Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW

Air and Space Law

Seminar Paper
REGULATION OF SMALL SATELLITES: LEGAL
ISSUES INVOLVED

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY :

DR. SHAKUNTALA ‘SANGAM’ NISCHAY NEHRA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (LAW) B.A.LL.B. (B) X SEM.

Dr. RMLNLU ENROLL. NO. 150101088

1|Page
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Expressing gratitude is a pleasant but difficult job when one sincerely tries to put them in
words. To list them all is not practicable, even to repay them in words is beyond the domain
of my lexicon.

I am highly indebted to Dr. Shakuntala ‘Sangam’, our Professor and Guide of the subject for
firstly, allowing me to take this topic just on the ground that I have interest in the topic,
secondly, for providing me outstanding assistance at every step of my preparation of this
project. I am extremely thankful to her for her constructive criticism and helpful suggestions.
Her constant encouragement helped me to work harder.

Further, I would like to give my sincere gratitude to the Madhu Limaye Library, Librarian sir
Mr. Manish Bajpayee and his team for helping me in finding material on the topic. Without
their support this project could not have been completed because finding detailed material on
this topic is not easy task.

I would also in cryptic gratitude toward my parents who ensure my capabilities and raise my
confidence, also maintain mental and physical balance

2|Page
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................2

II. USES OF SMALL SATELLITES..............................................................................................5

III. LICENSING OF SMALL SATELLITE OPERATIONS..............................................................5

IV. RADIOFREQUENCIES AND ORBITS MUST BE LICENSED BY THEIR NATIONAL

GOVERNMENTS AND REGULATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION ....7

V. SMALL SATELLITES MUST BE REGISTERED IN THEIR NATIONAL REGISTRY AND THE

U.N. REGISTRY.........................................................................................................................11

VI. LIABILITY ISSUES OF SMALL SATELLITES....................................................................12

VII. SPACE DEBRIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES..............................................................15

VIII. PUBLIC SAFETY EFFECTS OF SMALL SATELLITES........................................................19

IX. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................21

X. BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................23

3|Page
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

I. INTRODUCTION

Recent plans to place a large number of small satellites in orbit present a host of new legal
issues. Previous discussion of law and regulation of outer space has assumed use of large
complex satellites like the military satellites launched by the United States, Russia, and
China, and the communication satellites launched by INTELSAT, SES, INMARSAT, and
EUTELSAT. These satellites can be the size of multi-storeyed buildings and may cost $400
million to build and $100–200 million to launch. But many tasks in space that formerly
required complex, expensive satellites can now be performed by very small satellites.1 These
miniaturized satellites are sometimes called “cubesats” because they are only ten centimetres
tall, wide, and deep.2 Whereas the large satellites are built to perform multiple tasks and last a
long time, the small satellites are less complex and last a much shorter time. 3 Since small
satellites are so much less expensive than existing large satellites, they may be treated as
being disposable. They can also be mass-produced, whereas existing large satellites are
planned and built individually, one at a time. Small satellites tend to be used in low Earth
orbit (LEO) where they have an inherent advantage of clock speed over the large satellites in
geostationary Earth orbits (GEO).4 In the current high-technology world, that is a significant
advantage.

We are at a stage of tension between older, proven technology of large, expensive, complex,
and durable satellites and their likely replacement by inexpensive, expendable, short-term
satellites. There is an expectation that this new technology will need new operating
principles. The current plans for deployment of small satellites will drastically change the
outer space environment. As of 2016, there are about 1,400 functioning satellites in orbit, in
addition to non-functioning satellites, and almost incalculable amounts of space debris. 5 To
this already crowded environment, one expert estimates the launch of an additional 3,800
small satellites by 2020. On November 17, 2016, Elon Musk, President of SpaceX, requested
permission from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to launch 4,425 small

1
Small Satellites - Regulatory Challenges And Changes (Irmgard Marboe ed., 2016).
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
Marco Villa, Builders of Satellites Large and Small Must Work Together to Benefit Science, SPACE NEWS
MAG., https://www.spacenewsmag. com/commentary/builders-of-satellites-large-and-small%E2%80%A8-
must-worktogether-to-benefit-science.
5
Goktug Karacalioglu, Impact of New Satellite Launch Trends on Orbital Debris, SPACE SAFETY MAG.,
http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/spacedebris/impact-new-satellite-launch-trends-orbital-debris.

4|Page
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

satellites in LEO using the Ka/Ku-band radiofrequency spectrum. And yet others have
indicated interest in launching small satellites. Thus, within a few years, satellite navigation
and tracking will become more complex. New launches will have to be planned more
carefully, particularly in LEO, in order to avoid interference. Space situational awareness will
become even more important than before this new development. The cumulative
consequences of launching thousands of these tiny satellites will be great.

The fact is that the commercial space industry is growing significantly. There are dozens of
new private launch companies either already operating or on the drawing board. Chief among
them is SpaceX, which is able to launch significantly more cheaply than other launch
operators. SpaceX is a multiple-use launcher serving a mix of large and small satellites.
SpaceX’s large Falcon 9 launch rocket is able to launch ninety small satellites in one launch. 6
The September 1, 2016, destruction of a Falcon 9 rocket during launch at Cape Canaveral
will delay some of the planned launches in the short term. 7 However, SpaceX is expected to
recover its pace of launches. Other launch operators such as Arianespace, Blue Origin, and
Vector Space Systems are eager to jump into the small satellite launch business.8

A California company, Planet, is an example of the start-ups engaged in building small

satellites.9 The small satellites of Planet each carry a telescope that is able to observe the
Earth. Planet currently operates sixty-three small remote sensing satellites in LEO. Each
satellite lasts nine to eighteen months. The satellites are inexpensive and their frequent
replacement is part of the business plan. Even existing large space companies are beginning
to take notice of low-cost small satellite technology.

Expert estimations of the number of small satellites to be launched in the next decade vary.
Euroconsult estimates the launch of 3,600 small satellites. A small satellite company called
One Web is being established jointly by INTELSAT, Virgin Galactic, and Airbus. One Web
plans to launch 648 small satellites in LEO. These satellites will provide continuous and
simultaneous communication service to and from anywhere on Earth. Thus, the developing
countries would have the same communication access as do the developed countries. In 2016,

6
Mike Wall & Calla Cofield, SpaceX Returns to Flight with 10-Satellite Launch, Rocket Landing,
SPACE.COM, http://www.space.com/35338-spacexreturn-to-flight-rocket-launch-landing-success.html.
7
Peter B. de Selding, The White Knight is Talking Backwards, SPACE NEWS MAG.,
http://www.spacenewsmag.com/the-bottom-line/the-whiteknight-is-talking-backwards.
8
Technology Quarterly: A Sudden Light, ECONOMIST, http://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly.
9
Id.

