in different languages that can be applied for translation and their correct interpretation.

Therefore, the problems of using terms and their interpretation emerged at the beginning of the for- mation of Outer Space Law, namely, directly when describing space beyond the Earth.

For a long time, most peoples described this space with the ancient Greek word “Cosmos” (in Ancient Greek êüóìïò). However, this word literally means “order,” that is the ordered state of an object (this object in the ancient world was often perceived as the entire Universe). Nonetheless, the term has been used for thousands of years to refer to space beyond Earth.

Over time, to denote space outside the Earth the set expressions “Space” or “Outer Space” were established in English, and in French “Espace” or “L'Espace extra-atmosphérique”. At the same time, the ancient Greek term “Cosmos” continued to be used mainly in Slavic languages to identify space beyond the Earth.

Therefore, in international documents, the de- scription of space beyond the Earth was somewhat different.

Thus, in the English versions of the Resolutions of the UN General Assembly, when describing space activities, the space outside the Earth is often de- fined with the words “outer space and celestial bod- ies” [25]. That is, in the English versions of the texts of the Resolutions, “celestial bodies” are not part of “outer space”. However, the formulation of “outer space and celestial bodies” does not include stars (such as the Sun), various particles, and “in- visible” waves (such as electromagnetic waves), -- the author expects lawyers to remember the “parti- cle-wave theory”. In this regard, it remains unclear whether stars belong to “celestial bodies” or not, and also whether the light they emit belongs to “outer space” or not.

Also, since the term “Space law” (or “Outer Space

law”) does not contain the phrase “celestial bodies” (“celestial bodies” is not part of “Outer Space” that is evident from international documents), it remains incomprehensible whether “Outer Space Law” ex- tends to the process of legal regulation of activities on celestial bodies or not (or for correctness it should be called “Law of outer space and celestial bodies”). At the same time, this example shows only those problems that need to be resolved within the English texts of documents.

In turn, with the literal translation of English texts into other languages (and the translation shall be literal since we are talking about scientific terms) the dissonance becomes even more significant.

As for a literal translation of the word “Space” into Slavic languages one will not get a description of “Space” outside the Earth but a description of the ordinary “expanse”.

In this regard, in international legal acts regu- lating space activities, drawn up in Slavic languages (for example, in Russian), an indication that an object belongs to “outer space and celestial bodies” is per- formed through the use of the word “Cosmos”. For example, in Slavic languages, descriptions of space be- yond the Earth are usually carried out with words that can literally be translated into English as “Cosmos” or “Cosmic space”. Moreover, in contrast to the English interpretation of the term “space” (or “outer space”), in Slavic languages, the concept of “cosmos” (or “cos- mic space”) most often includes “celestial bodies”.

Moreover, in Slavic languages, the phrase “celes- tial bodies” is very rarely used since when translated into Slavic languages it literally means “gods bodies” or “magnificent bodies” depending on the context. In turn, in Slavic languages, an expression is some- times used to denote “celestial bodies”, which can literally be translated into English as “sky bodies”. However, since among the Slavic peoples the word “sky” literally means only what they see above, to indicate “celestial bodies” despite a general defi- nition it is often used specific names: “planets”, “asteroids”, “stars”, “particles, and so on.

And there are a huge number of such differences in the definition and application of scientific terms of Outer Space Law.

Only based on the above examples one can notice a fundamental difference in the description of spe- cific objects of space activity and different under- standings of the same words in the languages of the Romano-Germanic group and the Slavic group. The same difference in the perception of words exists in Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, and other languages.

In this regard, we can state the fact that the pro- cess of developing international acts of Outer Space Law in different languages or translating them from one official language to another has not implied a legal scientific basis but is of an artistic and pub- licistic (diplomatic or political) nature. That is, the translations of such documents and their terminolo- gy were not performed literally, accurately, and scientifically. This is mainly because the presentation of the texts of such documents was carried out by a translator who had no experience in philological research in the field of space activities (or who had nothing to do with space activities at all).

