Space debris

INTRODUCTION

MEANING

Space debris, artificial material that is orbiting Earth but is no longer functional. This
material can be as large as a discarded rocket stage or as small as a microscopic chip of
paint. the high speeds at which objects orbit Earth (up to 8 km [5 miles] per second), a
collision with even a small piece of space debris can damage a spacecraft.

• CLASSIFICATION OF DEBRIS

i. Inactive Payloads

These are objects or components that were once part of a mission or payload in space
but are no longer in use. They could be defunct satellites, spent rocket stages, or other
equipment that served its purpose and is now inactive.

ii. Operational Debris

This might refer to objects or fragments generated during the normal operation of space
missions. It could include items like released hardware or materials that are
unintentionally dispersed during a mission.

iii. Fragmentation Debris

This likely pertains to fragments resulting from the breakup or disintegration of larger
objects in space. This can happen due to collisions, explosions, or other destructive
events. Managing fragmentation debris is crucial for space sustainability.

iv. Microparticulate Matter

This could involve tiny particles or debris in the micrometer size range. These particles
might be too small to track individually but can collectively pose a threat to space assets
due to their high relative velocities.

• DANGER POSED BY SPACE DEBRIS

Collision Risk: Space debris can collide with operational satellites and spacecraft, leading
to damage or destruction. This risk increases with the growing amount of debris in
Earth's orbit.

Satellite Dysfunction: Debris collisions can cause malfunctions in active satellites,

disrupting their operations and rendering them useless.
 Spacecraft Safety: Human spaceflight missions are at risk from space debris. Even small
particles traveling at high speeds can cause significant damage to spacecraft and
endanger the lives of astronauts.

Kessler Syndrome: This is a theoretical scenario where a cascade of collisions generates

more debris, increasing the likelihood of further collisions. This could potentially create
a self-sustaining chain reaction, making certain orbits hazardous for future satellites.

Limiting Future Exploration: The presence of space debris complicates future space
exploration. It requires careful planning to navigate through debris-filled regions,
increasing mission complexity and cost.

Long-Term Space Sustainability: The accumulation of space debris poses a long-term

threat to the sustainability of space activities. Efforts are needed to mitigate and
manage space debris to ensure safe and sustainable use of Earth's orbits.

• EXISTING LEGAL REGIME

i. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty (Art. VII, IX)

ii. The 1968 Agreements on The Rescue and Return (Art. 5)

iii. The 1972 Space Liability Convention

iv. The 1975 Registration Convention

v. The 1979 Moon Agreement

vi. The 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

SPACE DEBRIS MITIGATION GUIDELINES

Guideline 1: Limit debris released during normal operations

Guideline 2: Minimize the potential for break-ups during operational phases

Guideline 3: Limit the probability of accidental collision in orbit

Guideline 4: Avoid intentional destruction and other harmful activities

Guideline 5: Minimize potential for post-mission break-ups resulting from stored energy

Guideline 6: Limit the long-term presence of spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stages in the
low-Earth orbit (LEO) region after the end of their mission

Guideline 7: Limit the long-term interference of spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stages
with the geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) region after the end of their mission
AN ACTION PLAN

The global community should strengthen collaboration in monitoring and tracking space debris,
investing in advanced technologies to improve accuracy. Ground-based and space-based
sensors must be leveraged for comprehensive debris surveillance. Implement and enforce
design guidelines for spacecraft to minimize debris generation during operations. Standardized
practices for end-of-life disposal, such as controlled deorbiting or re-entry, should be adopted
industry-wide. invest in research and development of technologies for actively removing large
and hazardous debris from orbit. Encourage public-private collaborations to expedite the
deployment of missions dedicated to debris removal.