5|Page
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

Space Safety Magazine surveyed the commercial space business and ascertained that the
following remote sensing and weather companies planned to launch small satellites during
the next four years: Blacksky, CICERO, EROS, and Landmapper. Additionally, the following
communication satellite companies planned small satellite launches: Leosat, Northstar, O3b,
OmniEarth, One Web, OuterNet, Planet, Radarsat, Terra Bella, SpaceX, and Spire. Of these
companies, Planet plans to launch 450 small satellites; Spire will launch 300 satellites; One
Web will launch 750 satellites; and SpaceX will launch 600 satellites. Space Safety Magazine
estimates the currently planned launches to be as follows: 493 launches in 2016; 388 launches
2017; 743 launches in 2018; 1,189 launches in 2019; and 993 launches in 2020. Because
small satellites last only nine to eighteen months, it is assumed that this high volume of
launches will continue at the same rate beyond 2020. Other experts estimate even higher
numbers of small satellites in outer space. 10 As mentioned above, SpaceX now plans to
launch and operate a network of 4,425 small communication satellites.

Space debris caused by launch rockets and non-functional satellites remaining in outer space
must also be considered. One expert estimates that “from 2036 collisions [will] start to occur
regularly,” and there will be numerous close encounters, which satellite operators will seek to
avoid. At that point in time, the operators may become overwhelmed by traffic
“conjunctions.” It will be difficult to maneuver all the satellite traffic adequately.

All these small satellite activities bring into issue the Outer Space Treaty articles I, II, VI,
VII, and IX;11 the Liability Convention;12 the Registration Convention;13 the Search and
Rescue Convention;14 U.N. resolutions on remote sensing and space debris; the ITU legal
regime;15 as well as implementing national laws and regulations and their administration.16

10
2016 International Astronautical Congress (IAC) Panel Discussion, Projection and Stability of the Orbital
Debris Environment in the Light of Planned Mega-Constellation Deployments [hereinafter IAC Panel].
11
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including
the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Jan. 27, 1967, 610 U.N.T.S. 205 [hereinafter Outer Space Treaty].
12
Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Mar. 29, 1972, 961 U.N.T.S. 187
[hereinafter Liability Convention].
13
Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, Jan. 14, 1975, 1023 U.N.T.S. 15
[hereinafter Registration Convention].
14
Agreement on Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer
Space, Apr. 22, 1968, 672 U.N.T.S. 119 [hereinafter Search and Rescue Convention].
15
Collection of the Basic Texts of the International Telecommunication Union Adopted by the Plenipotentiary
Conference 3–54 (2015 ed.) [hereinafter ITU Constitution].
16
Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Dec. 5, 1979, 1363
U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter Moon Treaty].

6|Page
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

II. USES OF SMALL SATELLITES

Earth observation and communication are currently the two most important commercial
satellite activities. There will be extensive use of small satellites for these tasks. Thousands of
small satellites all around the globe will be present and available for communication to and
from all parts of the world. Small satellites are excellent for Earth observation of disasters,
and can report on changing weather conditions. They will be essential for administration of
the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Small satellites also serve the military through
various offensive and defensive tasks, including observation of military installations and
collection of intelligence information. They can be used for scientific research and
exploration both on Earth and in outer space.

The major focus of this discussion will be on small satellite activities in LEO because that is
where small remote sensing and communication satellites will be predominantly located. A
few small satellites are planned for exploration of the Moon and asteroids and for possible
mining and military uses.

III. LICENSING OF SMALL SATELLITE OPERATIONS

The launch of Sputnik in 1957 was a government military operation, and the first
deployments of satellites in outer space were government operations. While military satellite
activities in outer space continue, the predominant nature of small satellite deployment is now
by private commercial operators.17 About $1 billion is currently being invested in small
satellites. Thus, investments in outer space are moving from government spending for large
projects to small private activities. 18 The nature of private commercial operations differs
significantly from government operations because private operators are driven by the profit
motive, whereas government operations are motivated by public service and for military
requirements.

Private entrepreneurs are dependent on their governments. Private operators can only operate
in outer space by the authority of their governments, which are holders of the legal rights to
use outer space as parties to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. 19 Thus, private operators derive
their operating authority to use outer space from their individual governments, subject to their
17
Technology Quarterly, supra note 9.
18
Id.
19
Outer Space Treaty, supra note 12, arts. III, VIII.

7|Page
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

continuous oversight. Pursuant to Outer Space Treaty article VI, private small satellite
operators must apply to their governments for licenses to launch into, and operate in, outer
space.

Most of the current small satellite applicants are located in the United States, and thus, the
U.S. government will be the recipient of most applications. Applicants’ first licensing
initiative is usually to apply to the FCC for permission to use radiofrequencies and orbital
slots under the Communications Act.20 U.S. legislation has been enacted giving the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) authority to license launches and reentry of satellites.21
Consequently, U.S. private small satellite operators need FAA launch operating licenses for
each small satellite in accordance with FAA regulations. The FAA has adopted licensing
criteria pursuant to the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Act. 22 These criteria include FAA
examination of whether the launch accords with U.S. national interests, public health and
safety, and the applicant’s ability to launch from a particular launch site. The FAA also
reviews the application for reentry from outer space. 23 The applicant must show
understanding of the safety rules and have a safety plan for each launch, including plans for
accident investigation and emergencies.24 The applicant must convince the FAA of the safety
of the payload and its eventual safe reentry and the applicant’s ability to meet possible
environmental effects of the launch, including compliance with the space debris rules
described below.25 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manages
U.S. remote sensing satellites, as well as authorizes small satellite commercial remote sensing
satellites. The oversight over outer space operations has not yet been delegated by
implementing legislation. Thus, the Outer Space Treaty’s article VI treaty obligation remains
the responsibility of the U.S. Department of State (USDOS).

Other countries require licenses for private launches, either pursuant to the direct authority of
the Outer Space Treaty or by authority of national laws adopted in conformity with the Outer
Space Treaty. Some small satellite operators may consider launch in so-called flag of
convenience states, a practice that is common in maritime shipping. Flag of convenience

20
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.A. §§ 301.
21
Commercial Space Launch Act, 51 U.S.C.A. § 50904; see infra Section III, Licensing of Small Satellite
Operations.
22
51 U.S.C.A. § 50904.
23
Id.
24
Id.
25
Id.

