Digital publication | Page 19

19

1 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies art. 7, Jan. 27, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2415, 610 U.N.T.S. 209.

2 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects art 2, Mar. 29, 1972, 24 U.S.T. 2392, 961 U.N.T.S. 189.

3 NASA ORBITAL DEBRIS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, http:// orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/faqs.html#3.

4 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 61, May 23, 1969. 1155 U.N.T.S. 346.

Technology changes rapidly. Therefore, the drafters chose to focus on the damage caused by the objects themselves rather than establishing any procedural standards for individuals that would have inevitably become obsolete. The complexity of the requisite technology and the innumerable variables involved in any space mission make it very difficult to determine whose duty was breached by whom when an accident occurs. Without such objective standards, it is incredibly difficult to determine who was at fault in a negligence analysis.

To make matters more complicated, there is hardly any precedent to indicate how these agreements would be applied. The first collision of space objects that would have served as a proper test case did not even occur until 2009 when the Russian Kosmos 2251 satellite collided with the privately-owned Iridium satellite. However, the Iridium satellite was launched by a Russian spacecraft. Even if it were possible to assign fault to Russia’s negligence in the operation of Kosmos 2251, Russia would still only be liable to itself. The case never made it to court.

It is hard to speculate what would have happened in Gravity without more plot details. It is clear that Russia intentionally shot a missile at one of its satellites, establishing the proximal causation required in any typical negligence analysis. If Russia breached some duty of care by not making sure its activity would not cause harm to others, then the case seems pretty open and shut. But what if there were some intervening factors? What if debris diverted the planned course of debris into the path of the Hubble crew?

What if natural forces were at play? There is a force majeure provision in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that sanctions the non-compliance of treaties. Could that be enough to absolve Russia from liability within the context of space law? Some countries, such as the United States, choose to resolve a lot of these ambiguities through private contracts and insurance policies. Other scholars attempt to make sense of this type of tort liability in space by drawing analogous connections to other areas of the law, such as maritime law.

One thing is certain - This space debris problem is going to progressively get worse. As technology develops and space travel becomes more common, the likelihood that the fictional accidents of Gravity will become real is only going to increase, and so will the need for more definitive international guidelines.