This situation has often led to unnecessary dis- cussions, incorrect research, and misunderstanding in the international community, that is, to confusion and ineffectiveness of Outer Space Law.

For example, the English version of the UN Gen- eral Assembly Resolution 1802 (paragraph 3) de- scribes liability for damage caused by the operation of an object called a “space vehicle” [26]. At the same time, a literal translation of the term “space vehicle” into any Slavic language would indicate “means of transportation in expanse” -- that is, a vehicle that is used to transport of what is contained therein (in other words, a general description of a passive object not related to “Cosmos” is provided).

In turn, in the Russian version of this Resolu- tion, only one phrase is used for the same object, which can be literally translated into English as “cosmic ship” -- that is, a controlled military object that its commanding officer uses to get to a specific point “Cosmos” (an active object directly related to “Cosmos”). At the same time, in the Slavic versions of the UN Resolutions, the terms “space vehicle” and “spacecraft” were never used at all.

From here it becomes clear why citizens of the States of the Eastern Coalition in the second half of the 20th century perceived all activities in space of the States of the Western Coalition as military activity (even where there was none.).

In this connection, the author considers it to be very important to develop terminology for this area of law and approve the name of each term in all existing languages of the world.

For example, in his earlier studies, the author proposed using the term “Cosmos” to refer to all space outside the Earth's atmosphere and everything that is in it [11].

Perhaps, to create a reference name for each term, it is necessary to develop a separate cosmic language or use universal languages similar to Latin, Ancient Greek, or Esperanto.

Either way, immediate decisions need to be made on this matter.

Issues of interpretation

Unfortunately, we have to admit the fact that as of today there is practically no official interpre- tation of the terms of Outer Space Law (even such controversial terms as “Outer space law”, “objects launched into space”, “spacecraft”, “peaceful pur- poses” and similar).

In the scientific literature many researchers also often do not provide any interpretation of the terms of Outer Space Law but use them by default.

All in all, existing scientific interpretations of a limited number of terms in some scientific works often have significant differences.

Take for instance the term “Space law” (or “Outer space law”).

Francis Lyall underlines in his book “Space Law” that “At its broadest space law comprises all the law that may govern or apply to outer space and activi- ties in and relating to outer space” [9, p. 2].

At the same time, Francis Lyall compares “Space law” with “family law” or “environmental law” and explains his interpretation by the fact that “Space law” is determined by the object to which it is ap- plied and not by its classical rational development [9, p. 2].

In turn, Fabio Tronchetti in his book “Fundamen- tals of Space Law and Policy” gives a more specific interpretation of “Space law” (which most scientists adhere to): “The term ``space law'' is used concerning the set of international and national rules and reg- ulations governing human activities in and relating to outer space” [21, p. viii].

That is, both researchers provide different inter- pretations of the same term. And if Francis Lyall's interpretation presupposes the existence of private regulation of space activities, then Fabio Tronchet- ti's interpretation has a purely state character.

Under these circumstances, the mentioned in- terpretations do not take into account that Cosmos is an “alien room” for states and for people [15] in which they cannot establish their own rules. There- fore, the legal acts of the United Nations and other international organizations, which form the basis of Public Space Law mainly take the form of “Con- ventionalis stipulatio” [15] and accordingly cannot establish binding rules for everyone.

Moreover, existing interpretations of “Space law” do not imply the possibility of the emergence of multiple legal systems regulating space activities built on different ideologies and principles, includ- ing those created by both people and extraterrestrial intelligent beings.

At the same time, it is worth noting that Francis Lyall suggested that “Space law” can consist not only of official legal acts but also of contracts and similar documents created by private individuals [9, p. 2], with which the author fully agrees. Furthermore, the author believes that private agreements would form a new legal system of “Space Law”, -- the so- called Outer Space Private Law (or Cosmic Private Law).