8|Page
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

states may not be well equipped for government oversight of launches and oversight over
their operations. Thus, they may not be able to police compliance with the Outer Space
Treaty’s article VI treaty obligations effectively and may present a danger to the outer space
operations of other states.

IV. RADIOFREQUENCIES AND ORBITS MUST BE LICENSED BY THEIR

NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS AND REGULATED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) manages the radio spectrum. Operating
satellites, including small satellites, in outer space requires ITU clearance of radiofrequencies
and related orbits.26 Under the ITU legal regime, each individual small satellite operating in
outer space will have to obtain cleared radiofrequencies in order to be placed in orbit, to
communicate with its earth stations, and to be given instructions to de-orbit at the end of its
useful life. For those purposes, the satellites need to be navigable (in the past, amateur and
experimental small satellites have often not been navigable, and thus not able to circumvent
other traffic).

The operator will also need an exclusive orbital slot which is free of all obstructions. The
operator’s satellite would be useless without a cleared radiofrequency and an exclusive orbit.
Outer space is subject to neither national nor private appropriation by virtue of Outer Space
Treaty’s article II.27 Thus, the operator cannot obtain property rights in radiofrequencies and
orbital slots. All that ITU can provide is an ITU-recognized exclusive use. The ITU legal
regime enables small satellite operators to obtain the necessary frequencies and orbits in
accordance with and subject to its regulations. The ITU Constitution’s article 4(3) establishes
international standards to ensure unhindered global communication. 28 Applying those
standards, ITU records a cleared radiofrequency in its public frequency register. It will
monitor and protect it from radio interference by non-recognized operators. ITU may even
allocate radiofrequency bands to secondary operators, but only on the condition that they will
not interfere with the use of the primary operators. Small satellite services have, until
recently, utilized the more lenient and permissive legal regime set aside by the ITU for
amateur satellite services. However, small satellites have now graduated to assigned services
26
ITU Constitution, supra note 16, art. 44, para. 2.
27
Outer Space Treaty, supra note 12, art. II.
28
ITU Constitution, supra note 32, art. 4, para. 3.

9|Page
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

in the regular service regime. Small satellites are now processed in the same way as large
satellites, in accordance with article 5 of the ITU’s radio regulations.

ITU is an international treaty organization. Individual operators cannot obtain cleared

radiofrequencies or orbital slots directly from ITU. Only their national states and agents of
the governments can request radiofrequencies and orbital slots because only they are parties.
Individual operators must apply for ITU-recognized operating rights through their national
states. Furthermore, the ITU Constitution’s article 6 obligates the states to comply and
enforce the ITU legal regime on all international services that may cause harmful interference
with ITU allocated rights in outer space.29

Considering the multitude of small satellites that are planned for orbit and the continuous
stream of replacement satellites, the administration and oversight of cleared individual
radiofrequencies and orbital slots will be a very time-consuming task for the operators, their
governments, and for the ITU administration. Therefore, the 2012 ITU World Radio
Conference assigned a special ITU working group the task of reviewing the radio regulations,
and ascertaining whether small satellites should be treated differently from large satellites. In
2015, the working group recommended that small satellites should “comply with the
applicable international and national laws, regulations and procedures, indispensable to
guarantee the long-term sustainability of small satellite projects, the avoidance of harmful
interference and proper management of space debris.”30

Launch of small satellites without the ITU’s clearance is not a recommended option because
operators will not have assured interference-free access and control over their satellites.
Harmful interference complaints would quickly be filed with the ITU, which in turn would
obligate individual governments to enforce their treaty obligations to enforce the ITU regime
because the ITU Constitution’s article 45 requires states to respect existing ITU
registrations.31 Furthermore, small satellite operators would likely have difficulty obtaining
financing for such unreliable operations. It would not be good business.

Since private small satellite operators cannot directly initiate applications for use of radio
frequencies and related orbital slots, they must first request that their national governments

29
ITU Constitution, supra note 16, art. 6, paras. 1–2.
30
Prague Declaration on Small Satellite Regulation and Communication Systems as reprinted in Small
Satellites, Regulatory Challenges And Changes, at 263, supra note 1.
31
ITU Constitution, supra note 32, art. 45.

10 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

ask the ITU for allocation of specific frequencies and orbital slots. For example, in the United
States, the FCC would be the designated agency. Under the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
301 and 307, the FCC determines whether an application to provide commercial satellite
service within the United States is in the public interest. Section 301 states: “No person shall
use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by
radio” to, from, or within the United States, except in accordance with the Communications
Act and “with a license granted in that behalf [by the FCC] under the provisions of this
[Act].” The FCC will require the applicant to provide all relevant information for the FCC to
decide whether grant of the application is in the public interest. In determining public interest,
the FCC considers: availability of spectrum, effect on competition, technical characteristics,
possible interferences, eligibility requirements, as well as impacts to national security, law
enforcement, foreign policy and trade. The FCC will make major decisions only after an
invitation for public comments and a public hearing.

The regulatory authority of the FCC may be illustrated by the following case. 32 Two small
satellite companies, Planet and Spire Global, contracted with SpaceX to launch ninety small
satellites into a single elliptical orbit presently used by another company, Orbcomm. The
ninety satellites were supposed to be launched at once, in a kind of swarm of satellites,
immediately to be navigated into a specific order. Orbcomm expected to receive a
conjunction of potential collision warnings from the U.S. Air Force satellite trackers
immediately after the ninety satellites were launched. Consequently, Orbcomm petitioned the
FCC to halt the launch until it could be assured that the launch would not interfere with
Orbcomm’s assigned orbit.

Small satellite operators planning to launch communication satellites will not only need FCC
license to obtain radiofrequencies for satellite navigations purposes, but they will also need to
obtain FCC permission to use and to beam radiofrequencies into the United States.
Subsequent to an FCC decision to coordinate with the ITU, the applicant may provide
specific details to the ITU as part of the frequency registration. ITU allocation is based on a
first-come-first-served principle; thus, as soon as the applicant makes its formal request, it is
placed in line for available frequencies and slots. The request starts an examination with the
ITU of whether the requested frequencies and slots will result in harmful interference with

32
Peter B. de Selding, Spaceflight’s 90-Satellite Mission, a Boon for Smallsats, is a Nightmare for Orbcomm ,
SPACE NEWS MAG., https://www.space newsmag.com/feature/spaceflights-90-satellite-mission-a-boon-for-
smallsats-%E2 %80%A8is-a-nightmare-for-orbcomm.