CONCLUSION

LEGAL ASPECTS OF SPACE TOURISM

Introduction

Broadly speaking, “space tourism” denotes any commercial activity that offers customers direct
or indirect experience with space travel. Such activities have many different designs, ranging
from long-term stays in orbital facilities to short-term orbital or suborbital flights, and even
parabolic flights in an aircraft exposing passengers to short periods of weightlessness. Flights
into outer space by private individuals are finding increased attention in the public. While there
are not yet chartered flights, occasional orbital flights with “space tourists” have taken place.

APPLICABLITY OF AIR AND SPACE LAW

One must determine which legal regime-air law or space law-applies to space tourism activities.
The delimitation of outer space is a recurring theme in every legal examination of issues
regarding space tourism.

a) Delimitation of Airspace and Outer Space

There is no clear physical line between airspace and outer space. Nevertheless, the area above
110 km is generally regarded as being part of outer space. The status of the zone between 80
km and 110 km is highly controversial, however. Thus, if the parameters of a suborbital flight
are such that the space vehicle’s maximum altitude is between 80 and 110 km the issue of
delimitation is crucial.

There are two common approaches to addressing this boundary issue. The “functional”
approach makes a fixed boundary irrelevant, instead advertising a single legal regime for
“spatial activities” depending on the nature or purpose of the activity.

On the other hand, the “spatial” approach attempts to determine a fixed boundary between
airspace and outer space. The exact location of this boundary is controversial, however.

b) Status of the Vehicle

If space tourism activities are modelled on SpaceShipOne, two objects must be distinguished:
the aircraft and the space vehicle attached to the aircraft until the time of separation. Quite
obviously, air law applies to the aircraft used both before and after separation. The question
then is whether the space vehicle can be considered either an aircraft or a part of the aircraft
before and after separation.

Similarly, if a rocket was used to launch a space capsule, two objects would again need to be
distinguished: the rocket and the space capsule attached to the rocket until the time of
separation. Both of these objects could also reach an altitude just below the lowest satellite
perigee-the demarcation not having been clearly made so far. However, both objects would be
using rocket propulsion for thrust and would be intended to reach outer space. Thus, space law
should apply to both objects before and after separation.

AIRPORT AUTHORITY INDIA

Powers:

1. Planning and Development: AAI has the power to plan, develop, upgrade, and maintain civil
aviation infrastructure, including airports, runways, terminals, and related facilities. It works on
expanding and modernizing airports to accommodate the growing demands of air travel.

2. Air Traffic Management: AAI is responsible for providing air traffic management services,
including air navigation services and air traffic control. This ensures the safe and efficient
movement of aircraft within Indian airspace.

3. Control Over Aerodromes: AAI has the authority to take control of airports owned by the
central government and manage them. This includes the operation, maintenance, and
development of these airports.

4. Civil Enclaves: AAI can establish, develop, and maintain civil enclaves at defense airports. Civil
enclaves allow for the shared use of defense airfields for both civilian and military purposes.

5. Regulatory Authority: AAI has regulatory powers concerning aviation safety, security, and
efficiency. It can prescribe rules, regulations, and standards for various aspects of civil aviation,
ensuring compliance with international aviation norms.

6. Land Acquisition: The AAI can acquire land for the development and expansion of airports. It
can also enter into agreements with other authorities or landowners for the use of land,
including leases or licenses.

7. Safety and Security Measures: AAI is responsible for implementing safety and security
measures at airports to protect passengers, aircraft, and airport facilities. This includes security
screening, emergency response plans, and measures to counter unlawful interference.

8. Revenue Generation: AAI generates revenue through various means, including charging fees
to airlines, airport operators, and other entities that use its services. This revenue is reinvested
into the development and maintenance of aviation infrastructure.
Functions:

1. Infrastructure Development: AAI focuses on the development, expansion, and maintenance

of airports and aviation infrastructure throughout India to accommodate the growing air traffic.

2. Air Traffic Services: AAI provides air traffic control, navigation, and communication services to
ensure the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the country.

3. Aviation Regulation: AAI plays a regulatory role by establishing and enforcing aviation
standards, regulations, and procedures, which contribute to the safety and efficiency of air
travel.