In turn, Fabio Tronchetti indicated that one of the main goals of “Space law” concerning States is “preventing the emergence of tensions and conflicts among the subjects involved in outer space activi- ties” [21, p. viii], with which the author also agrees. Moreover, the author believes that any agreements between or among States (including international treaties, Resolutions, Declarations, and UN Con- ventions) would form a separate legal system of “Space Law”, -- the so-called Outer Space Public Law (or Cosmic Public Law).

In this regard, the author in his previous studies provided an interpretation of the term “Space Law”, which, in his opinion, should take into account the entire diversity of intelligent beings, legal systems, ideologies, and principles that can exist in “Cosmos”: Outer Space Law is a set of legal systems regu- lating space activities, implying different legal ide- ologies and various subject composition, and also an environment of application that extends to outer space and celestial bodies beyond Earth [15, c. 576]. At the same time, the author substantiated the formation over time of at least three legal systems of Outer Space Law: Outer Space Law of Principles (or Animal rationale jus), Outer Space Private Law (or Cosmic Private Law), Outer Space Public Law (or Cosmic Public Law) [15, p. 576].

In addition, it shall be noted that the problem of interpretation of terms significantly slows down the development of “Outer Space law” and makes it ineffective, and therefore, in other studies, which at the same time are being conducted by the author along with other researchers, scientific interpreta- tions of many terms will be presented as well as legal conditions of space activities, including those related to the delimitation of outer space and the spatial- territorial domain of the State (that is, delimitation of jurisdiction) and many others.

However, it shall be recognized that all these interpretations have a scientific basis but are not official interpretations recognized by States at least at the level of the United Nations.

Pursuant thereto, the author insists on the need for the most rapid official approval of the terminol- ogy and interpretations of all terms of the “Outer Space law”, which would make it possible to clearly understand the provisions of the “Outer Space law” and avoid “Fraus legi fit” as well as effectively use it for cooperation and prevention of conflicts in “Cosmos”.

Analysis of official Internet platforms containing legal acts in the regulation of space activities Taking into account the above research results,

the author considers it necessary to analyze the ex- isting official legal Internet platforms to indicate whether they take into account the features of Out- er Space Law and provide for effective solving the tasks assigned to them.

As an example this analysis is carried out based on the Internet platform “Legislation of Ukraine” (https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws), which contains international and national legal acts of Ukraine (a country not a member of any unions), and the Internet platform “Légifrance” (https://www.legi-

france.gouv.fr/), which contains international and national legal acts of the French Republic (a Euro- pean Union country).

As a result of testing these platforms and gener- ating various queries to search for documents regu- lating space activities, mostly only the national legal acts of these states have been found.

In turn, the number of texts of the UN Resolu- tions (or references to them) that relate to the reg- ulation of space activities is critically low (no more than ten). At the same time, the databases of these platforms contain only those international treaties regarding space in which the States that are admin- istrators of these platforms were directly involved. Therefore, these platforms do not contain any na- tional legal acts of other States on the regulation of space activities.

Thus, we can conclude that these Internet plat- forms do not contain a complete set of legal acts to regulate space activities (at a minimum, all inter- national legal acts of the UN and national acts of other UN member States).

Moreover, these platforms do not provide for any analytical and legal mechanisms to control the evolu- tion of legal theses and antitheses, the formation of terminology, and interpretation in Outer Space Law. At the same time, legal Internet platforms of other States in most cases have the same or even more shortcomings.

Additionally, the main official international plat- form for Outer Space Law https://www.unoosa.org/ oosa/index.html, which administrators are the Unit- ed Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) and the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), has been also examined.

As a result of testing its “Documents and reso- lutions database” section (https://www.unoosa.org/ oosa/documents-and-resolutions/search.jspx?lf_id=) and generating various queries to search for the UN documents regulating space activities, as of Decem- ber 31, 2023, “3854 items” have been found.

