united nations - unoosa.org€¦ · web viewthe document symbols are a/ac.105/c.2/l.243, as well...

United Nations COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

Committee on the Peaceful Unedited transcriptUses of Outer SpaceLegal Subcommittee

692nd MeetingFriday, 4 April 2003, 3 p.m.Vienna

Chairman: Mr. Kopal (Czech Republic)

The meeting was called to order at 3.09 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon distinguished delegates, I now declare open the 692nd

meeting of the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

Report of the Legal Subcommittee to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

Distinguished delegates, I would now like to begin adoption of the Legal Subcommittee’s report to the General Assembly. I will start by giving a brief introduction to the documents that are before us. The draft report of the session of the Subcommittee is in three sections. The document symbols are A/AC.105/C.2/L.243, as well as Addendum 1 and Addendum 2. The first part of the draft report, A/AC.105/C.2/L.243 contains the introduction as well as the Sections on General Exchange of Views; and Status and Application of the Five United Nations Treaties on Outer Space.

The second part of the report, A/AC.105/C.2/L.243/Add.1 contains the sections on Information of the Activities of International Organizations Relating to Space Law; Matters Relating to the Definition and Delimitation of Outer Space and the Character and Utilization of the Geostationary Orbit; and Review and Possible Revision of the Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space.

The third and final part of the report, A/AC.105/C.2/L.243/Add.2 contains the sections on

Examination of the Preliminary Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment; and Proposals to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space for New Items to be Considered by the Legal Subcommittee at its Forty-Third Session.

Do all delegations have these three sections of the draft report before them, that is L.243, Addendum 1 and Addendum 2?

I understand that all delegations have already got these texts and have already had the opportunity to read it and to check it.

Distinguished delegations, we shall now proceed with paragraph-by-paragraph adoption of the first part of the draft report, document A/AC.105/C.2/L.243. Only to give you the exact information to complete it, the texts of the reports from the Working Groups that have been prepared by the distinguished Chairpersons of these Groups, will be considered by the Committee later on after we finish the main text of the report. We have found it more useful due to a very short time that we have unfortunately at our disposal because we have to finish this session at 1800 hrs this evening, that is 6.00 p.m. this evening. So I make an appeal to all of you to be as cooperative as possible with the Chair so that we could really reach this aim to finish all our business at 6.00 p.m. this evening.

Distinguished delegates, as I already told you, proceed with paragraph-by-paragraph adoption of the first part of the draft report, it is document

________________________________________________________________________________________________

In its resolution 50/27 of 6 December 1995, the General Assembly endorsed the recommendation of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space that, beginning with its thirty-ninth session, the Committee would be provided with unedited transcripts in lieu of verbatim records. This record contains the texts of speeches delivered in English and interpretations of speeches delivered in the other languages as transcribed from taped recordings. The transcripts have not been edited or revised.

Corrections should be submitted to original speeches only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and be sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned, within one week of the date of publication, to the Chief, Translation and Editorial Service, Room D0708, United Nations Office at Vienna, P.O. Box 500, A-1400, Vienna, Austria. Corrections will be issued in a consolidated corrigendum.

V.03-83860

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

A/AC.105/C.2/L.243. So please take this document and we shall start immediately.

The title, I think is all right. We will now proceed with Introduction, A. Opening of the Session.

Paragraph 1. Adopted.


Sub-section B. Adoption of the Agenda.


Sub-section C. Attendance.



Paragraph 6. I, myself, have a minor comment on paragraph 6. We use here the language in the English version, representatives of the following entities of the United Nations system. I believe that it should be of the following Organizations of the United Nations system, because all the Organizations of the United Nations system, that are quoted here, or are that recalled here, are really Organizations, not only entities or something that would be rather weak or so.

Yes, France.

Mr. C.-H. BROSSEAU (France) (interpretation from French): Thank you. I just wanted to agree with your proposal for the French version too.

The CHAIRMAN: Very well. With this minor amendment, paragraph 6, can it be adopted? Adopted.

Paragraph 7. No comments? Adopted.

Sub-section D. Organization of Work.

Paragraph 8. I do not believe that we need to approve each sub-paragraph-by-sub-paragraph because this is the text that is usually included in our report so I submit for your consideration paragraph 8 as a whole.

Adopted.

Paragraph 9. Yes, Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask

what we do during the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee session last month to do the same thing to precede(?) of paragraph 9, actual paragraphs 17 and 18 because I think before entering into the, let us say, routine matters, to precede our condolences for the loss of the Columbia crew and then our congratulations are welcome. A point of order.

If a national delegation speaks is, I think, not in use to hear comments through the room. I think it is not in our practice. So I ask to protect the national delegates when they are speaking. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

May I continue my proposal?

The CHAIRMAN: I would like to respond to the point of order first. First of all, I did not comment on your statement. I am ready to protect you . Thank you.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

The CHAIRMAN: Can you continue now on the substance?

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you, it is very kind, Mr. Chairman. The idea developed by my delegation last Friday, I think, is valuable for now is to precede the routine matters are included in paragraph 9 and following by paragraph 17 and paragraph 18, and to add also a paragraph of congratulations, what already we do during the meetings, congratulations for the appointment of Mr. Camacho and also our thanks and gratitude to Madam Othman and Petr Lála on their retirement. That was, and we can put verbatim the three corresponding paragraphs from the Report of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of Greece. My question only is whether your comment relating to paragraphs 17 and 18, whether it relates to the organization of work because, if my recollection is correct, it was pronounced under the consideration of general exchange of views.

And as to your second suggestion concerning the expression of recognition and gratitude to the out-going members of the Secretariat, it should be, of course, included in our report and the question is again whether exactly could the Secretariat check where such paragraphs are usually included in the report of the United Nations body, in the past and present.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

I give the floor to the Secretariat.

Mr. C. DAVIS (Deputy Secretary, Office for Outer Space Affairs): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, under the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, we moved these paragraphs to the beginning of the general exchange of views so maybe in this case they could be placed just before paragraph 14 of the Legal Subcommittee report. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I believe that it is quite a reasonable proposal. It will be inserted under General Exchange of Views before paragraph 14 but we would need exact drafting of this particular paragraph. So either we could use the same text that was already included in the Report of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee or prepare a special text. But since we are still discussing, to my knowledge, Organization of Work, so we should first finish the part called Organization of Work.

The distinguished Ambassador of Chile, do you want to speak? No, thank you for your cooperation.



Sub-section E. Adoption of the Report of the Legal Subcommittee. This is paragraph 12. Paragraph 12 has to be completed, of course, by exact details. Do you know these figures? If not, we can leave it to the Secretariat with your concurrence. So the Secretariat will complete paragraph 12 and also paragraph 13.

So paragraphs 12 and 13, conditional to the completion of this text. Adopted.

Now, General Exchange of Views. Would you now read the text of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee expressing our recognition.

Mr. C. DAVIS (Deputy Secretary, Office for Outer Space Affairs): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, in addition to the paragraph on the Columbia disaster and on welcoming Algeria as a new member of the Committee, there was an additional paragraph which read “the Subcommittee expressed its gratitude to Petr Lála and Mazlan Othman for their exceptional service in the Office for Outer Space Affairs. The Subcommittee also expressed its

satisfaction with the appointment of Sergio Camacho as Director of the Office.” Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Is this text satisfactory for you? I see no objections.

It is so decided.

Now, perhaps this particular paragraph about welcoming Algeria as a new member of the Committee and its Subcommittees. It would remain as paragraph 18. Before or after this recognition? Before. So we will start with the welcoming of Algeria because this was also the procedure in the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee followed by the gratitude but we have also a paragraph 17 in which our sympathies were expressed.