11 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

existing uses. Thus, when the request is made public by the ITU, any existing users
examining the request must file protests if they suspect harmful interference. The contesting
national parties will then, with the assistance of the ITU, seek to resolve possible conflicts.
Existing users of radiofrequencies and orbital slots need to be forever vigilant because their
rights are subject to interferences. Thus, they may employ private companies, such as
HawkEye360, that specialize in finding radio frequency interferences. 33 Toward that purpose,
HawkEye360 will itself launch small satellites to locate any radiofrequency interferences.
Other communication companies are also beginning to launch special satellites to detect
interference.34

In the absence of protests, the ITU will assume that there is no harmful interference. Only at
that point can the allocation be recorded in the ITU Master International Frequency Register.
This register of all the assigned radio frequencies with related orbital slots is perhaps the most
important ITU institution. It is an open registry, and small satellite operators would be wise to
examine the register before making any plans to launch satellites. The actual allocation will
be made by the national administration. Thus, the private operator will also be subject to the
regulations and decision-making of the national administration. Getting cleared frequencies
and orbital slots may take years, not only because of the multitude of bureaucracies, but also
because clearances involve many other countries that may have a claim to particular
frequencies and slots.

V. SMALL SATELLITES MUST BE REGISTERED IN THEIR NATIONAL

REGISTRY AND THE U.N. REGISTRY

The United Nations Registration Convention requires the purpose and orbital location of all
satellites to be individually registered, for reason of safety, so other operators can avoid
colliding with new satellites in orbit, new operators can safely plan to launch their space
objects, and when accidents happen, to determine liability by identifying the involved space
objects. Some of the proposed small satellite systems are located in fairly close proximity to
each other. In order to avoid conflicts, operators need public information about the orbital
slots and frequencies used by other operators. Pursuant to Outer Space Treaty’s article VI, the

33
Debra Werner, More Than Meets the Eye, SPACE NEWS MAG.,
https://www.spacenewsmag.com/feature/more-than-meets-the-eye.
34
Id.

12 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

state of registry is likely to be the appropriate state in which to license each satellite and to
conduct continuing oversight over all its activities in outer space.35

The Registration Convention’s articles I, II, and III require small satellites to be registered
because they are space objects. 36 Failure to register or to delay registration of small satellites
tends to defeat the purpose of the treaty. Unregistered satellites are a problem. Currently,
seven percent of space objects are not registered. Universities and amateur small launch
operators have in the past often neglected to register because they thought that they were too
small and insignificant to be considered space objects. They remain subject to international
law regardless of failure to register because registration of small satellites can be considered
to be customary international law.37

Registration determines which state may exercise jurisdiction and control over a satellite. It
also determines issues relating to ownership of a satellite. From a safety point of view, a large
infusion of new satellites into outer space makes registration even more urgent. Small space
objects are more difficult to track than large space objects. Satellites are continuously tracked
by U.S. and Russian military authorities, and by the European Space Agency (ESA), as well
as by a handful of other states. However, tracking is expensive. Most states do not have the
resources to track satellites. Existing tracking systems, being free and government-operated,
cannot be held liable for negligent tracking.

As the Registration Convention is a treaty, the obligations to register satellites rests

immediately on governments and their agents. Under the Registration Convention, the
launching state is required to register its space objects in an appropriate national registry of
space, as well as in the United Nations Registry. 38 The definition of “launching state” is
broad. It is defined as the state, which launches, procures the launch, or “from whose territory
or facility a space object is launched.” 39 Thus, several states may fit the definition of
“launching state” under the Registration Convention, and the various eligible states must
“jointly determine which one of them shall register” the space object because only one state
may register.40 The national registry is not required to be publicly available; nevertheless, the

35
Outer Space Treaty, supra note 12, art. VI.
36
Registration Convention, supra note 14, arts. I–III.
37
Cologne Commentary on Space Law 152 (Hobe et al. eds., 2009).
38
Registration Convention, art. I, supra note 14, art. II, para. 1.
39
Id. art. I(a).
40
Id. art. II, para. 2

13 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

U.N. Secretary General is required by the treaty to maintain a public registry of all the space
objects registered in the national registries.41 The launching state is to update the U.N.
registry as space objects change orbits or are deorbited.

Virtually all states are parties to Outer Space Treaty’s article VIII, which mandates that it is
the state in which a satellite is registered that has jurisdiction and control over each individual
satellite.42 Thus, owners of a satellite may prefer its national state to become the registrant in
order to protect ownership. Nevertheless, some satellite operators opt for registration by the
most lenient state, the so-called state of convenience. Selection of state of registry also
becomes an issue when an individual satellite, or a fleet of satellites, are sold to a party
located in another state. As described below in the liability section, the state of the purchaser
may be reluctant to accept transfer of registry because that will result in potential liability. A
precedent was set when the Netherlands agreed to register a satellite but declined liability.
The Netherlands agreed to register the Triton-1 satellite but declined to become a launching
state because it did not want to become liable under the Liability Convention. One author
opines that the Netherlands might become liable under the Liability Convention anyway. A
similar problem may arise for a holder of a security interest seeking to foreclose on the
security interest for non-payment.

VI. LIABILITY ISSUES OF SMALL SATELLITES

Small satellites are governed both by the liability provisions of Outer Space Treaty’s article
VII and by the Liability Convention, as well as by customary international liability laws.43
They are also subject to national laws on liability. The Outer Space Treaty is adopted by all
the states involved in outer space activities, and it tends to express customary international
law. Thus, it also applies to non-party states. Outer Space Treaty’s article VII provides that
two different kinds of states, the state from whose territory a satellite is launched or from
whose facility a space object is launched, may be held liable for damage caused to another
state by both its governmental and non-governmental satellites.44

There is no limit on liability. Most planned small satellites are non-governmental satellites.
The consequence of the principle of state liability established by the Outer Space Treaty is
41
Id. art. IV.
42
Outer Space Treaty, supra note 12, art. VIII.
43
Myres S. McDougal, Artificial Satellites: A Modest Proposal, 51 AM. J. INT’L L. 75–77 (1957).
44
Outer Space Treaty, supra note 12, art. VII.

14 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

that responsible states, which may be held liable for the operations of commercially operated
small satellites, are cautious or should be cautious about licensing small satellite operators to
do business. On the other hand, flag of convenience states, having few assets and little or no
governmental oversight capacity, may take the opportunity to authorize non-government
operations over which they have little control or oversight. Considering the multitude of
small satellite launches, the liability exposure of states grows commensurably.

