Which theory of demarcation of space law supports the concept of “Common Heritage of Mankind”in

space and discourages state sovereignty?

ANS:

According to one of the basic tenants of present day international law on state sovereignty, the
state territory with its adjacent airspace is a delimited part of the earth under the exclusive
jurisdiction of a state. The domination of a state over its territory- to the exclusion of all states-is
called territorial sovereignty. The recognition of the sovereignty of every state in the airspace is
based on a generally accepted rule of international customary law. A historical assessment of this
problem has shown that this generally international rule can primarily be derived from the
national laws of the states.
The “common heritage of mankind” is an ethical concept and a general concept of international
law. It establishes that some localities belong to all humanity and that their resources are
available for everyone’s use and benefit, taking into account future generations and the needs of
developing countries. It is intended to achieve aspects of the sustainable development of
common spaces and their resources, but may apply beyond this traditional scope.
D. Goesdhuis stated that the question of demarcation can only be answered against the general
background of the attitude of the governments, the finding of international bodies studying air
and space law and this ideas of writers. But it is difficult to find a solution because most
government have been studiously vague in their pronouncements on this matter and there has
been considerably change in the individual opinion and declaration because of the revolutionary
change in technology.
The No Present need theory: Most of the theories on the issue of a demarcation line presuppose
that a demarcation line must be drawn somewhere in Space and the problem is to determine
where.
The arguments of this school can be summarized thus:
• (a) That the absence of explicit agreement has not yet led to international tensions and
does not appear likely to be able to do so.
• (b) That an attempt to reach explicit agreement on establishment of an altitude boundary
would invite many states to make claims to sovereignty which in analogous cases such as
the high seas, have led to immoderate claims. In other words, the Pandora’s box might be
harder to close than to open.
• (c) That any boundary set might have to be set too high because fear of the unknown
would lead states to claim as much as they could. On the other hand, that future activity
at lower altitudes may be acceptable if there is no explicit agreement on the extent of
airspace.
• (d) That an agreement reached later is likely to fix a lower altitude than an agreement
reached now.
• (e) That an agreed altitude once achieved will be next to impossible to reduce
• (f) That an arbitrarily chosen upper limit could easily become a bone of contention. This
is in that disputes may arise from boundary violations, which are all the more likely
because space objects are in fact difficult to track or identify.