I have just been advised by the Secretary of the Committee that the order, probably the most convenient order, would first welcoming Algeria. Second, expressing our sympathies and solidarity with the disaster of Columbia. And third the gratitude to the out-going staff members.

Any delegation have some comments?

It is so decided.

We will now start with paragraph 14 which will, of course, be under a different number but the present paragraph 14. I do not see any objections. Adopted.

Paragraph 15, present paragraph 15. No objections? Adopted.

Present paragraph 16. Adopted.

Paragraph 17 has been already included but only formally. Are there any objections to the text of this particular paragraph? No. Adopted.

Similarly the text on welcoming Algeria was already approved. Do you have any comments?

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) In February, we added after “all humanity, the Subcommittee expressed its hope that” this, the accident, this would not negatively affect international space programmes, which is a hope and wish to see a continuation independently of the loss. And I think even from the, not only sentimentally, but also from the political point of view, it is very important to underline this wish and this hope. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

So if you allow me to suggest the colleagues, through you, to accept the same wording of paragraph 10 of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee Report of last February. Thank you, that is my suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN: Does every delegation concur with this proposal?

I see no objections.

It is so approved.

Paragraph 18. I already raised this question. We already adopted the idea and now, once again, the text is approved.

Paragraph 19. Australia has the floor.

Ms. S. PAYMAN (Australia): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just very minor editorial amendments here. If we could delete, I am in the first line, “among” and in the second line “on the part” so that it reads “some delegations expressed concern over the on-going absenteeism or lack of active participation of some Member States”. It just reads more clearly.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you. It is indeed an improvement from the linguistic point of view and nobody would object. Is there any objections against it? I see none. Adopted.

Paragraph 20. Any objections? None. Adopted.

Paragraph 21. I see no objections. Adopted.

Paragraph 22. No objections? Adopted.

Paragraph 23. I see no objections. Approved.


Paragraph 25. I recognize China.

Mr. J. XU (China) (interpretation from Chinese): Thank you Mr. Chairman, we have some minor points. First, as far as the Chinese version is concerned, a word should be changed. I think it is a printing error that should be corrected. On the other hand, we would like to insert a word “negative” in front of “impact”, the last line, and we think “stability” should be replaced by “peace”.

The last line we should add “negative” before “impact” and we change “stability” to peace. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you China for your amendment. I would only ask the other delegations that shared the same view if it is also appropriate for them, otherwise it should express the views of some delegations, the other delegations need not necessarily comment.

Yes, the Russian Federation.

Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. We agree to that amendment and we would like to say this here raised not only the Chinese text but to the English text as well. It should insert “… of outer space and negatively impact” or “have a negative impact on international stability and security”. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, perhaps indeed it should be necessary to say “.. and have negative impact”. Yes. Very well. Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. We agree with the proposal from the distinguished representative of China and the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished Ambassador for Chile. So that paragraph 25 can be adopted. It is so decided.

Paragraph 26. The Russian Federation.

Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. This view reflects the statements during the general exchange of views, general statements of the Head of our delegation. It should be formulated a bit more accurately. I shall read it. “The view was expressed that while ”, “outer” should be inserted, outer space, not just space. So outer space could be used for, Mr. Dziubenko said, defensive purposes, not military. So we suppress “military” and insert say “defensive purposes”. And after the comma, the following should be inserted” “, on the condition of non-stationing weapons”. These are all the amendments to paragraph 26. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you Russian Federation. I believe since it expresses the view of your delegation, you are entitled to make such a

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

proposal to improve the exact meaning of what you have suggested.

Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Of course, we must recognize the proposal made by the Russian Federation and we would also like to give our support to that proposal.

The CHAIRMAN: Did I understand you correctly, distinguished Ambassador, that you, in this way, would like to associate your delegation with this so that, in that case, not the view but some delegations expressed the view?

Yes.

With this amendment, could it be adopted? I see no objections. It is adopted.

Paragraph 27. China.

Mr. J. XU (China) (interpretation from Chinese): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Well actually this paragraph reflects the position of the Chinese delegation. The second line, we want to remove the word “might”. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Just a minute. It must be “which includes”, not “include”, but “includes establishment of a comprehensive and effective legal regime”.

With this amendment of the author delegation of this particular paragraph …, Chile has the floor.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Here, once again, briefly. We would like to be associated in the proposal from the distinguished representative of the People’s Republic of China.

The CHAIRMAN: So it means again to insert instead of “the view was expressed”, “some delegations expressed the view”? Yes. Thank you very much.

With these amendments, is the text of paragraph 27 adopted? The United States has the floor.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just a question of procedure. My understanding is these paragraphs, particular paragraphs 26 and 27, deal with what was

said during the general exchange of views. And I am just wondering if the Secretariat had made a mistake when they recorded these as the view was expressed in paragraph 26 and the view was expressed in paragraph 27. Or am I to assume now that perhaps those views had not been expressed at that time by the delegation of Chile but they now wish to express those views here in the draft report or the adoption of the draft report. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of the United States. I, myself, cannot check it but I should ask the Secretariat to assist me in this respect.

Brazil has the floor.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I was just asking the modification. I did not understand very clear the second line of paragraph 27, instead of “which might include” is now “which includes”.

The CHAIRMAN: “… includes”.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you Brazil. Is the Secretariat ready to advise me? The Russian Federation please.

Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. There is no need to verify the timing and placing of certain statements, since our delegation made its statement in the plenary during the general exchange of views, within the same lines, so the beginning of paragraph 27 with the words “some delegations” should be kept. It is not only the Chinese delegation but our delegation also was expressing the same view so some delegations is OK in this paragraph. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your advising me in this respect. If it was really so, I believe that this formula “some delegations expressed the view” would be quite correct.

Is there any other objection against the text of paragraph 27? I do not see any. It is adopted.

Yes, Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Twenty-eight already, Mr. Chairman? Since 27 has been approved. The view

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

of our delegation, but even more, it was a fact our delegation explicitly mentioned that what is here on politicalized discussions is not the subject of a consensus. Politicized discussion has a pejorative connotation that does not fit with the function of this body. So that term should be deleted. Should not be drawn in politicized discussions about issues that would be better addressed in other multilateral forums.

As far as I know, all the debates were political. This was not scientific, technical or about sports. What we would like is to have that whole last part deleted.

The CHAIRMAN: So that it would read as follows, “the view was expressed that it was important for the Committee and its Subcommittees to maintain their focus on the international issues that arose in the context of the peaceful uses of outer space …” Full stop here? Yes.

The United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, would be entirely acceptable to my delegation if it were not for the fact that this paragraph reflects my delegation’s views, and this says that “the view was expressed”. And this is a view expressed by my delegation and we insist that it stay in as written, with one minor change. After the words “context of the peaceful uses of outer space”, which is towards the end of that paragraph, insert the phrase, after “outer space, consistent with its mandate, …”. Now I fully appreciate the fact that there may be differing opinions but this does reflect my delegation’s view and I think it is entirely appropriate that my delegation’s view should remain as stated and as we wish. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of the United States. Yes, I recognize now Chile and then Greece.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you. First of all, I would like to apologize to the delegation of the United States. The form of the beginning of the paragraph is not following the drafting traditions here in this body. I have not realized that it was a point made by the United States so, of course, my delegation cannot, and will not, oppose this. And actually, we would like to be associated in the amended form in which this paragraph has now been suggested by the United States. Of course, it is one delegation’s view and it has to be respected as is the tradition here.

There is just one subtle editorial problem here, 26 and 27, “the view was expressed”. The language is different in the Spanish version of 27, it does not use the same words. The manner in which the distinguished representative of the United States presented this actually improves the presentation of this and we would like to be associated in this.