In addition to being party to Outer Space Treaty’s article VII, many states are also parties to
the Liability Convention, which broadens the liability exposure of small satellite states.
Under the Liability Convention, four different kinds of states are defined as the launching
state, and may thus be held severally or jointly liable for damages caused by small space
objects. Those are the states that launch or procure launches of space object and states from
whose territory or facility space objects are launched.45 State liability under the Liability
Convention is also unlimited. Liability for surface damage is strict. Liability is based on proof
of fault for damages caused by space objects in outer space.

Outer Space Treaty’s article VI authorizing process46 is used by governments to protect

themselves against potential governmental liability. Thus, in order to obtain a launch license,
nongovernmental operators can be and are required to purchase insurance coverage
reimbursing the licensing government for damages caused. However, many implementing
national laws permit satellite operators to limit the amount of insurance depending on
exposure, and on available private insurance. Thus, governments retain considerable
exposure to catastrophic liability losses in excess of national liability limits of private
operators. Persons killed, injured, or damaged by a foreign space object can only recover
under either treaty through action brought on their behalf by a government, usually their own
government. No punitive damages are allowed under these two treaties.

The only example of a recovery relating to the Liability Convention is Canada’s recovery
from the then-Soviet Union in the Cosmos 954 claim, in which a defunct Soviet nuclear
satellite caused damage in northern Canada. No lawsuit was brought by Canada. When
presented with the Canadian claims for damages, the then-Soviet Union declined liability but
agreed to pay a negotiated compensation settlement in the amount of three million Canadian
dollars, which can be construed as recognition of liability. The small compensation recovered

45
Liability Convention, supra note 13, arts. I–III.
46
Outer Space Treaty, supra note 12, art. VI.

15 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

in the Cosmos 954 claim, and the wish of individual claimants to control their own lawsuits,
may cause an individual claimant to prefer to bring private claims in national courts against
small satellite owners for loss and damages incurred because that is permitted by the Outer
Space Treaty and the Liability Convention. Thus, foreign claimants may bring claims for
damages in American courts having jurisdiction over small satellite companies under state
laws. Liability may be unlimited depending on the law of particular U.S. states.

Besides the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention, claims may also be brought
under customary international law pursuant to case law, such as the Trail Smelter Arbitration
and the Corfu Channel case, both of which concluded that one state may recover damages
from another state for damages caused.47 Domestic claimants cannot invoke treaty liability
rights against small satellite operators of their own nationality for injury and damage caused.
They can only bring claims against domestic operators under domestic liability laws.
National liability laws on small satellite injury and damage caused in outer space would tend
to be based on fault.

Experts point to a greatly increased risk of collisions likely to be caused by the large influx of
small satellites. Administratively, the U.S. government is used to processing a few
applications at a time, and one can only speculate about the government reaction to the
request of one operator to authorize the launch of 3,800 small satellites. Governments will
seek to shift the increased liability exposure over to private insurance companies. The pool of
insurance for outer space activities is rather small and may not be sufficient to accommodate
the additional risk. The price of insurance will increase commensurate with the increased
risk. The national laws tend to limit private liability exposure, leaving excess exposure to the
governments. Thus, the ability of governments to shift the risk exposure over to private
insurance companies is limited. Considerable risk exposure will still rest on the government,
thus leaving governments with the option to restrict the number of licenses to launch small
satellites.

Yet another consequence of the increased risk of collisions in outer space will be the
reluctance of governments to agree to register satellites when requested to register titles to
satellites being sold to companies in another country. That may result in reluctance to accept
registrations. Regarding possible liability for personal injury and harm to the surface of the
Earth, national liability laws tend to follow the example of the Liability Convention and
47
The Corfu Channel Case, Judgment, 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 1 (Apr. 9).

16 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

impose absolute liability for small satellite harm to persons and property on the surface of the
Earth. This accords with the common law rule established in the 1868 case of Rylands v.
Fletcher.48 That would also conform with the liability regime of the Rome Convention on
aircraft liability for surface damage.49

VII. SPACE DEBRIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Small satellite operators currently plan to triple the number of operating satellites in Earth’s
orbit. While each of the additional satellites would be small, they would nevertheless each
constitute an additional variable to be taken into account in maintaining order in outer space.
Orbital slots and radio frequencies are now recognized to be scarce resources.50

Non-governmental entities, such as small satellite operators, are subject to international

environmental laws.51 They are subject to generally applicable international environmental
laws whether established by treaty or by customary international law. It is also possible that
small satellite operators may be subject to the Precautionary Principle, which requires them to
exercise caution before acting in order to fully understand their environmental duties so that
they do not trigger unexpected environmental dangers. The Principle is primarily used by
decision makers in assessing and managing risk.1 The looming Kessler Syndrome relates to
the Precautionary Principle and the overarching worry in launching many small satellites into
outer space. In 1978, Donald Kessler, then a NASA scientist, predicted a self-sustaining
cascade of space debris collisions in LEO. The Kessler Syndrome states that space debris will
continue to create more debris as debris cumulatively collide, thus fragmenting into endlessly
smaller and more pieces. Increasing space debris will eventually preclude access to outer
space and all space business will stop

Under Outer Space Treaty’s Article VI, the parties to the treaty “bear international
responsibility” not only for their governmental activities in outer space but also for the
activities of their nationals, thus “assuring that national activities are carried out in
conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty.” 52 That also places
responsibility on the states to ensure that their non-governmental operators conform to Outer
48
Rylands v. Fletcher, L.R.3 H.L. 330 (1868).
49
Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface, Oct. 7, 1952, 310
U.N.T.S. 181.
50
ITU Constitution, supra note 16, art. 44, para. 2.
51
Outer Space Treaty, supra note 12, art. III.
52
Id. art. VI.

17 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

Space Treaty requirements, for example, by acting in outer space with “due regard [for] the
corresponding interests” of other states and their non-governmental representatives in using
outer space orbital slots.53 Such slots must be free from interference by the satellites of other
states, and thus not exposed to contaminations from and harmful interferences with present
and planned future activities in outer space. The International Court of Justice conclusively
validated the due regard principle in the case of United Kingdom v Iceland holding that
United Kingdom fishermen had failed to pay due regard to the legal rights of Iceland to
declare and reserve an exclusive fisheries zone around Iceland for its fishermen, to the
exclusion of United Kingdom fishermen.54 The principle of due regard was adopted in the
Law of the Sea Convention.55

In a larger sense, it may be argued that a large influx of new small satellites from one state
will reduce the opportunities of satellite operators of other states to use outer space. In a
narrower sense, the many small satellites arguably will prevent the plans of other countries, in
particular the economically less developed countries, to use specific orbits and frequencies. 56
The Outer Space Treaty’s article IX concern with causing “harmful interference with
activities of other States Parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space” 57 leads to
discussion of space debris and the adverse consequences of the frequent space debris caused
by the short nine to eighteen month durability of small satellites. For example, renewal of the
estimated fleet of 3,800 small satellites may necessitate replacement of 1,000 small satellites
each year. Usually launched in LEO, most of their debris will deorbit in rather short time.
That means that a lot of space debris will enter the atmosphere. Not all of it may burn during
its descent through the atmosphere; some may rain down on the surface of the Earth. Either
way it will cause pollution.

