1. See Netherlands International Law Review, 1962, 2, p. 113 et seq.Google Scholar

2. See U.N. Document A/AC. 105/PV. 37Google Scholar

3. See Jenks, C. W., Space Law, (London 1965), p. 303.Google Scholar

4. See The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 04 1964, p. 390.Google Scholar

5. Lissitzyn, O. J., “International Law Today and Tomorrow”, New York 1965), p. 36.Google Scholar

6. See also Cheng, B., “United Nations Resolutions on Outer Space, ‘Instant’ International Customary Law”, The Indian Journal of International Law, Vol. V, no. 1, 01 1965, p. 36.Google Scholar

the Soviet writer Tunkin in his recently published “Droit International Public”, Paris 1965, p. 76, considers that in the formation of customary norms: “sur le plan juridique, le facteur ‘temps’ n'a pas par lui-měme une importance décisive.”

7. See in particular Lissitzyn, O. J., “The American Position on Outer Space and Antarctica”, The American Journal of International Law, 01 1959, p. 126 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Lipson, , Katzenbach, de B., “Report to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on the Law of Outer Space”, American Bar Foundation, 07, 1961, p. 20.Google Scholar

9. See for the French text of the Resolution, Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, 1963, p. 361Google Scholar; for the English text, Jenks, , op cit. p. 416.Google Scholar

10. Op. cit. p. 46.Google Scholar

11. See The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 07 1964, p. 969 et seq.Google Scholar

12. See Law and Public Order in Space, p. 227; For a discussion on the meaning of the term “access” see below p. 136.Google Scholar

13. “Le Droit de l'Espace,” Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1960.Google Scholar

14. See Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, 1963, p. 75.Google Scholar

15. See Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, 1963, p. 81.Google Scholar

16. Jenks, C. W., op. cit. p. 170.Google Scholar

17. Cf. Zemanek, , “The United Nations and the Law of Outer Space”, The Yearbook of World Affairs, 1965, p. 209.Google Scholar

18. See United Nations Document A/AC.105/C.2 SR.41–50.

19. See p. 141.

20. See U.N. Document A/AC.105/C.2/SA.47, p. 7.Google Scholar

21. See U.N. Document A/AC.105/PV, p. 18.Google Scholar

22. See Report of the 51^st Conference of the International Law Association, p. 670 et seq.Google Scholar

23. Jenks, C. W., op. cit. p. 186.Google Scholar

24. The Yearbook of World Affairs, 1965, p. 210.Google Scholar

25. Netherlands International Law Review, 1965, Issue 3, p. 234.Google Scholar

26. “Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International”, 1964.Google Scholar

27. Presented to the “Space Law Conference” of the “British Institute of International and Comparative Law” on 4th 05 1965.Google Scholar

28. See the writer's article “Het Souvereiniteitsbegrip in het Luchtrecht”, Netherlands International Law Review, 1955, Issue 3, p. 226.Google Scholar

29. See above p. 121, note 25.

30. As Cheng rightly remarked in his article “From Air Law to Space Law”, Current Legal Problems, 1960, p. 232Google Scholar: “There is nothing inherently impossible in law or in geophysics which prevents States agreeing to a limit of national sovereignty beyond the atmosphere of the earth”. See however below p. 134.

31. The explanation of this volte face should be sought—as was demonstrated by Telders in his article “De Oorsprong van het Leerstuk der Territoriale Zee”, Verzamelde Geschriften II p. 121—Google Scholar in the political conditions prevailing between 1620 and 1625.

32. F.i. the principle of sovereignty over airspace enables the subjacent State to prohibit the disturbance of this airspace by means of Herzian waves caused for the purpose of wireless communication and emanating from a foreign source.

33. O'Connell in his recently published “International Law”, London 1965, P. 535, examining the juridical character of the territorial sea in international law remarks: “at the outset one must dispose of the argument that because Roman law put the sea beyond appropriation every part of it still remains beyond appropriation. Roman law also put the air beyond appropriation but today no one doubts that it is as much subject to sovereignty as the land itself” (emphasis supplied).