(Interpreter) The interpreter would like to point out that the Spanish paragraphs all begin with different words, all three paragraphs where it says “the view was expressed” in English.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Chile. Before giving the floor to Greece, I would only like to say that it seems to me that it is a problem of the Spanish version, that the Spanish version does not correspond exactly to the English version. And second, that it must be spelt out in the same way, it means, if it one delegation, “so the view was expressed”. If it is more than one delegation, starting from two and more delegations, it should be “some delegations expressed the view”. So please this is just a question of coordination of two different versions of the text.

Greece has the floor. No. Thank you.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): I am already covered by the United States.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. So with these amendments and explanations, can it be adopted? It is adopted.

Paragraph 29. Any comments? I see none. Adopted.

Paragraph 30. Brazil, relating to 30 or 29?

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Twenty-nine. Thank you Mr. Chairman, although the Brazilian delegation did not take part on this discussion, specifically on the competence of the Committee, I have the impression that the delegation expressed that the Committee is competent to consider and not that they should have competence to consider. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. So that you would propose “some delegations expressed the view that the Subcommittee has competence” or “is competent”? Yes.

China has the floor.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

Mr. J. XU (China) (interpretation from Chinese): Thank you Mr. Chairman. We have no objection to paragraph 29 but we would like to suggest that after this paragraph, we should add one more paragraph as paragraph 30.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, in the general exchange of views, we have made a statement. There was a very important view, that means we suggest that we should discuss the comprehensive convention. However, in this report, our view has not been expressed. If I remember it correctly, our honourable delegate of Russia and the delegates of Chile, Mexico, and they have all supported this point of view, this convention. So we should add this paragraph, I think. Maybe we could say like this, “some delegations expressed the view that consideration should be given to drafting a universal comprehensive convention on international space law so as to promote the establishment and gradual development of outer space law”. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of China. Please, we will first finish paragraph 29 and then we will discuss on the additional paragraph proposed by China.

So, first of all, paragraph 29, as amended by Brazil, “some delegations expressed the view that the Subcommittee is competent to consider certain …” and so on. Is it acceptable for all delegations?

I see no objections? Adopted.

Now about the draft paragraph which was spelt out by the distinguished representative of China. If my recollection is correct, so this idea or this text has been spelt out during the discussion on the general exchange of views and the general exchange of views contributions are not reflected in the report. There is a general reference to the verbatim records. But if you insist, and if the other delegations agree, it might be repeated here but I really do not know the concurrence of all delegations.

The Secretary has requested the floor.

Mr. P. LÁLA (Secretary, Office for Outer Space Affairs): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to accommodate the wish of the Chinese delegation. In order to keep the section of general exchange of views as concise as possible, if there any views which are related to other items, we try to put those views together in two corresponding parts. So if you kindly look to paragraph 41 in this document, you will see this is the part regarding the status and

application of the five United Nations treaties, there is a text in paragraph 41 which may accommodate the views of the Chinese and other delegations. If you are satisfied with this notion, you do not need to repeat this in the general exchange of views. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: China.

Mr. J. XU (China) (interpretation from Chinese): Thank you for the explanation. We believe that paragraph 41 has not expressed completely our concern because what we said was a very important content and the other delegations have the same view as well, so we insist that this paragraph should be added. Last year, in last year’s report, it is written the same way. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much China. Would you kindly repeat the text as you have suggested?

Mr. J. XU (China) (interpretation from Chinese): Thank you Mr. Chairman. “Some delegations expressed the view that consideration should be given to drafting a universal comprehensive convention on international space law so as to promote the establishment and gradual development of outer space law”. Of course, the exact wording can be modified.

The CHAIRMAN: The Russian Federation. You have the floor Sir.

Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Indeed, in our general statement, we were also speaking about the need of such an instrument, and if I am not mistaken, the distinguished delegate of Cuba, who was speaking on behalf of the Group of States of GRULAC, was also supporting the idea of the necessity of the comprehensive convention on the law of outer space. Thank you. Just during the general debate. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there any other delegation wishing to speak on this? The United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to having this paragraph so long as the views of my delegation, that were expressed during the general exchange of views, is also reflected as paragraph, I suppose 31 or 32, I am not sure where we are presently. I will read this out in dictation speed.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

“The view was expressed that the Subcommittee should undertake activities that support the continued vitality of the present outer space treaty regime. That delegation noted that to entertain the possibility of the negotiation of a new comprehensive space law instrument can only serve to undermine the existing space law regime.” Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of the United States. But I have an impression. I am not quite sure about it that a similar text is already spelt out somewhere else in the report because, particularly the last sentence about the undermining the present and so, I have read somewhere.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. But, Mr. Chairman, my delegation feels it is very important to maintain some balance in this report. I will be quite happy to leave the existing language in this other section where it is. But if other delegations insist that views that were expressed several times over the course of our meeting have to be reiterated in every section of the report, I will have to exercise that prerogative as well. And to be honest with you, Mr. Chairman, I do not mind being redundant at all. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of the United States. After all, it reflects the view of your delegation so you are entitled to draft it in accordance with your intention.

Ladies and gentlemen, we now have two new draft paragraphs that should come into the report as paragraph 30 and paragraph 31. Is there any delegation? I recognize Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. My delegation would like to ask that immediately after the paragraph proposed by the United States has been approved, that we add the following paragraph that I will be reading at dictation speed.

“Some delegations considered it important that the examination of the topic of remote sensing be included on the agenda of the Legal Subcommittee, taking into account that the principles elaborated on remote sensing through resolution 41/65 of the United Nations General Assembly have not been duly updated, in the light of current technological process and the increasing on-going participation of the private sector in space activities.” Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Also we have still another draft paragraph that should be paragraph 32. What is the position of the delegations?

I see no comments. May I assume that these three draft paragraphs will be inserted as paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 in the text of the Subcommittee’s report?

I see no objection. It is so decided.

The present paragraph 30, that would become now 33 or still more because we have already included some new paragraphs. So the present paragraph 30, “the view was expressed that the principles contained in the key space law instruments …” and so on. Is there any objection against this?

France.

Mr. C.-H. BROSSEAU (France) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is not an objection on substance, this paragraph, but the French delegation made a declaration during the general debate that we believe is important. It was on space debris. And we said that we wanted that item to appear on the agenda of the Legal Subcommittee. Following the comments made by other delegations before this, we would like to see a new paragraph to be inserted wherever you think is best, possibly at the end of this chapter, to reflect our position on putting this item on the agenda of the Legal Subcommittee. And if you could go along with this, I could possibly read this paragraph and then after that, I could give this in writing to the Secretariat for insertion.

It would read as follows. “The view was expressed that the guidelines on the reduction of space debris, presented by the Inter-Agency Committee to the Subcommittee for their adoption the following year should be effectively and universally applied. To that end, the Legal Subcommittee could consider within a multi-year programme of work the legal issues raised by these guidelines and envisage the preparation of a legal instrument to ensure their effective and universal application”.

That would be, Mr. Chairman, if the other delegations do not object, we would like to see this paragraph incorporated to reflect our position on this matter as it was expressed during the general debate. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you distinguished representative of

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

France. I would just like to say that the beginning of this proposal of yours should start with “the view was expressed” in English. But in any case, I certainly hope to see you present that in writing to the Secretariat.

Chile has the floor.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I think the French delegation has made a mistake there. It was not just the view that was expressed. Several delegations expressed that view. We did, as did others. Thus, if the representative of France could agree with me, we could amend that text, unless he objects. I see a very serious expression on his face. Would he agree? Great.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. As a matter of fact, I fully agree with the distinguished representative of Chile because my delegation, too, presented similar ideas during our statement under the general exchange of views. So it should be, indeed, some delegations expressed the view.

Yes, Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you. I would also like to associate myself with this remark. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: May I assume that the text that has been presented here by the distinguished representative of France is acceptable for all of you?

I see no objections. It is so decided.

So in this way, we can continue Part III. Status and Application of the Five United Nations Treaties on Outer Space.