Launch and operation of small satellites will be subject to the U.N. Committee on the
Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) space debris guidelines approved by the 2007
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62/217.58 These guidelines have become
mandatory rules by adoption as national regulations by the individual national states. Thus,

53
Id. art. IX.
54
United Kingdom v Iceland, 1974 I.C.J. 3 (July 25).
55
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 87, para. 2, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 396.
56
Outer Space Treaty, supra note 12, art. I; ITU Constitution, supra note 16, art. 44, para. 2.
57
Outer Space Treaty, supra note 12, art. IX.
58
G.A. Res. 62/217, ¶ 26, U.N. Doc. A/RES/62/217 (Feb. 1, 2008).

18 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

the launch licenses for small satellites issued by a national state sets the following rules 59 for
government authorizations to launch:

(a) The operator must build each individual satellite so as to produce as few fragments as
possible and to drop launch debris close to the launch station.60
(b) The operator must minimize the potential for break-ups during the operational phases.
This requires special design as well as ability to avoid obstacles in outer space.
Application of this rule depends on whether the small satellite is operational so as to
be steered around other satellites and space debris.61
(c) The operator must limit the probability of accidental collisions in space. This requires
navigability. Small satellites that cannot be navigated around other space objects in
outer space may thus not be authorized.62
(d) The operator must avoid intentional destruction in outer space. Whenever destruction
is necessary, it should be conducted at low altitude where space debris can deorbit
quickly. This rule requires that there be sufficient fuel on board to move the satellite,
as well as to control navigation.63
(e) The operator must convincingly prove to the licensing authorities that all energy
sources on board the satellite in orbit can be depleted or vented before post-mission
break-up. This will avoid explosions and fragments of debris.64
(f) The operator must either remove defunct satellites from orbit after mission
completion or bring them into proximity to Earth (LEO) for de-orbit. The Interagency
Space Debris Coordination committee (IADC) recommended that such debris be
removed from LEO within twenty-five years.65 The United States follows this rule.
(g) In executing de-orbit, satellite operators should be aware that de-orbiting space debris
may cause damage and may adversely affect the Earth’s environment. Because small
satellites are designed to last only nine to eighteen months, and because they orbit in
LEO, the chance of small satellite fragments reaching the surface of the Earth is
significant. The frequency of de-orbits increases chances of environmental pollution,

59
Inter-Agency Space Debris Committee, Iadc Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, IADC-02-01 (Sept. 2007)
(rev. 1).
60
Id. at 8
61
Id. at 8–9.
62
Id. at 10.
63
Id. at 9.
64
Id. at 8.
65
Id. at 9–10.

19 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

injury, and property damage. Small satellite operators should ensure that space debris
does “not pose an undue risk to people or property” on Earth.66
(h) Satellites located in high GEO orbits, which cannot easily be de-orbited post-mission,
should be placed in graveyard orbits where they cannot cause interference. Thus,
satellite operators need to leave sufficient fuel onboard to move satellites out of GEO
into yet higher orbit. At this point in time, few small satellites are planned to be high
orbits, so this may not be a significant problem for small satellites.67

One of the space law treaties, The Agreement on Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of
Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, specifically addresses the
earthly environmental problems of de-orbited space debris. Article 5 of the treaty provides
that a state, which finds within its borders space debris “of a hazardous or deleterious nature
may so notify the launching authority, which shall immediately take effective steps, under the
direction and control of the said Contracting Party, to eliminate possible danger of harm.” 68
The launching state is responsible for the cost associated with the removal. The treaty’s
definition of the liable “launching state” is narrow. It refers only to the state or international
organization responsible for the launching.69

The estimate that “from 2036 collisions [will] start to occur regularly” and that there will then
be a rapidly increasing number of collisions and near-collisions with space debris is
troublesome. Space debris remains a major problem for small satellites because of their
multitude and rapid replacements. This estimate accords with past production of space debris
and is in line with the Kessler Syndrome. Such debris development would cause governments
to hesitate to grant launch authorizations to a large number of applicants. The applicants will
have to convince the authorizing governments that they will strictly follow the COPUOS
space debris guideline to limit the orbital life spent in LEO to twenty-five years.70
Nevertheless, one expert suggests that it will be necessary to reevaluate the adequacy of the
twenty-five year de-orbit rule based on actual experience and further modeling. From the
point of view of governmental regulatory agencies, considering the huge number of small
satellites being planned, the environmental issues may well be the most serious issue. ESA’s
66
Id. at 10.
67
Id. at 9.
68
Search and Rescue Agreement, supra note 15, art. 5, para. 4.
69
Id. art. 6.
70
Jeff Foust, Smallsat Operators Have Yet to Allay Concerns about Space Junk, SPACE NEWS,
http://spacenews.com/smallsat-operators-have-yetto-allay-concerns-about-space-junk.

20 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

chief space debris expert said that it would be “totally insane” to allow an increase in the
present level of space debris by adding large numbers of small satellites to outer space.

VIII. PUBLIC SAFETY EFFECTS OF SMALL SATELLITES

Outer space lacks basic space traffic management. The extreme speed with which space
objects move in outer space makes navigation extremely hazardous. Constant tracking of all
space objects at all times is important for several reasons. 71 Tracking and operators’ self-
interest in avoiding accidents are the major ways of managing traffic in outer space. The U.S.
Air Force tracks all active satellites, as well as large space debris. 72 The Air Force currently
tracks 21,000 space objects, including space debris. A new Space Fence tracking system is
being built and is planned to be operational in 2018.73 It will provide the Air Force with ten
times better accuracy, precision, and timeliness.

The Air Force is willing to share non-military information with civilian operators. Small
satellite operators depend on the Air Force for information about possible dangers, and for
space situational awareness. Thus, the public safety relationship with the Air Force is
important. However, military security is the main focus of the Air Force; a tracking service
for the civilian sector is secondary and incidental. Currently, the Science and Policy Institute
is studying various ways to transfer the function of warning civilian satellites of possible
interferences and collisions based on tracking by the Air Force to the FAA. 74 Small satellites
orbit mainly in LEO. The International Space Station (ISS) is located in LEO. Virgin Galactic
and Blue Origin are now planning tourist flights into LEO. This is the space through which
all satellites must ascend and de-orbit after flight in outer space. Space debris is also
concentrated in LEO. So, LEO constitutes a crowded dangerous mix of traffic where public
safety is a significant issue.

