Dimensions of a new age; Legal dilemmas of the space age

This is a good mansion. From the Radio-TV the University of Texas. We are all of us newly arrived in the age of space and we have come so quickly swirling about us our powerful influence is likely to have upon our lives the most prodigiously impact known to mankind in the last 500 years. Yet we can barely grasp the magnitude of these social forces. We can only guess at their meaning. What does it signify for us to live in a world of such a suddenly extended proportions toward the answer. Radio television. The University of Texas has prepared this recorded radio series produced under a grant from the National Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National Association of educational

broadcasters. We present dimensions and now here is our moderator Roderick Meyer. Today the legal dilemmas of the space age will be examined by two notable leaders in the field of Air and Space Law as Mr. Andrew G Haley and PROFESSOR JOHN COBB Cooper explore the law of outer space. Whenever man has stepped out into uncharted places in advance of his civilization he has all too frequently outrun also the securities and disciplines of his legal code. Some of the difficulties which may attend space penetration without foresight are reflected in these remarks by Mr. Andrew Haley. General counsel and former president of the International Astronautical Federation a member of the legal firm of Haley Wallenberg and Kenna Han of Washington DC. I've often thought all along not that in the salt the field of social sciences had been neglected as far as progress humanity is concerned only too often

great progress technically and it made no reference to the social logic all aspects or or implications of what has happened. Always I think that that law is your approach and sociology should precede man to Arias going preceded man into space for example. If the logical principles had been in force when Columbus made it great expedition to the new world. The people who are with a may not have brought back to the whole world terribly devastating diseases. Diseases which still hot to millions of people and have caused probably a billion deaths and trillions of dollars of damage over the years. So one of the Justin projects a space launch Oshie ology as that we should not land we should not violate another planet without making sure number one. That we won't bring some terrible disease to the inhabitants of some other planet or some terrible devastation all or pick up

something there which will bring back to earth and decimate the for the race of man himself. As of this is a long range proposition I'm talking about and that in our space we have we have no law. Wow what are some of the some of the problems that are now being created with respect to the use of outer space. I'll confine myself to one subject which I'll try to make clear and that is for example the use of radio frequencies use of the use of radio for all for all purposes. And why we must have international agreement and national laws that well take care of this one problem. Start out by pointing out that the United States and USSR equally missed used the radio spectrum don't they. They alleged paroled of the USS Iowa which actually was some sort of. Device going out into the solar orbit and never did orbit the moon.

Disseminate this information back to the earth on the same frequency using using part rather of the same channel that you people use in Dallas Texas for the reception of television they use a part of the spectrum which is assigned to channel 8. I don't know what channel it is even the idol that talent is assigned to this Dallas Fort Worth area. It doesn't particularly interfere with your reception on channel a tiff adead you probably didn't all buy it. But but it must have been a certain point in its trajectory into outer space. So all it's all that's just one example of how that might be multiplied by several times to be governed very serious problem USA. Yes I also on that first use the frequencies 20 mega cycles and 40 mega cycles. I'll try to be very simple of this. Frequency 20 mega cycle is the frequency as to control frequency for all

radio throughout the world as it's aside for one purpose throughout the world as a sort of calibrating frequency now for the mega cycle has a frequency assigned to safety of life and property in the air and in this and the third region of the world the world is divided into three regions for radio. This is in Southeastern Asia. Well how is it possible it would exist there that in a message of vital importance to or from an aircraft or the event broadcast it would have been disseminated on this frequency and interfered with by this Sputnik So that was a bad thing. Another point is that that. We're sending these vehicles into outer space without any radio control. Then the Navy having long been condemned for not getting the Vanguard project completed as hurriedly as it might not kept up with the greatest achievement of all. What a satellite up there

that will last for 200 years if people are ready for 200 years. Wow. Fortunately a solar battery in the battery will not continue on indefinitely but if it had it could well of interference with radio frequencies on the earth for 200 years. Because you couldn't talk because I don't mean to try to get off. Every. There should be international agreement a lot of space but every frequency it is you should be should be subject to a command from the nation that originated on Earth. In other words it turn on or off. They should be able to turn it off of it come the missions to isolate some of the basic problems in the law of outer space and to clarify the views of those who are working toward a solution. We made a visit to Princeton New Jersey there in his own study. We sought the opinions of PROFESSOR JOHN COBB Cooper professor emeritus of international law McGill University and one of the world's most eminent authorities on ere long. It seems Professor Cooper that law in general is based largely upon precedent which has been established in years past.