So paragraph 31. Is there any objection against it? I see none. Adopted.



Paragraph 34. Chile has the floor.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a problem with the Spanish language version. I believe that the work done by the Secretariat is of great importance and very useful for all

delegations. It is not Club Med that we are recommending but I do not think it can just be a shoot covering the five treaties. We believe that this work is of utmost importance and we would like to congratulate the Secretariat for the work that has been done.

The CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, distinguished representative of Chile, you intend to include such a sentence or phrase in paragraph 34?

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): I do apologize, I was referring to 33. In the Spanish language version of it, the term for booklet is “forjeto” in Spanish. I do not how it sounds in other languages. I tried to figure out the Chinese version and the Arabic ones, but they just do not mean much to me, but “forjeto” in Spanish for booklet, does not recognize the great merits of the work done by the Secretariat. I think we should even add something to say that we welcome the work or congratulate the Secretariat for what they did. I would just suggest that somewhere in this paragraph, we put in congratulations to the Secretariat for the work done. Now that is a new proposal and I am asking for other delegations to consider it, that is paragraph 33.

First of all, we have to do away with that word in there that is the equivalent of booklet. I cannot think of a better word but the content is not correct. We could either say “welcomed the work” or “congratulate the Secretariat”. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: I now understand what you had in mind. Perhaps we could use a usual phrase that “the Subcommittee welcomed with satisfaction” or something like that and we could replace the term “booklet” by another term, “the publication” simply.

With these amendments, is it acceptable for all delegations? Yes. It is so decided.

Paragraph 34. I do not believe that we have to go by sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and so on. I will take the paragraph as a whole, unless you have, of course, in mind drawing to our attention to possible factual errors. The United States.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just briefly. In paragraphs (a) through (e), the number of accessions or States Parties and signatures, are those reflective as of January 2003 or do they reflect actions taken by States, as reflected in paragraph 35? Thank you.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

The CHAIRMAN: So far as I know, the addendum to the brochure or booklet was as of 1 January 2003. My question is to the Secretariat whether it is in them the number of adhesions has increased or not. You do not know. In that case, it should be spelt out that it is as of 1 January 2003.

Thank you very much United States.

So it will be added here, spelt out here.

Any other comments on paragraph 34? I see none. It is adopted.

Paragraph 35. Any comments? None. Adopted.

Paragraph 36. The Russian Federation and then Chile.

Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am terribly sorry because my comment here raised only to the Russian version. Again, the word “further” has been translated into Russian as “more deeply” or “more deep” which is not correct. Therefore, in the Russian version, it should be “further considered” should be “pursued” is further considered. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: I think we have been up to now to 35, but still if you have already spelt it out, we will take into account your comment when dealing with 36.


Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a comment to make on 36. If we have not finished on 35 yet, I will wait until you give me the floor for 36.

The CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 35. Is it acceptable as it is now? Adopted.

Paragraph 36. We have heard already the comment from the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. Now Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. For the Spanish language version, and I do not know if this applies to the other language versions. The Spanish version says “the Legal Subcommittee agreed that the substance of the proposed separate …..(inaudible) of the resolution on

the application …” and so on, should be further considered. And it was decided that it should be the merits and the substance. The merits are missing from the Spanish language version. So it should say the merits and the substance in Spanish.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, I believe that it should be equal in both languages or in all official languages of the United Nations.

Argentina has the floor.

Mr. S. SAYÚS (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to back what was said by the distinguished Ambassador of Chile. I believe the English text refers to the merits and substance and that was the wording agreed in the Working Group. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. So with these comments, it means the first one was presented by Russian concerning the English term “further considered” but it was a comment on the Russian text, I understand. And then the comments of Chile, supported by Argentina, on the Spanish text with these amendments, it means to accepting this paragraph in its English version, the language of the English version, and the other versions should be adjusted in this case.

So is it acceptable for all delegations?

I see no objections. Adopted.


Paragraph 38. Brazil.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Only to the second line, in the middle, the word “that” is written twice. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think you are right, because sometimes we need two “that” us, this is not the case now here.

With the minor correction of the Brazilian delegation, can it be adopted? It is so adopted.

Paragraph 39. Any comments on 39? None. Adopted.

Paragraph 40. China has the floor.

Mr. J. XU (China) (interpretation from Chinese): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Now I have to

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

take the floor again, please forgive me. Mr. Chairman, as you know, my delegation made two statements under this agenda item. In our first statement, we described our domestic legislation. In our second intervention, we stressed the need to pay attention to relevant domestic legislation of one encouraging wider adhesion to United Nations treaties on outer space. But I cannot find the Chinese views expressed or reflected in this report. So I have to make a comment to request the insertion of a new paragraph. We propose that this paragraph be as follows.

It goes like this. “One delegation made a statement describing in detail their country’s domestic legislation on outer space and its implementation and expressed that while encouraging a wider adherence to the five United Nations treaties on outer space, equal attention should be given to relevant domestic legislation, the two issues are equally important.” Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you China. Of course, you are entitled to have your proposal adequately reflected in the report but first of all, we cannot start by one delegation. Again, the view was expressed would be the correct formula. But since paragraph 40 already reflects your position, we could simply add this new proposal to this paragraph 40 and continue like in the additional sentences to the first sentence of paragraph 40 saying “that delegation expressed the view”. And it would be perhaps satisfactory for you? Yes.

Yes, you have the floor.

Mr. J. XU (China) (interpretation from Chinese): Thank you Mr. Chairman. We can agree that it be added as a subparagraph for paragraph 40.

The CHAIRMAN: Take it, you know, a new paragraph and if it starts again “the view was expressed” and then again “the view was expressed”, it might lead to the conclusion that it was an opinion of another delegation while all that was the opinion of your delegation. So perhaps your new text could be implemented in under, at present, Article 40, “that delegation expressed”. But I would appreciate if you could submit this text in writing to the Secretariat. Yes.

Mr. J. XU (China) (interpretation from Chinese): If I am not mistaken, you are suggesting that we add a subparagraph in paragraph 40, then we agree. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much but please submit the new text, the new subparagraph to the Secretariat in writing.

Thank you very much. I am now not quite sure whether we adopted paragraph 40 so for reasons of safety, paragraph 40 is adopted. Do you agree with these amendments, it means with the supplement of the delegation of China?

It is so decided.

Paragraph 41. I see no objections? Adopted.


Paragraph 43. Yes, the distinguished representative of the United States. This is the place where you already expressed your idea that you now added earlier. So I only wanted to draw your attention to this fact.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. … good as it did the first time, so I think I could leave it right there. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 43. Any objections. It is the view so it is the view. Adopted.

Paragraph 44. Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Sorry, Mr. Chairman, we unfortunately did not hear the interpretation of what Mr. Hodgkin’s said because he switched his microphone on too late so could he kindly repeat what he said. Thank you.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I only made the observation that this paragraph looks as good now as it did the first time I proposed it in the other section, so we are quite happy to leave this paragraph here as well. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Paragraph 43. Any other objections? No. Adopted.


Paragraph 45. Mexico has the floor.

Ms. M. T. ROSAS JASSO (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. We would like to recall that it was Mexico

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

that made this point and consequently we would like the last part to reflect exactly what was said. The last line says “that these measures could form an important precedent for …” and here we would suggest that we say “to avoid similar initiatives arising in other countries”.

Two, we would suggest that we say “to indeed ensure that there be application of the five treaties”. So the text would read as follows. “could form an important precedent to ensure the implementation of other measures encouraging the application of the five treaties”. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you Mexico. Since it reflects your view, it means the view of your delegation, I think it must be … Could you still, for the benefit of the Secretariat, repeat once again the language?

Ms. M. T. ROSAS JASSO (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): With pleasure Sir. Do you want me to re-read the entire paragraph?

