¹ See Crane, Bobert D. , “Soviet Attitude Toward International Space Law,” 56 A.J.I.L. 685-723 (1962); and “Law and Strategy in Space,” Orbis, Summer, 1962 Google Scholar.

² See Crane, Eobert D. , “ Space Arms Control at the Crossroads,” World Politics,Fall, 1963 Google Scholar.

³ Voyennaya Strategiya [Military Strategy] (ed., Marshal of the U.S.S.E. Valerian Sokolovsky. Moscow: Voyennoye Izdatel'stvo Ministerstva Oborony SSSE, 1962. pp. 460). This book was published in English by Prentice-Hall with a 78-page introduction and extensive annotations by Herbert S. Dinerstein, Leon Goure, and Thomas W. Wolfe of the BAND Corporation; also by Frederick L. Praeger, publisher, with an introduction by Eaymond L. Garthoff. A comprehensive analysis of the Sokolovsky book, Military Strategy, will be published in September, 1963, in the form of a panel discussion by the leading American specialists on recent developments in Soviet strategy under the title Nuclear War and Soviet Strategy, edited by Eobert D. Crane and W. Onacewicz for the Center forStrategic Studies, with an introduction by Adm. Arleigh Burke, TJ.S.N. (Eet.) (Duell, Sloan & Pearce, New York, ca. 400 pages, 1963). See also Abshire, David M. and Crane, Eobert D. , “ The Soviet Strategy Debate and Ground Warfare,” Army, July, 1963 Google Scholar.

⁴ Ibid. 3.

⁵ Ibid. 21.

⁶ Ibid. 360-361. See the review by General P. Kurochkin, “ Voyeimaya Strategiya,” Krasnaya Zvezda, Sept. 22, 1962.

⁷ The opposition to space reconnaissance was not included in the original verbatim record but was added to the final record by the insertion of the principle of “non-aggression,” which prior to June, 1962, was used in the space context only in opposition to space reconnaissance. For comment on this change, see Eobert D. Crane, “ U . S.Space Legal Policy—Some Basic Principles,” Cong. Bee, Aug. 9, 1962, p. 15009, published under the title “Basic Principles in U. S. Space Policy,” Federal Bar Journal, Summer, 1962.

⁸ The extent of the failure engineered by the Soviet Union was underlined when the majority of the members of the U. N. Space Committee attempted to include in the final report of the Committee a statement from the report of the Legal Subcommittee that there at least had been a useful exchange of opinion. Even this statement, despite its modest nature, was excluded from the final report upon the insistence of the Soviet Union.

⁹ See Crane, Eobert D. , “Soviet Attitude Toward International Space Law,” 56 A.J.I.L. 700-704 (1962)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Ibid. 694-695.

¹¹ Kosmos i mezhdunarodnoye pravo [The Cosmos and International Law] (ed. Yevgeny Aleksandrovich Korovin. Moscow: Institut Mezhdunarodnykh Otnosheny, 1962. pp. 182. Kopecks 60). This symposium, which was announced by TASS on March 31, 1962, but was not available publicly until May, contains, in addition to the major work by Zadorozhny, articles of high quality by the Chairman and Executive Secretary of the Academy's Space Law Commission, respectively, Yevgeny A. Korovin and Gennady Petrovieh Zhukov (alias G. A. Petrov), by the Academy's principal specialist on international space organizations, V. 8. Vereshchetin, and by one of the senior space legal specialists of the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Galina Alekseyevna Osnitskaya (alias A. Galina). This book was reviewed in N. A. Ushakov, “Kosmos i Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo, Sbornik Statey,” Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo I Pravo, December, 1962 (No. 12), pp. 146-148.

¹² Na puti k kosmicheskomu pravu [The Way to Space Law]. By Peliks Nikolayevich Kovalev and Ivan Ivanovich Cheprov (Moscow: Institut Mezhdunarodnykh Otnosheny, 1962. pp. 179. Kopecks 60). Both authors of this book are members of the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs and have represented the U.S.S.B. at United Nations meetings during the past year. This book presents an encyclopedic, though outdated and occasionally badly distorted, analysis of Western views on space law and provides a framework for the innovations of Zadorozhny's work. Both of these Sovietspace law books were translated by the Aerospace Information Division of the Library of Congress.

¹³ Loo. eit. note 11 above, 38. The requirement that foreign military bases be liquidated was not given on p. 38 but was added to an identical statement on p. 64. Zadorozhny failed to note, incidentally, that the resolution to which he refers, which was adopted in August, 1960, by the Committee on Air Law of the I.L.A. with the support of the Communist delegates, stated merely that the paragraph “ outer space and celestial bodies should be utilized only for peaceful purposes” was one of the two most important principles which could serve as the basis for the conclusion of an international agreement.