4. Safety and Security: Ensuring the safety and security of passengers, aircraft, and airport
facilities is a fundamental function of AAI. This includes measures to prevent and respond to
emergencies and security threats.

5. Research and Development: AAI conducts research and development activities to improve
aviation infrastructure, technologies, and practices, making air travel safer and more efficient.

6. Training and Capacity Building: AAI offers training programs for aviation personnel, including
air traffic controllers, airport staff, and other professionals involved in the aviation sector.

7. International Cooperation: AAI collaborates with international aviation organizations and

regulatory bodies to ensure that India's aviation standards are in alignment with global
practices.

The Airport Authority of India's powers and functions are critical in maintaining the safety and
efficiency of civil aviation operations in India and in facilitating the growth and development of
the aviation sector in the country. These functions are integral to promoting safe, secure, and
seamless air travel for the people of India and for those traveling to and from the country.
Conclusion

The Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, created the organization in 1995 under the Ministry
of Civil Aviation. It is a statutory entity as a result. AAI oversees 137 airports, including 103
domestic, 24 international (3 civil enclaves), and ten customs airports (23 civil enclaves). Over
an area of 2.8 million square nautical miles of airspace, AAI offers air navigation services. It is a
formal organization under the Ministry of Civil Aviation's control.

Major provision

1. **Constitution of AAI:**

- Section 3: Details the establishment and incorporation of the Airports Authority of India as a
body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal. It specifies its composition,
powers, and functions.

2. **Management and Development of Airports:**

 - Section 12: Outlines the comprehensive powers and duties of AAI in the management and
development of airports. This includes planning, development, construction, operation, and
maintenance of airports and aeronautical communication stations.

3. **Powers to Plan and Construct Airports:**

- Section 11: Grants AAI the authority to plan and construct airports, including the power to
acquire, hold, and dispose of property, enter into contracts, and borrow funds for these
purposes.

4. **Operation of Airports:**

- Section 13: Specifies AAI's powers and responsibilities in operating airports and providing air
traffic services, including the establishment and operation of air traffic control services.

5. **Leasing and Licensing:**

- Section 16: Empowers AAI to lease or license the use of airport facilities and services,
allowing for commercial and operational agreements with various entities.

6. **Control of Civil Aerodromes:**

- Section 12(2)(c): Authorizes AAI to control and manage civil aerodromes, ensuring the
efficient and safe functioning of these facilities.

7. **Regulation of Air Traffic:**

- Section 12(2)(e): Designates AAI with the responsibility of regulating air traffic within the
Indian airspace, ensuring coordination and safety in air transportation.

8. **Safety Measures:**

- Section 18: Establishes provisions related to safety measures at airports, covering areas such
as the prevention of air collisions, establishment of safety zones, and compliance with
international standards.

9. **Finances and Funds:**

- Section 26: Details the financial powers of AAI, including its ability to prepare budgets,
receive grants, loans, and contributions, and manage its funds for effective airport development
and operation.

10. Appointment of Officers and Staff:

- Section 18(1): Provides for the appointment of officers and staff by AAI, specifying the terms
and conditions of service and ensuring the efficient performance of its various functions.
Outer space treaty

1. The delimitation between airspace and outer space is not yet legally-defined

2. All States are free to use and explore outer space ar1 OST

3. The exploration and use of outer space is to be for the benefit and in the interests of all
countries ar1 OST

4. The use and exploration of outer space is the province of ‘mankind’ ar1 OST

5. There shall be no appropriation of any part of outer space ar 2 OST

6. All relevant international law applies to outer space, not just the space-specific treaties
ar 3 OST

7. No weapons of mass destruction are to be placed in outer space, but there is no

restriction on conventional weapons Article 4 of the Outer Space Treaty.

8. Outer space generally must be used for non-aggressive purposes, and the Moon and
other celestial bodies are subject to specific ‘peaceful purposes’ restrictions. The
preamble to the Outer Space Treaty 3 & 4.