“The view was expressed that recent measures taken by the United States to clarify the criteria for the inclusion of space objects on that country’s national registry were welcome and could form an important precedent” and here comes the rest.

The CHAIRMAN: Slowly please.

Ms. M. T. ROSAS JASSO (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): “… to implement other measures to encourage the uniform application of the five treaties.”

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. It reflects the view of one delegation so I believe that it should be adopted.

Is there any other comment on this paragraph? No. Adopted.


Paragraph 47. It should be again completed by the Secretariat, the brackets, the dots in the brackets.

Any comments? None. Adopted.

The last paragraph of this part of the report, paragraph 48. Again, to be completed by the Secretariat. Adopted.

And it is just the first part. We will now consider Addendum 1. It means document A/AC.105/C.2/L.243/Add.1. Part four of the draft report of the Legal Subcommittee, Information on the Activities of International Organizations Relating to Space Law.

Paragraph 1. Any comments on paragraph 1? I see none. Adopted.



Paragraph 4. Any comments? Adopted.









Paragraph 13. Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the text of 13 and its last line, beginning by amendments to the paragraphs 12 and at 18 at second line of the report, that is the L.240, on the Group of Experts, etc., exactly to precise the second part, substantive part of L.240 is substituted by CRP.8. That is my intention. If the Secretariat, through your kind intervention, have to propose something better, I am open. What I need is that all readers of the report know that the second part under II of L.240 is completely changed and replaced. And I also have a question. This CRP.8 will be not translated into the other languages because it was only in English. Can we produce after the session a corrigendum or a Rev.1 instead to incorporate in all official languages the CRP.8? Thank you very much.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So I understand that your comment was addressed, or concern was addressed to the Secretariat and the Secretariat will do its best in this respect.

Paragraph 13 is now approved? I see no objections. Adopted.

Paragraph 14. Again Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): The Subcommittee that it was, and I would like to see, and remains the primary international forum, remains not it was only.

The CHAIRMAN: No, sorry, this is conceputsiat(?) temporum(?) in Latin. It means if you say noted so it must be it was.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): It was and still remains.

The CHAIRMAN: No, it remains.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): OK. And at end of the second paragraph, the entire body of space law, not of law, of space law. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, your second comment is quite correct.

With these small amendments, the entire body of space law. Is it acceptable. I think so. It is adopted.

Paragraph 15. Mexico has the floor.

Ms. M. T. ROSAS JASSO (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. There is a proposal we would like to make before going on to 15 and that is we add a new paragraph on something that my delegation said when dealing with this matter and I would like to read my proposal out.

“The view was expressed that it be considered that the COMEST proposal offers a good opportunity to analyze questions that have been left in the margins of the international agenda and that it is desirable to seek adequate mechanisms allowing a balance between interests of States exploring outer space and the benefits that such exploration should generate for humanity.” Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of Mexico. I will ask you

for the repetition of this text but prior to that, I would suggest to include this new paragraph that would reflect the view of your delegation after paragraph 16 because we have paragraph 15 starting “the Subcommittee thanked the …” and so on. Then we have 16 “the Subcommittee also agrees …” and so on and then it could be followed by the view of your delegation.

Could you now repeat the text at dictation speed?

Ms. M. T. ROSAS JASSO (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): “The view was expressed that the COMEST proposal offers a good opportunity to analyze questions that have been left outside or in the margins of the international agenda and that it is desirable to seek adequate mechanisms allowing a balance between the interests of States exploring outer space and the benefits that such exploration should generate for humanity.”

That is the proposal we have and my delegation would have no problem if you want it after paragraph 16. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. So first of all, on the present paragraph 15. Is there any objection? Brazil?

Paragraph 15 may be adopted? It is so decided.

Paragraph 16. On the present paragraph 16, it means the Subcommittee also agreed or on the Mexican proposal?

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Two comments, Mr. Chairman. We would like to support the proposal from Mexico which is very relevant but I would also like to comment on paragraph 16 as we have it numbered now. Is this the right time?

The CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 16 as it is now. Greece, on paragraph 16?

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you Mr. Chairman. May I ask you to replace the words, the first line at the end, “might wish to send”, “might consider to send”, I think it is preferable. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes. Is it acceptable for all delegations? The Greek proposal? Yes, I see no objections. It is adopted.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

And now on the new paragraph proposed by the delegation of Mexico. You have the floor Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you. I just wanted to repeat that my delegation supports the proposal made by the distinguished representative of Mexico. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Brazil.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like just to remind that after the Mexican statement, our delegation informed that we found it a very good and positive statement. We also stressed that we shared completely the points presented on the statement and I also suggested that the statement of Mexico to be included on the pertinent documents. So in this case, I think that instead of saying “exsepresso (Spanish word)”, we could use “some delegations expressed” but as we also made a very clear statement in accordance with the Mexican statement. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Greece?

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a point of order. I have to remind to all the colleagues, through you, of course, that paragraphs 15 to 17 were already approved in plenary just after the presentation of the final report of the Group of Experts on Ethics. And I think that we agreed that this text would be included in this report. That was what we decided last week.

Secondly, all views expressed by the experts are included in CRP.3 and I asked exactly to add as Addendum 1 the official intervention made by Mexico. So all individual views are expressed and published. I do not think that we have because if we insist to introduce new paragraphs in this part of the report, we need time to read or to prepare a final clear text. It is up to you to ask from the colleagues if they insist to proceed in this exercise or to leave the already accepted text as it is and then we make the reference to their reports and anybody (inaudible) or otherwise, all countries, all delegations spoken on this specific matter, they have to ask to add in this report their individual views. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, it would be completely impossible at this late hour to include the views of different delegations here and I believe that it

would be completely useless because we will proceed in this discussion next year and everybody will have the opportunity to repeat once again and to present his or her position in this respect. So I make an appeal to you, it is quarter to five, we would not end our session. It means our report.

If it is acceptable for the distinguished delegation of Mexico to withdraw your proposal, it would be very helpful for the Subcommittee. But you open in this way the bundle of a pandora’s box.

Ms. M. T. ROSAS JASSO (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): Mr. Chairman, I believe it is the right of my delegation to include in the report a view that was expressed under that particular item. While it might be related to the report prepared by the Group of Experts, it is also a statement that was made under this item. And, therefore, we believe it is our full right as has been said by other delegations on views expressed during the plenary. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Chile has the floor.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to say that the distinguished representative of Mexico is not opening any Pandora’s Box. She is exercising a right.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other comment? I see none. Brazil, sorry.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I share the opinion of the distinguished Ambassador of Chile. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you Brazil. Any other view? Greece?

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in order to decide on this specific proposal, we need to have the clear text and not to have a clear text. So let us postpone the adoption of this.

(Continued in French) I am sorry but we cannot work like that. With 30 years of experience, I have never interrupted any distinguished delegate. I feel threatened in my freedom to speak. Please, protect me.

(Continued in English) I have to ask to postpone the discussion of this specific paragraph in

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

order to have a clear text before us and then to come back later because otherwise, even in Spanish, just to have a visual view of this text, or to proceed in the third dictation speed, presentation of the text. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I apologize to you, distinguished representative of Greece, but it was not my intention to interrupt you. I only thought that you had already finished your comments and, therefore, I wanted to give the floor to the following speaker and it should be the delegation of Brazil. We will return to your point after the declaration of the Brazilian delegation. You have the floor Sir.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. If all the delegations agree, I would suggest that we continue considering the report, if you agree, of course, and ask if the Secretariat could take the dictated paragraph by the Mexican delegation and print it in English and distribute while we continue considering the report. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you Brazil. I believe that this was also the comment of Greece so that I request the Secretariat to proceed along these lines.

The draft paragraph of Mexico is now postponed for further consideration and we will now consider paragraph 17. The present paragraph 17. Mexico.