34. See f.i. Mateesco, N., “Ownership or Freedom of the Air and Beyond”Google Scholar, Lecture given at the “Institute of Air and Space Law”, McGill University 27th 11 1961Google Scholar; Georgiades, E., “Du Nationalisme Aérien à l'Internationalism Spatial ou le Mythe de la Souveraineté Aérienne”, Revue Française de Droit Aérien no. 2, 1962, p. 129Google Scholar et seq.; Glaser, S., “Agression Spatiale à la lumière du Droit International Pénal”, Revue Pénale Suisse, p. 509Google Scholar et seq.

35. The International Law Association held in Dubrovnik, 1956, accepted a Resolution on Air Law, the second paragraph of which reads as follows: “II that in questions regarding the granting of commercial landing rights to foreign operators, the States let themselves be guided by the basic principle that the social and economic needs of the individual are served by having at its disposal the most extensive international aircommunications possible; and that, therefore, apart from specific national interests, there is a common interest in expanding these communications, upon which greater emphasis then heretofore should be made; furthermore, that, in granting such landing rights, the principle of non-discrimination which is at the basis of the Chicago Convention should be strictly adhered to.”

36. The “Convention on Transit Trade of Land-Locked States” adopted by the U.M. Conference on 8th July 1965, limits itself to “sea-transport” directly preceding or following the passage of goods between a land-locked State and the sea. It should be mentioned that the Convention as adopted does not affirm the right of passage as a principle of international law.

37. Current Legal Problems, 1965, p. 146.Google Scholar

38. See McDougal, , Lasswell, and Vlasic, , op. cit. p. 356, note 538.Google Scholar

39. See McNair, Lord, The Law of the Air, 1964, p. 17.Google Scholar

40. See Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International, 1964.Google Scholar

41. See above, p. 109, note 1.

42. See Report of the 48th Conference of the I.L.A., p. 321 et seq; of the 49th Conference, p. 245 et seq; of the 5Oth Conference, p. 31 et seq; of the 51^st Conference, p. 668 et seq.

43. See Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International 1963, V. II, p. 60 et seq.Google Scholar

44. See the opinion expressed by Fawcett, on p. 98Google Scholar of the Annuaire.

45. See the opinion expressed by Giraud, on p. 77Google Scholar of the Annuaire.

46. See Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, V. II, p. 101.Google Scholar

47. See Revue belge de droit international, 1965, no. 1, pag. 20.Google Scholar

48. See Le Droit de l'Espace, Paris, 1960, p. 52.Google Scholar

49. See Fasan, , “Weltraumrecht.” Mainz 1965, p. 72.Google Scholar

50. See “Perspectives for a Law of Outer Space”, American Journal of International Law, 1958, p. 407 et seq.Google Scholar

51. See “Law and Public Order in Space,” p. 354.Google Scholar

52. See above p. 121, note 27.

53. op. cit., p. 355.Google Scholar

54. See “Space Law,” London, 1965, p. 191.Google Scholar

55. See Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International, 1964.Google Scholar

56. See “Problemy Prawna Kosmosu”, Warsaw 1965, p. 161.Google Scholar

57. See above, p. 118, note 17.

58. “National Sovereignty of Outer Space”, 74, Harvard Law Review, 1961, no. 6, p. 1154.Google Scholar

59. See above, p. 127, note 37.

60. See above, p. 127, note 37.

61. Lapenna, , op. cit., p. 121.Google Scholar

62. See p. 127.

63. See Korovin, E. A., “Kosmos i Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo (Cosmos and International Law, a collection of articles), Moscow 1962, p. 48.Google Scholar

64. See f.i. Cheng, , op. cit., p. 152.Google Scholar

65. See Law and Politics in Space, Leicester University Press, 1964, p. 115.Google Scholar

66. Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway) I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 132Google Scholar; see on this subject, Verzijl, , “The United Conference on the Law of the Sea, Geneva, 1958”, Netherlands International Law Review, 1959, Issue 1, p. 22et seq.Google Scholar