Now we are going into an age which is almost devoid of legal precedent. Just what are we going to base this law in outer space upon. Well the basic problem is this that we are now for the first time dealing with man created movement in an area which was never yours before namely which for want of a better name we call outer space. It was not until the phrase Sputnik like when I compared to a few months ago as ages ago that man propelled an instrumentality into outer space. Law is fundamental to the rule or series of rules governing human conduct. We had no rules governing the conduct of flight in outer space and with very limited exceptions we still have

no role. Our problem is to determine rock those rules should be so ill that the well may be assured that I was space will be really used for peaceful purposes. What international agreements have been made regarding the control of flight. I think this is important before we can talk about going beyond into outer space. The basic principle is national law that needs to be considered has been stated many times it is to this this effect that every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty in the airspace above its lands and waters. Every state in the international community and says upon that right. In other words what that means is this. Let the air space and I use that term because that is what appears in the treaty is that the airspace of

the lands and waters of the United States. It is just as much a part of the territory of the United States as are its lands and waters. And in that space the United States and United States alone may unilaterally and conclusively determine what flight shall take place. In other words each state may without any question control all flight in its airspace. That is the basic agreement and that is practically all the agreement that there is at the bite bottom of each of the men in negotiations between nations as to what airline shall be established and what airplane shall fly. They go back to that primary question that each state may without question controlled flight in its airspace as part of its territory. Now if the Outer space is not part of the territory of that state then you have

no agreement. What do you think will be the relationship of these agreements to the agreements to satellite flight and space flight in general that are to come along in the future. We're agreed aren't we that there there are going to have to be some agreements to come. Well first of all may I remind you that in order for a satellite to be launched it must move through the airspace to get to our space. If it does not burn up and far old it will furl through the airspace if it lands on the sovereign territory by mistake and therefore you cannot ignore the rule as to control of space. In analyzing the legal problems of satellites like assuming now that the satellite has been lost and isn't obvious then the question arises when it passes over a sovereign state has it violated the sovereignty of that state. In my judgment it has not. It is moving within what for want of a better term we refer to as outer

space because I believe and I think most lawyers now agree that outer space is or should be free for the use of all just as all the high seas of peaceful use of all exactly the United Nations is dealing with this problem and is getting ready to deal with the problem rather than on the basis of the peaceful uses of outer space. And I think that that that term in itself is going to be hard to define is it not peaceful use. It is one of the hardest times to define that any international lawyer can approach but it must be defined in this case. We have satellites at the present time circling the Earth. We consider with or without reservation that they are peaceful satellites and they were up there for peaceful purposes and yet they were launched by the military. You have put your finger on exactly one of the great difficulties. I did insist that we have a right to use military means to launch a peaceful satellite without

creating trouble. Namely I think that the actual use of the satellite will be the criteria. It is really quite scientific and other peaceful purposes. The fact it was used in that that that was used in its launching the military rockets does not change the peaceful character of the satellite itself and therefore it has a right to be used as it is as it was are now being used which are in space. And as long as the satellite once it is up does not violate any international agreements that might have been made concerning the military and so on it's used it is peaceful or at least should be considered. I fully concur. Now I'm afraid we get to the the crux of this problem. We've been talking about airspace and we've been talking about outer space and each time you have referred to it you have said for want of a better term. And it seems that our next problem our next problem the next problem really of