Ms. M. T. ROSAS JASSO (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Before you move on to another paragraph, I would like to recall that here we are not negotiating the different positions on any given subject. What we are doing is reflecting in the report the text of what was expressed by a delegation. The Secretariat has the text. It was handed in when it was read out. It is a part of the statement made by the Mexican delegation. Thus, if we follow procedure, as has been done so far, I cannot see any reason for objections against the inclusion of a paragraph from a statement made by a delegation that has been supported by others. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Mexico but I have to draw your attention to the fact that this postponement was also endorsed by the distinguished representative of Brazil who is, according to my impression, one of the co-sponsors of your paragraph. So that I really do not know how to follow in our discussion.

Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask you please not to confuse things. First of all, it is a question of the observance of the exercise of a right on the part of the delegation of Mexico who made a statement. That could involve the opening of a Pandora’s Box because my delegation could also object to some paragraphs regarding statements made by other delegations. It should reflect exactly what was said by the delegation of Mexico. My delegation would not seek to change a new paragraph’s wording. I would like to appeal to our colleague from Brazil to reconsider his stand. It is a point from Latin America and GRULAC has been very cohesive in positions here.

For the procedure, we cannot start changing procedure at this stage. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you Chile. Brazil.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to inform the distinguished Ambassador of Chile. We have no problem at all to reconsider. My proposal was only a practical proposal. It was not referring to the content of the Mexican paragraph to which I was wishing to associate myself and as I had done in the appropriate time. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you Brazil. So what is now your recommendation. Should we postpone or should we immediately start with discussion on this proposal?

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): I think it should be as is best for everyone as I would have the Secretariat’s advice. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have just been advised by the Secretary that the written text is being produced now so if you can wait a few minutes only, every delegation will then have before it the written text and it might facilitate our discussion on this point.

Yes, Chile, you have the floor.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. This whole afternoon we have listened to several delegations who have come forth with texts orally. The distinguished representative of Mexico, twice I believe, repeated her proposal, so the only thing

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

that needs doing, and I believe, I do apologize, to our colleague who will shortly be Ambassador of Brazil, I never at any moment had any doubts of what he said which was absolutely practical, and I would agree with him. But, for us, that proposal from Mexico is one that should be approved now or we change the procedure and any subsequent proposal that comes up orally has to be handed in writing and we will ask for time for examination of it.

And, furthermore, it is my understanding that the proposal that came from Mexico was actually stated under item 5, therefore, it is in writing. And the fact that the Secretariat did not include it is not our fault. This is the opinion of a delegation that, furthermore, was supported by two other delegations and it should be reflected.

The CHAIRMAN: Is there any other delegation wishing to advise us how to proceed? I see none. Sorry, the distinguished representative of Korea.

Mr. K.-Y. CHUNG (Korea): Thank you Mr. Chairman. To make the session effective, I suggest that using computer projector and wide screen, that would be better to photocopy every time case by case. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, the copies of the written text are now available. Should they be distributed or should we act on the basis of the oral proposal? Is this ready? I expect only your advice.

Yes, the United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Mr. Chairman, I appreciate suggestions on how to move our work along but I have to say, in my past interventions during the last two days, I do agree with the distinguished Ambassador for Chile. We have every right to make a proposal from the floor expressing a view, read it at dictation speed and then move on. And this is not a view expressed by the Subcommittee. While we would all like to see everything in writing, I do think that in this particular case, this paragraph was well developed and was fairly clear. So I would just urge delegations to allow us to proceed immediately with this proposal and then on to paragraphs 16, 17 and 18. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: If you agree, we will proceed immediately on the basis of the oral proposal of the Mexican delegation. Is there any comments to this proposal?

I see none. It is adopted.

The next paragraph is 17. No objections? Adopted.


Part V. Matters Relating to the Definition and Delimitation of Outer Space and the Character and Utilization of the Geostationary Orbit Including Consideration of Ways and Means to Ensure the Rational and Equitable Use of the Geostationary Orbit Without Prejudice to the Role of the International Telecommunication Union.

Paragraph 19. Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. There is a paragraph that is not included here. I do apologize. Aside from saying that 16 is an attack on semantics or from semantics and does not help the Legal Subcommittee at all, in Spanish it says “talvez” for “might” which could just mean if they are in the right mood for it. In any case, a mechanism should be established for mutual information between COPUOS and UNESCO and that just is not reflected here so there should be a paragraph that says “the view was expressed”. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: A new paragraph you believe, that you would suggest now, very good. So please, you have the floor.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): It is that paragraph I just suggested, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: I understood that you wished to add a new paragraph.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Yes, exactly. “The view was expressed that a formal mechanism should be established from mutual consultation between COPUOS and UNESCO”. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes. Everybody heard this proposal. Is there any objection? But it reflects the views of one delegation so it should be included, in my opinion.

Any comments? I see none. Adopted.

Now we shall start consideration of Part V.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

Paragraph 19. Any comments? No comments. Adopted.

Paragraph 20. This is just the enumeration of the documents. Any comments? None. Adopted.

Paragraph 21. France.

Mr. C.-H. BROSSEAU (France) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. For clarity’s sake, I think that in the middle of this paragraph we should say that indeed outer space is the international heritage of humanity as a whole because Article 1 indeed states that its exploration and use of outer space, which the humanity as a whole, not outer space itself.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Yes, indeed, you are quite right and this should be corrected as France has suggested because that is the Treaty on Outer Space that says so.

(Continued in English) The United States.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I apologize for going back to paragraph 19 but it is a very brief grammatical correction, I think. The sixth line down, the line beginning “those of developing countries”, the sixth line, we should insert the word “to”, so it reads “to consider matters”. I think that is the lot.

And then my other comment is regarding paragraph 21. Just to confirm that the English text will remain the same with the addition from the delegation of France. I think that the translation was heritage of all mankind and it should read, at least in English, a province. And I just wanted to confirm that the language directly from the Treaty would be used.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. But in the English text, there is the expression “province” and it should be completed by the words “suggested by the distinguished representative of France” because it is indeed the sequence, the sequence is the exploration and use of outer space is the province of mankind.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): I understand that, Mr. Chairman. The translation of the proposal was to change the phrase “where the exploration and use is the common heritage of mankind” but that was the translation I heard. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: It was a bad translation, sorry.

Yes, the Russian Federation.

Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. There is some misunderstanding in the reflection of the views expressed in this paragraph. The fact is that our delegation and other delegations as well, talking about the fact that outer space is free, open for exploration and use of States. So that idea had nothing to do with the exploration and use being the province of all mankind because the difference between air space and outer space is, as is well known, is that outer space is free for every State, for the activities of every State, whereas air space is divided into two regimes, national air space and common airspace. That is why the amendment of the French delegation, we are grateful to the French delegation, he quite rightly drew the attention to the fact that it is not outer space, per se, but exploration and use is the province, but should do nothing about the province in this paragraph at all. We must speak about the openness of all outer space as such without being divided into two different regions. Whereas, air space is divided into two different regions, national air space and international air space. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: If I may spell out my own opinion. Indeed, there should be a reference, not to the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Outer Space Treaty but to the second paragraph of this Article which says that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind.

With this amendment that should be changed by the Secretariat, can this paragraph be adopted?

It is so decided.



Mr. C.-H. BROSSEAU (France) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just to make sure that the French and English versions are aligned. You have Space Shuttle here and that should be “Navette Spatiale” (French).

The CHAIRMAN: With this correction, is it acceptable? It is so decided.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

Paragraph 24. It is the view so it should be reflected. Paragraph 24. Adopted.

Paragraph 25, some delegations. No comments? Adopted.

Paragraph 26. It is the view. Adopted.



