Legal
Research on Space Law
Bilateral/Multi-National
Agreements Governing Activities in Space
Principles Regarding
Processes and Criteria for Selection, Assignment, Training and Certification of
International Space Station Crewmembers
(November 2001).
The Declaration on International Cooperation in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All
States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries (UN
General Assembly resolution 51/122 of December 13, 1996). Available at:
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/spbentxt.htm;
The
Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial
Bodies (July 11. 1984). Available at:
US
Laws & Regulations
National Space Agency
Commercial Space Competitiveness [15 USC Chapter
84]. Available at:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/ch84.html;
Space Transportation Infrastructure Matching Grants [49 USC Chapter
703]. Available at:
http://resource.lawlinks.com/Content/Legal_Research/US_code/Title_49/title_49_703.htm;
Patent Inventions in Outer Space: 35 USC Chapter 10, Sect. 105.
Available at:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/105.html;
Commercial
Space Transportation Licensing Regulations [14 CFR Parts 401, 411, 413, 415, and
417] (June 21, 1999). Available at:
http://ast.faa.gov/licensing/regulations/stat_reg.htm;
Insurance Conditions [Advisory Circular, Part 440, AC 440-1]
(November 3, 1998). Available at:
http://ast.faa.gov/files/pdf/ac98nov3.pdf;
National Space Policy Review (June 28, 2002). Available at:
http://www.ostp.gov/html/02_7_15_2.html;
National Space Transportation Policy (August 1994). Available at:
http://www.jaxa.jp/jda/library/space-law/chapter_4/4-1-1-2/index_e.html.
Law
Review Articles (Not Covered in Other Research):
Recent Developments in
Aviation and Space Law, 38 Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L.J. 205, 216 (Winter
2003);
Dan
L. Burk, Protection of Trade Secrets in Outer Space Activity: A Study in Federal
Preemption, 23 Seton Hall L. Rev. 560, 614-15 (1993);
Brandon E. Ehrhart,
A
Technological Dream Turned Legal Nightmare: Potential Liability of the United
States Under the Federal Tort Claims Act for Operating the Global Positioning
System, 33 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 371 (Mar. 2000).
Case
Law (Not Covered in Other Research):
Communications
Satellite Corp. v. Franchise Tax
Bd.,
156 Cal. App. 3d 726 (Cal. App. , 1984). Plaintiff Communications
Satellite Corporation (Comsat) is an out-of-state corporation doing business in
California. Comsat owns an interest in a number of satellites and receives
income from their use. It also derives income from transmitting
telecommunications signals to the satellites, and receiving signals from them,
at an "earth station" located in California and similar facilities elsewhere.
Defendant Franchise Tax Board assessed certain corporate income taxes against
Comsat pursuant to a special formula, under Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §
25137, which resulted in an apportionment of its total income, to California, on
the bases of factors which included the value of the satellites and income
received by Comsat from their use.
The
Court held against Comsat finding that the pertinent language of the code
defining the numerator of the property fraction refers to property "owned" and
"used" in this state, not to property "located" here. While the satellites are
not located in California, but the Jamesburg earth station is. Because it is,
Comsat is conducting "business activity" and generating income in California.
The court held that “there is an invisible, but apparently continuous and
very real, connection between the earth station and the satellites. The earth
station has a value only because this connection exists, and it is otherwise of
no value. Without the connection, the satellites function in outer space to no
purpose involving this state. With it, they function in
California.”
Bonneville
Intern. Corp. v. Peters, 347 F.3d 485 (3rd Cir) (Oct 17, 2003).
In
this copyright case, the Third Circuit discounted appellants argument that a
“terrestrial broadcast station” means a business entity that is
earthbound and not space-borne (satellite broadcaster). The court stated
“to our knowledge, there are not, presently, any broadcasting companies
incorporated in outer space--nor can there be. An interpretation of "terrestrial
broadcast station" that distinguishes between earthbound and orbiting
broadcasting entities is unpersuasive”.