However, this database not only contains no com- plete set of all international legal acts regulating space activities but even all the Resolutions of the UN General Assembly that relate to space activities. For example, the UN GA Resolution 1148 (which for the first time underlines the control over the launch of objects into outer space) and the UN GA Resolution 1884 (which sets a prohibition on nuclear testing in space) are missing from this database. In addition, this database does not contain the Treaty No. 6964. These are just examples of shortcomings identified for the period from 1957 until 1963.

At the same time, this platform does not provide any distinct possibility for familiarization with the national legal acts of the UN member States regu- lating space activities. The section of this UNOOSA platform called “National Space Law” (https://www. unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/national- spacelaw/index.html), intended to display national legal acts on the regulation of space activities, does not contain a complete set of such acts. For example, the subsection “Ukraine” includes only 4 legal acts of Ukraine on the regulation of space activities, while as of today there are already more than 35. Moreover, the names of Ukrainian legal acts on the UN platform are translated into English incorrectly, and their texts have long become obsolete and do not correspond to reality.

Thus, it can be concluded that this Internet plat- form also does not contain a complete set of legal acts regulating space activities (at least all interna- tional legal acts of the UN and all national acts of the UN member States), and the legal connection of these acts.

The private organization “The Sirius Chair” has advanced the furthest in solving this problem, cre- ating the legal Internet platform “Space Legal Tech” (https://www.spacelegaltech.com/). However, al- though this platform contains a larger number of legal acts, it has the same shortcomings as the UN platform (incorrect translation into English and out- dated versions of legal acts). It may therefore be concluded that even this private platform does not contain a complete set of legal acts.

Moreover, none of these platforms contain any analytical and legal mechanisms to control the evolu- tion of legal theses and antitheses, the formation of terminology and interpretation in Outer Space Law. Conclusions and prospects for further research.

This study shows the uniqueness of Outer Space

Law and its distinctive features, without which it is impossible to create an effective mechanism for regulating space activities.

First of all, this is the environment of application of Outer Space Law (“Cosmos”), which is not the natural habitat of a human and that nobody owns. Accordingly, Outer Space Law cannot be created by analogy with other types of law, such as maritime or air law. Generally, it cannot be developed based on classical law, which has long turned into an ar- tificially intricate labyrinth.

In this regard, the processes of evolution of the- ses and antitheses, the processes of forming termi- nology and creating an interpretation of terms do not occur naturally and experimentally but through diplomatic proposals and political agreements. In turn, this leads to heterogeneity, inconsistency, in- compatibility, non-conformities, and ambiguity of most provisions of Outer Space Law (both interna- tional and national) and as a consequence the ineffec- tiveness of the process of regulating space activities.

All this reveals the urgent need for the creation of the Unified World Analytical Legal Platform of Outer Space Law (Cosmic Law Portal) and universal cosmic language.

For maximum effectiveness, the format of this platform shall meet the following characteristics:

the basis of the platform shall be a database con- taining a compilation of all international and national legal acts as well as private documents in the field of regulation of space activities and relations in Cosmos;

the platform shall have mechanisms that monitor and control the terminology and interpretation of terms in the universal cosmic language and the languages of different peoples of the world, and the evolution of legal theses and the emergence of antitheses that form the rules or principles of space activities;

the platform shall be open and interactive with the opportunity for specialists and scientists from all over the world to join in the analysis and dis- cussion of any legal acts in the field of Outer Space Law;

the platform shall allow posting the results of legal analysis of the provisions of all its documents, performed by specialists and scientists from all over the world;

in the future, the entire international community shall also have access to this platform with the possibility of voting on specific legal documents in the field of Outer Space Law since space shall become accessible to all humanity.

The development of the Unified World Analytical Legal Platform of Outer Space Law (Cosmic Law Portal) would create a transparent, understandable, and compatible system of legal acts and other doc- uments regulating space activities, enable the elim- ination of legal conflicts, problems of terminology and interpretation of terms (including in different languages), and contradictions between Theses and Antitheses as well as the relevant collisions between international and national legal acts, which would ultimately make Outer Space Law an effective, un- derstandable, and accessible mechanism for all peo- ple on Earth.

...