Cosmos 954 and the International Law of Satellite Accidents
![handle is hein.journals/yjil10 and id is 86 raw text is: Cosmos 954 and the International Law of
Satellite Accidents
Alexander F. Cohent
I. Problem
Falling satellites' are an unavoidable hazard of space exploration: at
the current level of technology, a certain number of satellites will inevita-
bly fall out of orbit.2 Nevertheless, the traditional sources of international
law provide little help in determining what norms would govern a situa-
tion in which a falling satellite causes injury.3 The 1978 crash of the
U.S.S.R.'s Cosmos 954 satellite has shed some light on the normative
expectations of states concerning satellite accidents.
From the events leading up to and following the crash of Cosmos 954,
four governing norms emerged: (1) A state that becomes aware that one
of its satellites will crash has the duty to forewarn a state that is in dan-
ger; (2) The state whose satellite has crashed in the territory of another
state has the duty to provide that state with information (regarding the
t B.A., M.A., Yale University.
1. A satellite is [a]ny manmade object launched from and revolving around the earth.
FUNK & WAGNALL'S STANDARD DESK DICTIONARY 593 (1977). I prefer this term to space
object. Despite its wide currency in legal writing and UN documents, space object poses
various thorny problems of definition. For a discussion of these difficulties, see Foster, The
Convention on International Liabilityfor Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972 CAN. Y.B. OF
INT'L L. 144-47, 158-60; Wilkins, Substantive Bases for Recovery for Injuries Sustained by
Private Individuals as a Result of Fallen Space Objects, 6 J. SPACE L. 162 (1978).
2. Telephone interviews with U.S. government officials (Mar. 1984).
3. The Cosmos 954 accident was the first instance in the history of space exploration in
which the satellite of one nation caused significant injury to a second nation. Legault &
Farand, Canada's Claim for Damage Caused by the Soviet Cosmos 954 Satellite 25 (Jan.
1984)(unpublished manuscript available from Canadian Embassy, Washington, D.C.)(on file
with the Yale Journal of International Law). Hence, no court cases, arbitral decisions, or any
other formal judicial proceedings have dealt with satellite accidents. In addition, it is unclear if
the one international treaty that addresses this problem is prescriptive. See Convention on
International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Sept. 1, 1972, 24 U.S.T. 2389,
T.I.A.S. No. 7762, reprinted in 66 AM. J. INT'L L. 702 (1972). Canada and the U.S.S.R. seem
to have ignored most of the provisions of the Liability Convention during the Cosmos 954
incident. But cf Schwartz & Berlin, After the Fall: An Analysis of Canadian Legal Claims for
Damage Caused by Cosmos 954, 27 McGILL L. J. 676, 705-12, (1982) (arguing that the 1972
Liability Convention is prescriptive). For a general discussion of the Liability Convention, see
Foster, supra note 1, 137 passim; Schwarzchild, Space Law-,-Convention on Liability-Proce-
dure Established to Enforce Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 6 VAND. J. TRANS-
NAT'L L. 262 (1972); STAFF OF SENATE COMM. ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES,
92D CONG., 2D SESS., CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED
BY SPACE OBJECTS: ANALYSIS AND BACKGROUND DATA (Comm. Print 1972).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/yjil10&div=11&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Cosmos 954 and the International Law of Satellite Accidents
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most