of international lawyers everywhere and of countries all over the earth the next problem is to define what is air space what is outer space. Where does one start and where does the other begin. What are some of the solutions to this problem. You have stated a question which I have had some occasion to consider for a number of yes many solutions have been brought violent. I tended to do as suggested one myself several years ago. Recent analysis has indicated however that many problems yet unsolved which must be solved in determining the real boundary between space and outer space. It has been suggested for example that the air space does not go upward beyond

flameout normal types of airplanes may fly. The difficulty with that is that every time you got a better designed airplane to move the national boundary upward which is rather difficult it has also been suggested that. The boundary between the aspiration outer space should be the point at which the gaseous atmosphere becomes so rare that it no longer contributes to aerodynamic lift. That is to say well it's of no help toward any type of light that would be that it. That is approximately 45 50 miles up and aerodynamic work you're referring to. Airplanes as we know them. In common usage or balloons are what I'm referring to. Light instrumentalities. Which require

all which are used to some extent aerodynamic lift although they may also move by Rocket Power. One of the best suggestions has been made in the last two years is a suggestion that the rural boundary ought to be at the place where the gaseous atmosphere becomes so fear that it no longer Aphex flight. To give you a practical example this would mean that so long as there's sufficient gaseous atmosphere to prevent a satellite being put in orbit around Earth that would be as space as soon as you get up high enough to put a satellite in orbit around the earth. And you know that the satellite moves the arc around the Earth without power having once been launched it continues to fly without power. At that point that should be considered as true outer space. First solution has very rarely do

as well as practical suggestions. It would constitute both a lead to any physical boundary below that boundary. The satellite would start to burn or be destroyed by a heavier atmospheric area above that boundary the satellite could be put in orbit at least once around the earth. It has been suggested that perhaps that area is 75 miles high. That's only my own judgement. We know however that satellites have already been put in orbit. Has only a few miles above 100 miles as we know at least one satellite with part of its orbit was approximately one hundred twelve miles above the surface of the earth. Personally I cannot conceive of national control of space in those areas where there can be free satellite flight.

And I think that the real point which we had better late may decide by treaty or otherwise is that the area below that is national airspace and above is free our space which however will always be subject to the right of the state below to self protection in that our area which I mentioned to you before. So Professor Cooper you would say probably and I say probably because you admitted when you started this discussion that you have tempered your views somewhat and changed your view somewhat. But this that you have just stated now you feel is probably the best solution at the present time. I'm inclined to think that it is the most practical solution that might be used for the basis of possible international agreement. That has the real practical advantages. It can be delineated was more accuracy in my judgment than any other of this. There is boundaries. I personally am completely

opposed to the theory that the rights of the state extend upward as high as it may control space. I think that is most destructive of any thinking in the international community. I think we have to point out here for our listeners that this is not in any way of speaking in any manner of speaking and academic discussion. This is a very real problem and determining this in the future of travel in outer space. This has just got to be solved some time. It is just as important as the international discussions going on today are as to the boundary between territorial waters and the high seas inside the territorial borders of the adjacent state has a right of control in the high seas and has not within the territorial airspace the state below has a complete right of control in outer space they should not have such right and we might point out that we can take a yardstick as it were and measure out from the shoreline and decide what are territorial

waters but we can't very well measure up in that manner. The determination of the territorial water boundary is simplicity itself compared to the determination of the upper boundary of space. And they're still having problems with territorial waters. I can't help but draw a parallel here with. The settling of our own country we're reminded constantly by the TV western of of the lawlessness which took place as people moved further west and and as they moved on they were faced with new problems and they were not prepared for them before they got there and as a result they were without law in many instances. And isn't there a terrific danger of our just going up without law if we don't give this serious consideration. You are entirely correct and for that reason that some of my very able friends feel that the first step should be taught something of national agreement by the concurrence of individual flats. Even before we can