67. See above, p. 127, note 38.

68. See Law and Politics in Space, Leicester University Press, 1964, p. 114.Google Scholar

69. See Law and Politics in Space, p. 115.Google Scholar

70. See Law and Politics in Space, p. 13.Google Scholar

71. See Report of the 51^st Conference of the International Law Association, p. 676 et seq.Google Scholar

72. See Internationaal Publiekrecht, Haarlem, 1966, p. 94.Google Scholar

73. See Report of the 49th Conference of the Association, 1962, p. 278.Google Scholar

74. See Report to the 50th Conference of the Association 1962, p. 76.Google Scholar

75. See U.N. Document A/AC.105 PV.38, 6th 10 1965, p. 37.Google Scholar

76. Paper presented to the Space Law Conference of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 4th May, 1965.

77. See on this subject Lauterpacht, E., “Freedom of Transit in International Law”, Transactions of the Grotius Society, 1958/1959, p. 313et seq.Google Scholar

78. See, apart from the writers already quoted on this subject, Law and Order in Space, p. 280Google Scholar: “the awareness is growing that the rigid reliance upon the policies developed for aircraft, is wholly inadequate to the needs of the space age and should be replaced by a new approach … an indispensable minimum for serving such common interest may consist in according non-military spacecraft in this pioneering stage of space flight a free access both to territorial airspace and land-territories as well”;

See also Sauveplanne, , op. cit., p. 239.Google Scholar

79. Op. cit., p. 314.Google Scholar

80. See i.a. U.N. Document A/AC.105/PV.37, 5th 10 1965, p. 51.Google Scholar

81. See U.N. Document A/AC.105/PV.37, 5th 10 1965, p. 62.Google Scholar

82. von der Heydte, F. A. Freiherr, “Das Prinzip der Guten Nachbarschaft im Völkerrecht”, Völkerrecht und Rechtliches Weltbild, Festschrift für Alfred Verdross, 1960, p. 133, et seq.Google Scholar

83. See “Conflicts of Law and Divergencies in the Legal Regimes of Air Space and Outer Space”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International, 1963 II, p. 341.Google Scholar

84. See U.N. Document A/AC.105/L.21 of 8th 10, 1965.Google Scholar

85. See also Jenks, , op. cit. p. 278.Google Scholar

86. See U.N. Document A/AC.105/PV.37, 5th 10 1965, p. 48–50.Google Scholar

87. The problem will be considered by the coming Conference of the International Law Association at Helsinki on the basis of the Questionnaire drawn up by Pépin, a member of the Space Law Committee of the Association.

88. See in this connection Jennings' Report on “The Legal Status of Space Vehicles”, presented to the Tokyo-Conference of the International Law Association; See Report of the 51^st Conference of the Association, p. 170 et seq.

A new Report prepared by Mankiewicz will be presented to the Helsinki Conference of the Association in August 1966.

89. Op. cit., p. 749 et seq.Google Scholar

90. See “Space Law Becomes a Reality”, Paper presented to the Space Law Conference of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on the 4th May, 1965.

91. See the Paper “Some Observations on the Present Legislative Procedure applied to Outer Space”, presented by the present writer to the sixth Colloquium of the International Astronautical Federation, held in Paris September 1963; See also Cooper, “Aerospace Law—subject matter and terminology”, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Spring 1963Google Scholar; McDougal, , Lasswell, , Vlasic, op. cit., p. 350Google Scholar; Chaumont, , Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, 1963, II, p. 76.Google Scholar

92. A Draft Convention on Damage caused by Foreign Flightcraft to third Parties on the Surface (the term “Flightcraft” embracing both aircraft and spacecraft) will be presented by Berezowski to the Helsinki Conference of the International Law Association in August 1966.