¹⁴ Op. cit. note 12 above, 81.

¹⁵ Ibid. 123. In view of the alarming developments in Soviet military strategy during the first half of 1962, it seemed significant that the Soviets took the unusual step of reviewing this book before it became publicly available and that the Soviets stressed the importance of this reversal of Korovin's position. The principal Soviet criticisms of this book by Kovalev and Cheprov are that it unduly emphasized the scholarly analysis of problems discussed in the West, and that it thereby failed to bring out sufficiently the importance of disarmament and of general principles of space law, and to bring home to the reader the dire consequences which might result from continuing U. S. efforts to “ obstruct ” progress in disarmament and in the development of international space legal principles. See Movehan, A. P. , “The Way to Space Law,” Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo i Pravo, May, 1962 (No. 5), pp. 143-145 Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Gennady Petrovich Zhukov, “Problems of Space Law at the Present Stage,” Memorandum of the Soviet Association of International Law at the Brussels Conference of the International Law Association 30, 35-36 (Institute of World Economics and International Relations, U.S.S.E. Academy of Sciences, 55 pp., August, 1962). Reproduced in Proceedings of the Vth Colloquium of the International Institute of Space Law, Varna, Bulgaria, September, 1962.

¹⁷ Ibid. 34.

¹⁸ See Gore, Sen. Albert , “United States Policy on Outer Space,” 48 Dept. of State Bulletin 21-29 (excerpt in 57 A.J.I.L. 428 (1963))Google Scholar, reproduced from the opening statement of the United States at the meetings of the U. N. Political Committee considering the report of the U. N. Space Committee, Verbatim Record of the 1289th Meeting of the First Committee, Dec. 3, 1962, U. N. Doc. A/C.l/P.V. 1289, pp. 7-32.

¹⁹ Loc. cit. note 11 above, 174.

²⁰ Ibid. 7.

²¹ Ibid. 9. Soviet attacks on American space communications increased shortly before the writing of the present note in January, 1963, and were typified by the statement of one of the leading Soviet space lawyers, M. I. Lazarev, in the December issue of the leading Soviet law journal that: “The U. S. has long put … telecommunications to the service of imperialism. Even before the Second World War American radio companies imposed their will on such countries as China and Czechoslovakia. After the Second World War American leaders used radio extensively on military bases of the United States in various countries of the world to confiscate radio frequencies for aggressive intelligence purposes [emphasis added]. Radio in general has been turned by the United States into a weapon of the “ war of the ether,” into an instrument of ideological export of counterrevolution, and is used by the United States to limit and destroy the legal rights of other states in the ether.” Lazarev, M. I. , “Technical Progress and Contemporary International Law,” Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo i Pravo, December, 1962 (No. 12), p. 106 Google Scholar.

²² hoc. cit. note 11 above, 9.,

²³ Gyula Gal, “ Some Legal Aspects of the Uses of Reconnaissance Satellites,” Proceedings of the Vth Colloquium of the International Institute of Space Law, Varna, Bulgaria, September, 1962.

²⁴ Op. cit. note 16 above, 36.

²⁵ . lbid. 25.

²⁶ .lbid. 35

²⁷ Ibid. 34.

²⁸ Loc. cit. note 11 above, 53.

²⁹ For a discussion of some of the most basic and still unresolved conflicts, see the review of the papers given at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Soviet Association of International Law in January, 1962. Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo i Pravo, June, 1962 (No. 6), pp. 138-141. This meeting in 1962 witnessed perhaps the most profound debate ever conducted in the Soviet Union on international legal theory.

³⁰ Galina A. Osnitskaya, Osvoyeniye Kosmosa i Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo [The Conquest of Space and International Law] 70 (Gosyurizdat, 1962, Moscow, September, 1962). Osnitskaya did, however, indicate some of the procedure for developing space law when she stated on p. 31 that in the space age the sources of any new branch of law, such as space law, are [in the following order]: custom based on state practice and national legislation, international conferences, treaties, and scholarly treatises.

³¹ Korovin, Evgeny A. , “Space Law,” Aviatsiya i Kosmonavtika, October, 1962 (No. 10), p. 20 Google Scholar.

³² Loc. cit. note 21 above, 107.

³³ This “new institution” is explained by 6. I. Tunkin in his new book, Voprosy Teorii Mezhdunarodnogo Prava [Problems of International Legal Theory] 294-296 (Gosyurizdat, Moscow, July, 1962).

³⁴ For an estimate of the impact of the Cuban crisis on Soviet military and political strategy, see Robert D. Crane, “The Cuban Crisis: A Strategic Analysis of American and Soviet Policy,” Orbis, Winter, 1963, pp. 528-563.

³⁵ Loc. cit. note 21 above, 108.