work out and it definite boundary between aspiration our space there must be some kind of very early international agreement as to how when and why fight should be determined to be peaceful. This has been presented has it not Professor Gruber as a solution to the problem. But you would consider it really a preliminary solution or a first step solution as it were. I would say so very vigorously for the reason that I cannot escape from the basic difficulty that within the L-Space the state will has complete power to control whereas an outer space it has not until we. Reach a final decision as to where the boundary is. We must then take it piecemeal and try to keep chaos from occurring by controlling individual flights. We come back to the original premise that it just has to be a peaceful solution and it can only be done by international agreement. Can we move on now to a discussion of some specific problems that may come out of space

travel. We've been talking about the quite general regulation here in your Study in Princeton New Jersey. It seems to me one of the first things that comes to mind is if we shoot a rocket into space and it lands on the moon and it's got our flag in it or it's got Russia's flag in it does the moon therefore become the property of our country or their country. You have stated problem which necessarily has concerned everyone that has dealt with any of these questions. I think that my own views are consistent with those of most jurors who have had occasion to speak on this subject. There's quite a different thing between the discovery of territory and the right to claim it as sovereign territory as part of the state that made the discovery.

There must be real occupancy. There must be real control. And I do not think that the mere landing of a rocket on the moon even though it automatically seeks to plant a flag on insignia means the title to the moon on the part of the moon where they are by far. There is always the danger that some claim may be made which may create a national friction and uproar. I am one of the ones that feels that one of the primary problems put in national decision airs that the moon is must be and shall continue to be international in character and scope not to be used for the advantage of any single nation it is a satellite of the entire Earth and therefore it is a satellite of every sovereign state on that. So far as claiming title to a planet that is settle for our distant in time and prospects that does not concern me. The stars the moon however does

concern me. Now I want to state a few other immediate problems that I have my colleagues in the American Bar Association. I've suggested and there are very real problems. They have suggested that government should give early attention to the EU's urgent problems of space 12 namely the allocation of radio frequencies to be used by satellites. Mr. Haley earlier in this program has commented about the the problem of television channel in Fort Worth Texas where there was there was a minor admittedly minor but there was interference from a satellite. With the frequency allocated to a television channel here Mr. Secretary is entirely correct but there are real problems. Secondly there should be some agreement as to the identification and rate and registration of space. That cost and some coordination as launching retrieve and return of landed space vehicles you know that every airplane is registered.

Every airplane has a nationality like a ship. Should satellites have nationality. Every country is responsible for the international Good Conduct of it ships and aircraft should every country be likewise responsible for the U.S. National good conduct of its rockets from satellite that is a very urgent question. Death grows from that in much more difficult question. Should a state be liable in actual damages for loss occurred. If a satellite or rocket fails that is another problem. These are among the immediate problems which require consideration but so far as I'm concerned they are preliminary problems to the eventual decision of what is the legal status of outer space namely that for years I hope there is. And where does it begin. Professor Cooper I know that we have not even scratched the surface of the subject of international law in the space age and we can't in this period of time but I hope

maybe we have accomplished one purpose and that is to make people aware of some of the problems that we are facing in this age of space in terms of international law and the need for international agreement. Thank you very much. This doc. It helps not to that. And Paul while I feel that this is a problem for every individual to consider particularly a young man to consider they are going to live in the space age. Thank you Professor John Cobb Cooper. We are privileged to have the views of such a distinguished jurist and world authority on air law. And we appreciate the opportunity to visit with you in your Study in Princeton New Jersey. We are grateful also to Mr. Andrew G Halley general counsel and former president of the International Astronautical Federation for his contribution to our increased understanding of the law of outer space. This is program three of a series concerned with the advances and characteristics of the age of space

with truly evaluating the dimensions of a new age. We hope you will join us again next week at the same time when Senator Lyndon B Johnson of Texas and Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr vice president of Union Theological Seminary won't comment upon the significant and Luhan says which the Space Age implies for government and the extended universe. These programs were produced and directed by Roderick de Reich Meyer who serves as moderator coordinator and writer Mary de Benjamin.

The series was under the supervision of Robert F. shank and Jim Morris the. Dimensions of the new AIDS was produced and recorded by radio television. The University of Texas under a grant from the National Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National Association of educational broadcasters. This is the end of Radio Network.