9. Governments are responsible for all national activities in outer space, even activities of
entirely independent, non-governmental entities. Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty

10. A ‘launching State’ in respect of a space object is responsible for registering the space
object. Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty.

11. The State of registry of a space object retains jurisdiction and control of the space
object, but not necessarily ownership of the space object as a whole. Article VIII of the
Outer Space Treaty.

12. States are to be guided by the principle of cooperation and mutual assistance. under Art
IX of the Outer Space Treaty.

13. States Parties shall conduct their activities with due regard for the activities of all other
States Parties. Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty

14. States must undertake appropriate international consultations prior to any expected
harmful interference Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty.
 15. State shall avoid harmful contamination of Earth by extra-terrestrial matter and of
celestial bodies by matter from Earth Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty.

16. States have some obligations of rescue and return of astronauts and space objects. The
Rescue and Return Agreement 1968 expands on the obligation of rescue and return of
astronauts in Article V of the Outer Space Treaty.

17. A ‘launching State’ is absolutely liable for damage by its space objects on Earth, but only
liable for damage between two space objects in space where the State is at fault. The
Liability Convention expands on Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty.

AIR CAREER LIABILITY FOR PASEENGER, DEATH, INJURY ( UNDER CARRIAGE BY AIR ACT )

**Introduction:**

The liability for passenger injury or death under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, in the Indian
perspective is a crucial aspect of aviation law. This Act incorporates the provisions of the
Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Convention, which set out the rules for international air
carriage. It outlines the responsibilities and liabilities of air carriers regarding passenger safety
and compensation in the event of injury or death during air travel.

**Liability for Passenger Injury or Death:**

Under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, an air carrier is strictly liable for injuries sustained by a
passenger during the course of international carriage by air. The carrier is held responsible
unless it can prove that the injury resulted from an event beyond its control (force majeure), or
that the injury was solely due to the negligence or wrongful act of a third party.

The liability for death or injury during air travel is not capped under the Act, and the carrier is
obligated to provide compensation unless it can establish one of the mentioned defenses. The
compensation is determined based on the principles outlined in the Warsaw Convention and
the Montreal Convention, which have been ratified and adopted by India.

**Key Provisions:

**Strict Liability:** Section 3 of the Carriage by Air Act establishes the carrier's strict
liability for passenger injury or death during international carriage by air.

**Limits on Liability:** While there is no cap on liability, the Montreal Convention sets
certain limits. However, these limits can be exceeded if it is proven that the damage
resulted from the carrier's willful misconduct or negligence.
 **Defenses Available to the Carrier:** Section 5 outlines the defenses available to the
carrier, including proving that the injury or death was not due to the negligence or
wrongful act of the carrier or its servants.

1. Strict Liability for Injury or Death:

 Section 3(1): The Carriage by Air Act, 1972, establishes the air carrier's strict liability for
injuries sustained by a passenger during international carriage by air. The carrier is held
liable unless it can prove one of the specified defenses.

2. Limits on Liability:

 Section 5(1): While the Act does not specify a cap on liability, the Montreal Convention,
to which India is a party, sets limits on the carrier's liability. However, these limits can be
exceeded if it is proven that the damage resulted from the carrier's willful misconduct or
negligence.

3. Defenses Available to the Carrier:

 Section 5(2): This section outlines the defenses available to the carrier. The carrier is not
liable if it proves that the injury or death resulted from an event beyond its control, or
that it and its servants took all necessary measures to avoid the damage.

4. Definition of "Injury":

 Section 2(h): The Act defines "injury" as any harm sustained by a person, including
death, partial or total loss of sight or hearing, and any impairment of physical or mental
condition.

5. Calculation of Compensation:

 Section 4(1): In the case of passenger injury or death, the amount of compensation
payable by the carrier is calculated according to the principles laid down in the Warsaw
Convention and the Montreal Convention.