The novelty and large number of small satellites to be launched in outer space raises
additional public safety concerns. Some small satellites are presently not navigable and
cannot be steered around other space objects, including space debris. The danger of collision
is particularly acute when encountering nonnavigable space debris. The 2009 collision in
71
Mike Gruss, Good (Space) Fences Make for Good (Orbital) Neighbors, SPACE NEWS,
http://spacenews.com/good-space-fences-make-for-goodorbital-neighbors.
72
Id.
73
Id.
74
Jeff Foust, FAA Pins Price on Taking on Space-Traffic Job, SPACE NEWS MAG., https://
www.spacenewsmag.com/feature/faa-pins-price-on-taking-on-space-traffic-job.

21 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

LEO of an Iridium satellite and a defunct Russian Cosmos satellite, which could not navigate,
shocked the world into sharper awareness that outer space needs better space traffic
management. Awareness of the need for public safety in outer space motivated the 2009 U.S
policy that the United States would begin to “cooperate with interagency, international, and
commercial partners to define and promote safe and responsible space operations.”75

Public safety is an objective of international space law. Outer Space Treaty article VI makes
states responsible for non-governmental satellite operations in outer space. 76 The national
states use the authorizing process to compel small satellite operators to construct and operate
satellites safely. Public safety is not only “in the interest of all countries,” 77 it is also part of
paying “due regard”78 to the corresponding interests of all the states to be safe in the
dangerous outer space environment. Outer Space Treaty’s article III incorporates the U.N.
Charter’s national security provisions and makes public safety provisions of other
international law applicable for the operation of all satellites.79

Public safety is at the heart of the Search and Rescue Convention, the objectives of which are
rescue and return of lost space objects and limitation of the impact on the Earth’s surface of
“hazardous and deleterious” debris from space objects.80 Public safety is also the objective of
the Registration Convention, the purpose of which is to alert all satellite operators to the
location of satellites so as to prevent collisions. 81 Early launches of experimental small
satellites were not registered because the Netherlands and Belgium did not consider
themselves as launching states. Non-registration of small satellites has adverse effect on
public safety, particularly as the volume of small satellites increases greatly as planned.
Failure to register frustrates identification of launching states whose satellites have caused
injury and damage.82

ITU has a significant stake in outer space public safety. Satellites, including small satellites,
cannot function in outer space without cleared radiofrequencies and orbital slots. It is the
purpose of the ITU legal regime to establish interference-free radiofrequencies that can be

75
U.S. Dep’t of Def., Directive 3100.10, Space Policy 2 (Oct. 18, 2012).
76
Outer Space Treaty, supra note 12, art. VI.
77
Id. art. I.
78
Id. art. IX.
79
Id. art. III.
80
Search and Rescue Convention, supra note 15, arts. I–V.
81
Registration Convention, supra note 14.
82
Registration Convention, supra note 14, art. VI.

22 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

used to navigate space objects and to assign orbits so that satellites will be able to operate
safely and avoid collisions. Safety of space objects is under discussion in the United Nations
Committee for Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. 83 It is also discussed in the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) due to its concern with the transit of space objects through air
space.84

IX. CONCLUSION

The energy and enthusiasm for burgeoning small satellite technology easily leads to demand
for immediate conversion to and unrestricted use of this technology, regardless of existing
international and national laws and regulations. However, an attitude of disregard for the
Outer Space Treaty, and other international and national space laws, could adversely affect
the conversion to small satellite technology. 85 Small satellites will have to accommodate to
the confines of the outer space environment. For example, the multitude of small satellites
involves real danger of increasing the space debris problem, which is regulated by both the
international space debris guidelines and the national space debris rules with which small
satellites are presently struggling. It would not be in the interest of small satellite technology
to disregard this danger, which the Kessler Syndrome predicts could foreclose all satellites
from using outer space.

Furthermore, there is a recognized scarcity of radiofrequencies and orbital slots, particularly

in the congested areas such as LEO and GEO. 86 The ITU legal regime exists to keep order
and will ration these scarce resources. The international regime in turn is administered by
member states according to individual national rules such as the FCC regulations. The
international and national rules cannot be disregarded. Thus, some patience on the part of the
small satellite industry is advisable. On the other hand, there is room for the legal regime to
adjust and be responsive to the booming small satellite activity. One of the earliest
accommodations may well be to expedite the multitude of applications for small satellites.
For example, NOAA, which issues licenses for remote sensing satellites, is known to be short
83
Press Release, Comm. on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, U.N. Outer Space Comm. Closes with a Focus on
the Future, U.N. Press Release UNIS/OS/ 470, http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/press
rels/2016/unisos470.html.
84
Convention on International Civil Aviation, art. 3, para. (d), art. 10, Dec. 7, 1944, 15 U.N.T.S. 295.
85
Jason Andrews, Time for Smallsats to Grow Up and Take Responsibility, SPACE NEWS MAG.,
https://www.spacenewsmag.com/commentary/timefor-smallsats-to-grow-up-and-take-responsibility/.
86
Ram Jakhu, Legal Issues of Satellite Telecommunications, the Geostationary Orbit, and Space Debris, 5
ASTROPOLITICS 173, 175 (2007).

23 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

of staff to handle the many applications from small satellite operators. NOAA needs
resources to process applications and to coordinate individual applications with the DOD and
USDOS. The FAA also needs resources to process and coordinate a multitude of applications
for launches.

National applications to the FCC for radio frequencies to navigate each individual small
satellite, to locate orbital slot locations, and to process and license small satellites to
broadcast to and from the United States takes considerable staff time, particularly because
that may require further international coordination with the ITU. Thus, both the FCC and the
ITU need more resources to handle the additional work. Staffing and expedition of service is
a budget issue, which can be resolved by additional funding of Congressional appropriations.
The Outer Space Treaty’s article VI requires governmental oversight over satellite activities
in outer space.87 The FAA can authorize launches and reentry but lacks legal authority to
regulate activities of nongovernmental entities in outer space itself. The 2015 U.S. Space
Launch Competitiveness Act requires study of U.S. legislation with the object of giving the
U.S. government such regulatory authority in accordance with the standards of the Outer
Space Treaty.88 Speedy adoption of new oversight legislation is recommended to implement
treaty obligations and to accommodate and prevent conflicts involving space objects.