6. Willful Misconduct:

 Section 5(1)(e): If the carrier's liability exceeds the limits specified in the conventions
due to willful misconduct, it is explicitly mentioned in this section.

7. Burden of Proof:

 Section 5(3): The burden of proving that the injury or death was not due to the
negligence or wrongful act of the carrier or its servants rests on the carrier.

8. Application to Domestic Flights:

 Section 1(3): The Act applies not only to international carriage but also to the carriage
performed entirely within the territories of India.
**Conclusion:**

In conclusion, the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, in the Indian context, imposes strict liability on air
carriers for injuries or death sustained by passengers during international air travel. The Act
aligns with international conventions to ensure fair compensation for passengers. While the
carrier has certain defenses, the primary focus is on ensuring that passengers receive due
compensation for the harm suffered during their journey. This legal framework aims to strike a
balance between the interests of air carriers and the protection of passengers' rights,
emphasizing the importance of safety and accountability in the aviation industry.

Deepak Wadhwa vs. Aeroflot

The Delhi High Court in this case held a decree passed by the Delhi District Court under the
Warsaw Convention, 1929, for loss of cargo, is a nullity because the claimant under Section 86
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which stipulates as under, obtained no prior permission
from the Central Government: No foreign state may be sued in any court otherwise competent
to try the suit except with the consent of the Central Government certified in writing by a
Secretary to the Government. In view of the previously mentioned, the Court held: There is no
provision in the matter of sovereign immunity contained in the Act. The Code [i.e., CPC] deals
with procedural matters, that is, the matters relating to the machinery for the enforcement of
substantial rights. These substantive rights may be contractual or flowing from the statutory
provisions, including the Act. The Act allows suits to be filed in a Civil Court relating to the
matters under it, but the proceeding to be followed in such suit will be governed by the
provisions of the Code. The Act does not confer jurisdiction on the Court or provide a special
procedure in dealing with claims arising out of, or under the statutory provisions. The suit had
to be determined according to the law of procedure laid down in the Code. No foreign state
could be sued in any Court otherwise competent to try the suit except with the Consent of the
Central Government Certified in writing by a Secretary of the Government. The above
judgement is not in adherence with the international private law as established by the Warsaw
convention.

Sm. Mukul Dutta Gupta and Ors. vs Indian Airlines

Corporation on 11 August, 1961 The plaintiffs are the widow and minor children of one Sanat
Kumar Dutta-Gupta who was killed in an air crash. They have instituted this suit under the Fatal
Accidents Act for the recovery of damages against the defendant Corporation. It is pleaded in
the plaint that the deceased Sanat Kumar purchased a ticket as a passenger from Dum Dum
Airport to Jorhat on the defendant's scheduled route known as the Calcutta-Mohonbari route.
On March 21, 1956 at about eleven o'clock in the morning the aircraft crashed while landing at
Salami Airport. Sanat Kumar was killed in the crash. The plaintiffs' case is that the death of
Sanat Kumar was caused by the negligence of the defendant Corporation or its employees. The
particular of negligence are set out in paragraph 5 of the plaint. Leave to furnish further
particulars of negligence and/or misconduct however was reserved after discovery. Such
further particulars were furnished at the time of the opening of the case by Mr. Dutt Roy the
learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is to this effect, that there has been a breach of Rule 115 of
the Rules framed under the Indian Aircraft Act. It is pleaded that the defendant is attempting to
evade liability by setting up certain conditions of carriage. The plaintiffs' case is that Sanat
Kumar had no notice of the said conditions of carriage nor did he accept them and
consequently the same are not binding. The validity of the said conditions has also been
disputed. Sanat Kumar was only 44 years of age when he was killed. He was in the best of
health and well placed in life. He held a permanent employment in Messrs. I. G. N. and Rly. Co.
Ltd. a reputed British company and at the time of his death he was drawing a salary of Rs. 700/-
per month with prospect of earning unto Rs. 1,500/-per month. The sum of Rs. 3, 00,000/- has
been claimed as damages. The appeal had been filed with the Calcutta High Court. The above
case happened during the time of absence of a Statute on liability for domestic travel. The
Carriage by Air Act (1934) doesn’t regulate the rights and liabilities of carriers engaged in the
business of internal transport by air either of passengers or of goods. The British common law
was considered as a statue for this case but the issue was Britain had accepted the carriage by
Air Act for both international and internal travel. The final judgement: In my judgment, the
rules of justice, equity and good conscience applicable to internal carriage by air in India are not
the rules of common law carrier in England, but the rules to be found in Carriage by Air Act,
1934. The Indian legislature has indicated that it should be applied to non-international air
carriage of course "subject to exception, adaptation and modification." The Central
Government in exerc:sc of the delegated power of legislation cannot modify the principles
embodied in the Rules affecting the liability of the carrier by air, by any notification under
Section 4 of the Act. Despite winning the case, the plaintiff could only claim a compensation of
125,000 gold francs as stated by the Carriage by Air Act (1934) which had amounted to Rs.
39,425(as per Treasury Department, Bureau Of Accounts Division Of Central Accounts And
Reports, Foreign Currency Branch, May 21, 1964) thus proving the pro carrier nature of the
Warsaw convention which on ratification came to be known as Carriage by Air Act (1934).