New international space treaties are particularly time-consuming to negotiate, and recently
states have resorted to use of socalled “soft law” to regulate new problems. Thus, COPUOS
adopted the space debris guidelines, which are particularly important to small satellites and
which have been adopted by states as binding regulations. Clearly, COPUOS is going to have
to adopt new international small satellite soft law guidelines on traffic management in LEO.
Other international coordination will be required to accommodate small satellites.89

The multitude of international and national outer space priorities need to be accommodated.
Human activities in outer space must be safe. The ISS is in LEO. Astronauts in the ISS and in
the process of going to and from the ISS must be protected from collision with debris, as well
as with other space objects. The national security activities in outer space continue to take
precedence over commercial activities. Military outer space users are increasing. Scientific
activities are also increasing. Global warming restrictions established pursuant to the Paris

87
Outer Space Treaty, supra note 12.
88
U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, Pub. L. No. 114- 90, § 108 (2015).
89
IAC Panel, supra note 10.

24 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

Agreement90 must be administered and policed, and remote sensing satellite resources must
be dedicated to disaster relief under the U.N. Disaster Charter.

Given that the technological change from a few large satellites to a multitude of small
satellites is coming, the biggest issue will be how to fit the new technology into the space
environment; control of space debris and safety of satellite traffic are absolutely essential for
the success of this change in technology. The need for space situational awareness,
transparency, and traffic management in LEO are growing. The small satellite industry
maintains that it will comply with the COPUOS space debris guidelines, including the
twenty-five year de-orbit rule. Such compliance may not be sufficient. The space debris
guidelines may need to be further strengthened in order for the small satellite revolution to
succeed.

X. BIBLIOGRAPHY

i) Books
a. Small Satellites - Regulatory Challenges And Changes (Irmgard Marboe ed.,
2016).
b. Cologne Commentary on Space Law 152 (Hobe et al. eds., 2009).
c. Ram Jakhu, Legal Issues of Satellite Telecommunications, the Geostationary
Orbit, and Space Debris, 5 ASTROPOLITICS 173, 175 (2007).

ii) Treaties/ Conventions

a. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and
Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Jan. 27,
1967, 610 U.N.T.S. 205
b. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects,
Mar. 29, 1972, 961 U.N.T.S. 187
c. Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, Jan. 14,
1975, 1023 U.N.T.S. 15
d. Agreement on Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return
of Objects Launched into Outer Space, Apr. 22, 1968, 672 U.N.T.S. 119

90
Paris Agreement, art. 2, para. 1, Dec. 15, 2015.

25 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

e. Basic Texts of the International Telecommunication Union Adopted by the

Plenipotentiary Conference
f. Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the
Surface, Oct. 7, 1952, 310 U.N.T.S. 181.
g. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 87, para. 2, Dec. 10,
1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 396.

h. Convention on International Civil Aviation, art. 3, para. (d), art. 10, Dec. 7,
1944, 15 U.N.T.S. 295.

i. Paris Agreement, art. 2, para. 1, Dec. 15, 2015.

iii) Statues

a. Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.A. §§ 301.

b. Commercial Space Launch Act, 51 U.S.C.A. § 50904;

c. U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, Pub. L. No. 114- 90, §
108 (2015).

iv) Case Laws

a. The Corfu Channel Case, Judgment, 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 1 (Apr. 9).
b. Rylands v. Fletcher, L.R.3 H.L. 330 (1868).
c. United Kingdom v Iceland, 1974 I.C.J. 3 (July 25).

v) Article
a. Myres S. McDougal, Artificial Satellites: A Modest Proposal, 51 AM. J.
INT’L L. 75–77 (1957).

vi) Online Articles

a. Marco Villa, Builders of Satellites Large and Small Must Work Together to
Benefit Science, SPACE NEWS MAG., https://www.spacenewsmag.
com/commentary/builders-of-satellites-large-and-small%E2%80%A8-must-
worktogether-to-benefit-science.

26 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

b. Goktug Karacalioglu, Impact of New Satellite Launch Trends on Orbital

Debris, SPACE SAFETY MAG.,
http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/spacedebris/impact-new-satellite-
launch-trends-orbital-debris.
c. Mike Wall & Calla Cofield, SpaceX Returns to Flight with 10-Satellite
Launch, Rocket Landing, SPACE.COM, http://www.space.com/35338-
spacexreturn-to-flight-rocket-launch-landing-success.html.
d. Technology Quarterly: A Sudden Light, ECONOMIST,
http://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly.
e. Peter B. de Selding, Spaceflight’s 90-Satellite Mission, a Boon for Smallsats,
is a Nightmare for Orbcomm, SPACE NEWS MAG., https://www.space
newsmag.com/feature/spaceflights-90-satellite-mission-a-boon-for-smallsats-
%E2 %80%A8is-a-nightmare-for-orbcomm.
f. Debra Werner, More Than Meets the Eye, SPACE NEWS MAG.,
https://www.spacenewsmag.com/feature/more-than-meets-the-eye.
g. Jeff Foust, Smallsat Operators Have Yet to Allay Concerns about Space Junk,
SPACE NEWS, http://spacenews.com/smallsat-operators-have-yetto-allay-
concerns-about-space-junk.
h. Mike Gruss, Good (Space) Fences Make for Good (Orbital) Neighbors,
SPACE NEWS, http://spacenews.com/good-space-fences-make-for-
goodorbital-neighbors.
i. Jeff Foust, FAA Pins Price on Taking on Space-Traffic Job, SPACE NEWS
MAG., https:// www.spacenewsmag.com/feature/faa-pins-price-on-taking-on-
space-traffic-job.
j. Jason Andrews, Time for Smallsats to Grow Up and Take Responsibility,
SPACE NEWS MAG., https://www.spacenewsmag.com/commentary/timefor-
smallsats-to-grow-up-and-take-responsibility/.

vii) Miscellaneous/ Other Governmental Sources

a. 2016 International Astronautical Congress (IAC) Panel Discussion, Projection
and Stability of the Orbital Debris Environment in the Light of Planned Mega-
Constellation Deployments

27 | P a g e
 Regulation of Small Satellites: Legal Issues Involved

b. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 87, para. 2, Dec. 10,
1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 396.
c. Inter-Agency Space Debris Committee, Iadc Space Debris Mitigation
Guidelines, IADC-02-01 (Sept. 2007) (rev. 1).
d. U.S. Dep’t of Def., Directive 3100.10, Space Policy 2 (Oct. 18, 2012).
e. Press Release, Comm. on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, U.N. Outer Space
Comm. Closes with a Focus on the Future, U.N. Press Release UNIS/OS/ 470,
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/press rels/2016/unisos470.html.

28 | P a g e