Air Carrying Corporation vs Shibendra Nath Bhattacharya

on 25 March, 1964 In this case, the plaintiff’s complaint against the defendant Cooperation over
the loss of baggage due to negligence. The defense was that the loss was due to an act of God,
or the accidental destruction of the air-craft by which the goods were being transported. It is
the finding of the Courts that the loss of the plaintiff's goods has been occasioned by the
negligence of the defendant Corporation and not an act of God, and the learned Advocate for
the defendant-appellant has confined his argument to a question of law, namely, that even
assuming that the loss of the goods was due to the negligence of the Corporation, it was not
liable in view of the special contract, to wit, the terms of note 2 to the consignment from
subscribed by the plaintiff, which exempted the defendant Corporation from any liability for the
loss of the goods, whether due to accident, negligence or any other cause. This question of law
was agitated before the court of appeal below but was rejected on the ground that Sections
151 and 152 of the Contract Act governed the liabilities of the defendant-Corporation and that
even if the consignment form purported to contract out of the statutory liability laid down by
the aforesaid provisions of the Contract Act, such contract, was invalid and inoperative.
However, the legislation had not taken measures to ensure that the carriage by Air Act 1934
would extend to domestic flights. The court had dismissed the case subject to the above
observations. This case is a reflection of the pro carrier nature of the air law prevalent in India
during the early 60’s with the Calcutta High court declaring that the legislative interference was
necessary for avoiding such dismissal in future. 16.4.

Mangalore Crash The Mangalore crash is the first case dealing with liability of Carriage by Air
Act as after the 2009 amendment. An Air India Express bound from Dubai to Bajpe International
Airport, Mangalore, had crashed thereby killing 158 people and injuring remaining 1059. This
lead to the claimants filing for a petition in Kerala High Court ( under the Montreal convention,
claim could be filed either in U.A.E. and India) as the insurers of Air India had offered Rs.10
lakhs for 128 deceased people and Rs.5 lakh61 for injured person. The above settlement offer
was less than the limit set by the Montreal Convention, which is 100,000 S.D.R, which was
about Rs.75 lakhs at the time of the crash. The Kerala High Court issued a stay order on the
judgement of single- judge bench, directing Air India to work out an amicable settlement with
the families. Since the decision does not follow the Montreal Convention, the claimants
appealed the case in Supreme Court. In January 2012, a division bench of the Apex court issued
a notice that was laid down as landmark situation wherein the court has laid down the law
about computation of the damages in case of international carriage. The final judgement was
ruled out in favor of the plaintiff.