Paragraph 29. This was the view of my delegation. So it reflects our position. The United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman, with regard to paragraph 30, I just wanted to ask in the last line, at the end, in conformity with the Radio Regulations, should Radio Regulations not be capitalized or not?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, this will be checked by the editors. But I still have to say regarding paragraph 29 that it was adopted.

Now paragraph 30. There was already one comment. Are there any other comments on 30? I see none. Adopted.


Paragraph 32. The United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. A similar question. In the first line, the word Constitution, Convention and Radio Regulations of ITU, should they not be capitalized? Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Our distinguished colleague from the United States is well ahead here but we will take it into account certainly.

So now paragraph 32. Is there any objection? No. It is so decided.

Paragraph 33. We have heard already a comment of the United States delegation. Any other delegation? Yes, again the Secretariat will check it with the editors. But I, myself, as a lawyer, feel that it should be capitalized.

Adopted.


Mr. C.-H. BROSSEAU (France) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. We have no quarrel with the substance of this paragraph which reflects the views of some delegations. However, it seems to us that 34 is redundant with 30. So if the delegations that expressed these views did not mind, it possible could be struck. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: I could repeat what I have just heard from our distinguished Director but perhaps to shorten the whole procedure, may I ask him to inform us about it himself.

Mr. S. CAMACHO (Director, Office for Outer Space Affairs): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Paragraph 30 reflects the views that were expressed by GRULAC. Whereas paragraph 34 is a combination of views, including some Latin American countries, but also some countries from Asia and the Pacific. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Can you go along with that France?

Mr. C.-H. BROSSEAU (France) (interpretation from French): No problem, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you for your understanding.

(Continued in English) Paragraph 34. Any other comments? Adopted.


Paragraph 36. It is the view. Adopted.



Paragraph 39. Again to be completed by the Secretariat. No comments? Adopted.

Paragraph 40. Again to be completed. Adopted.

Part VI. Review and Possible Revision of the Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space.

Paragraph 41. France has the floor.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

Mr. C.-H. BROSSEAU (France) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. We regret to speak up again on a matter of form which only affects the French version. We did this already last year. We asked for a correction for the “source de d’energie nucleaire” (French), there is no ‘s’ on the end of nucleaire, for grammatical reasons. It is not just a whimsical wish that we are expressing, it is just grammar. If we had wanted to insist on the plurality of the nature of sources, we would have said “sources nucleaires”, in that case, one could have put an ‘s’ for the plural there. But since that is not the case, please do take note that the point that we made last year and that was accepted last year be hammered home definitively. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you for your cooperation.

(Continued in English) Any comments? I see none. Adopted.





Paragraph 46. Brazil has the floor.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think that the notion of the word “peoples” can leave margin to some doubts. I think it is better to use “lives”or “human beings”. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Once again, you suggest to say?

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): It could be “lives” or human beings” instead of “peoples”.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand. The peoples indeed is not quite appropriate here and perhaps it could be replaced by “lives”, “the lives and environment of the Earth”. Is it acceptable?

I see no objection. Adopted.


Paragraph 48. Again to be completed by the Secretariat and I think maybe adopted.

So this is the second part but still a lot remains before us.

Now we shall proceed with consideration and approval of document A/AC.105/C.2/L.243/Add.2. It is Part VII, Examination of the Preliminary Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and so on.


Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to forgive my silliness at this late hour but if I am not mistaken, the Working Group on Agenda Item 8 has not yet adopted its report. Perhaps it would be more wise now to convene a Working Group on Item 8 to adopt the report of the Working Group and then pass to the adoption of the report to the Subcommittee. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure, distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. I do not have strong feelings in this respect. I announced in the beginning that we will first finish the report of the Subcommittee which is the most important part of the report. If you, however, insist on having first the examination of the Examination Working Group, we can proceed like this. But in that case, we should also approve the reports of the other Working Groups and I, myself, would rather advise to continue now in order to finish as much as possible on time. Thank you for your cooperation.

Brazil.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. My doubts I would like to express. We have some restriction to the draft proposal, draft report for the Working Group on Agenda Item 8, and if, in the draft report of the Legal Subcommittee, we approve something that implicitly approved the content of this report, I doubt whether this would be a good idea. That is why I also agree with the proposal of the Russian Federation. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: The Russian Federation in the meantime withdrew its proposal but as I said, I do not have strong feelings if you really feel it appropriate to start a consideration of the report of the Working Group, we can do it now, as you like it.

Greece.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, for the same reasons, we prefer and we propose to begin from the draft report of the Working Group because we need to clarify at least some views expressed within the Working Group are not reflected even though were also repeated in the plenary, are not reflected in the report of the plenary, in Addendum 2. So please be kind enough to begin as soon as possible with the report of the Group on Agenda Item 8. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is any delegation having another opinion? I see none. We will proceed first with the examination of the draft report of the Chairman of the Working Group on Agenda Item 8, Examination of the Preliminary Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment. However, I have to advise the Subcommittee that the Chairman of this particular work, Professor Marchisio has already left. He is not present but he asked me to act instead of him on his behalf. I am not quite happy about it but still I believe that it must be approved by the Subcommittee and, therefore, I will continue in guiding this discussion on the Working Group’s report.

So I believe that everybody has this document. It is document A/AC.105/C.2/2003/L.1.

So paragraph 1 of this draft report. Any comments? I see none. Adopted.

Paragraph 2. No comments. Adopted.

Paragraph 3. To be completed by the Secretariat. Adopted.


Paragraph 5. Any comments on paragraph 5? None. Adopted.



Paragraph 8. Mexico.

Ms. M. T. ROSAS JASSO (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Sorry, I would like to get back to paragraph

7, if I might. To assume responsibility (not clear) in relation to its functions, it says at the end. I believe that it is all right. (Chairman?) Could you repeat please? Paragraph 7, right at the end, what I did not say when I first spoke, what I did not say when I first spoke, right at the end I believe possibly there is a translation problem, it said it would not assume any such function, any responsibility with respect to such a function. My delegation said as long as it would not imply any civil or commercial liability. In Spanish, the text should be somewhat different. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: What would you suggest in the Spanish language? Do you have an idea how to spell out the Spanish language?

Ms. M. T. ROSAS JASSO (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): Well, I would suggest it would not accept any civil liability or commercial liability for the performance of those functions.

The CHAIRMAN: But if we say any liability, so it includes also the civil liability or commercial liability or any other kind of liability. It will be taken care of. Thank you for your comment Mexico.

With this improvement, adopted? It is so adopted.

Paragraph 8. I see it is clear. No comments? Adopted.

Paragraph 9. Any comments? No. Adopted.


Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Mr. Chairman, this paragraph requires some changes of a substantial nature. I shall try to read it out. “Some delegations expressed the view that …”. I suggest that we delete “in” and instead insert “prior to” so that the first line reads “some delegations expressed the view that prior to making a decision … “ and so on and so forth. After the comma, at the end of the second line, the following should be inserted, “the United Nations General Assembly resolution would be required” and “the draft of such resolution”, then at the beginning of third line, “the issue” should be deleted. The rest will remain as it stands so that after the end of the second line, the third and the fourth line read as follows. “The United Nations General Assembly resolution would be required and the draft of such a resolution should be considered by both the Fourth Committee and the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly”. Thank you.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, with these amendments. Yes, Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): I fully agree with the remarks of Professor Kolosov. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you. With these amendments, could it be adopted? I see no objection. Adopted.

Paragraph 11. The United States. Still on 10?

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Yes, Mr. Chairman. Could you please read the paragraph out as revised? Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Mr. C. DAVIS (Deputy Secretary, Office for Outer Space Affairs): Thank you Mr. Chairman. The revised version would be as follows. “Some delegations expressed the view that, prior to making a decision on whether the United Nations could act as Supervisory Authority under the Space Assets Protocol, the United Nations General Assembly resolution would be required and the draft of such a resolution should be considered by both the Fourth Committee and the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly.” Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to comment? No comments on this re-drafting. No comments. Adopted.






Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add after, in the second line, after “the United Nations”, at the end of the second line, “and especially each General Assembly”. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other comments on 15? Is this amendment suggested by Greece acceptable for all?

I see no objections. It is accepted.

Paragraph 16. I, myself, here have a comment. Some delegations expressed the views, this is correct. That the Secretariat might request, I know that the Secretariat is not entitled to make such a request. Maybe then only by the General Assembly and the Security Council and with the consent of the General Assembly by any other body of the United Nations or other organizations of the United Nations system so it should somehow be completed.

Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you Mr. Chairman, that is the reason for which I asked for the floor. It is not well reflected what I said and supported is that the COPUOS, as subsidiary body, to recommend to the General Assembly, to request the advisory opinion. That was the sense of my proposal.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, could you repeat this sentence?

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): “Some delegations expressed the view that COPUOS request from the General Assembly for an advisory opinion …

The CHAIRMAN: … should request it.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): OK, should request it for an opinion from the International Court of Justice on possible implications.

The CHAIRMAN: To seek an advisory opinion. It was suggested by the Director of the Office and we may say “some delegations expressed the view that the COPUOS recommends the General Assembly”. Is it possible?

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): I do not think we can recommend. The COPUOS recommend the General Assembly to ask the International Court of Justice this advisory opinion.

The CHAIRMAN: It will be adjusted like that.

With this amendment, is it acceptable? I see no objection. Adopted.

Paragraph 17. Greece also.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): The view was expressed that the functions of Supervisory Authority might be undertaken more appropriately by a United Nations specialized agency such as ITU. And also I expressed that the opinion but because we have not a specialized agency for outer space. That was my real view. (Continued in French) The fact that we do not have a specialized agency for space activities, in other words, an international agency on space. Because of that, the functions of the authority could be taken on.

The CHAIRMAN: So far as I know the World Bank is one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Sorry, excuse me.

The CHAIRMAN: So far as I know, the World Bank is one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): Sorry, once again. It was a bit rhetorical what is said but what I said was because we do not have a specialized United Nations agency on space, because of that, I believe that it would be appropriate to turn to another specialized agency of the United Nations such as ITU or another organization such as the World Bank. That is pretty much exactly what I said.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not object against your idea but I say only that this language here more appropriately by a United Nations specialized agency or by an organization such as the World Bank is not correct because the World Bank is one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations. Sorry.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): As you wish.

The CHAIRMAN: The United States.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being party to this dialogue on the paragraph dealing with one view that was expressed and it seems to be a highly technical one. Might I suggest that the delegate or delegates that are particularly interested in 17, take a moment, draft something and then have it read out by the Secretariat so that we might move on because I am very confused. I am confused on a view that I am not necessarily sure I share, but I would like

to give the delegation every opportunity to reflect as they see fit. But I do not think it has to be done by Committee. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is it acceptable for the delegations concerned, it will be you and perhaps my delegation too, if you wish, my concurrence, Germany as well? No. I saw your hand.

We will discuss it and now we will postpone this paragraph for later consideration. It was paragraph 17.


Mr. C.-H. BROSSEAU (France) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman, although I believe this about a point made by Belgium. I think the French text, it should be the Secretary-General of the United Nations and not the United Nations because it refers to the Secretariat which involves the powers or competencies of the Secretary-General.

The CHAIRMAN: Well, this was also my impression that something is missing here in this paragraph. Instructions to the Secretary-General from authorities external. Thank you for your bringing it to our attention France.

Paragraph 18, with this improvement, is it acceptable? I see no comments. Adopted.

Paragraph 19. Any comments on 19? No comments. Adopted.

Paragraph 20. No comments on 20? Adopted.










COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

Paragraph 30. No comments. Adopted.



Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, after paragraph 31, I would like to be inserted “another view expressed by delegation” which says that “the discussion of this matter in the Legal Subcommittee should in no means be considered as an official position of the Subcommittee and/or the delegation as regards the Space Assets draft Protocol.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand this suggestion. Could you repeat that?

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): The view was expressed that the discussion of this matter, Space Protocol in the Legal Subcommittee should not in no means be considered as an official position of the Subcommittee and/or that delegation as regards the Space Assets draft Protocol. Which is similar to paragraph 30 in submit.

The CHAIRMAN: I have some doubts about this language because if the Subcommittee adopts something, if the Subcommittee agrees, so it is the official position of the Subcommittee. If the Subcommittee does not agree as a whole, then it is only the view of one delegation or several delegations and other delegations and so on. And then it is not an official position of the Subcommittee but, at the same time, if it is really adopted by the Subcommittee as a whole, it is the official position of the Subcommittee. This is what you opposed.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): As I told you in the discussions, in the Working Group and in the plenary, this discussion has an almost academic character. It is not an official justification, a certificate of, let us say, of an official certificate from the Subcommittee to UNIDROIT that your draft Protocol is agreeable. That was my declaration.

The CHAIRMAN: Distinguished representative of Greece, if you wish to have it there as your own view, it means the view of your delegation. I do not object. I only wanted to say that, and this is something dubious. I have some doubts about the substance of your view and, therefore, I wanted to draw your attention to it. Perhaps you might be willing to consider it. If you wish, I am ready to postpone it

for a while, think about it and then we will return to it. Thank you.

Do you agree with this procedure? Yes, thank you very much.

So this draft proposal is now postponed.

Paragraph 32. This is a summary that was pronounced by the Chairman of the Subcommittee and, therefore, because it was indeed made here in the Working Group. It was made in the Working Group so it should remain intact, in my opinion.

Any other comment? Yes, Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): I have some doubts, Mr. Chairman. It is the first time that in a text, it is a Working Group text, that we have a personal view of the Chairman. It is, first of all, to protect our colleague and dear friend, Sergio Marchisio, from any possibility of criticism. Now, if it is a question of his own view, then fine, but if it is not the view of the Chairman, but rather of you, of the Chairman, reflecting the views expressed by delegations, then there are a few things that we should correct or possibly qualify. It is a very delicate question, I believe. So I think it is up to you to tell us what this is. In other words, if it is a question of the views of the Chairman and the views of delegations in a report, I see this as the report of the Chairman, which expresses, or rather sets out, the views expressed by delegations. The Chairman might give a view, a personal view, as a national delegate, changing hats for a moment, if it is a question of a small delegation. But I do not think you normally have personal views of the Chairman expressed. It is really to protect the prestige of the Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: But I have to tell you that we should pay attention to the language of the chapeau of this paragraph. In summarizing the discussion of the Working Group, the Chairman expressed the following view. It means these are the views of the Chairman. And moreover, it is his own language. He drafted these conclusions himself and submitted them in writing.

India has the floor.

Mr. R. LOCHAN (India): Thank you Mr. Chairman. My delegation has some difficulties with 32, sub-paragraph (b). This paragraph gives the impression that there was some kind of convergence of views. Actually the reality was very different. The opinion was completely split.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

The sub-paragraph (c) reflects the delegate more closely which says that it has, however, become clear that further information is needed by the Legal Subcommittee before it would be able to take a more definite stance on this and so on and so forth. So I have reservations on this (b) on paragraph 32. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Well, I apologize distinguished delegates for the interruption of the discussion. We have consulted in the meantime, as you probably saw, and perhaps the solution of this, or the way out of this issue, might be as follows.

First, we would like to keep to maintain the language that is spelt out now under paragraph 32 because it was drafted by the Chairman and he is not present and he should consult him personally, I would agree, or not, with any change here but what we could do is add a new paragraph after this summary of the Chairman. And in this new paragraph, those delegations which would have different views on this summary could spell out their position as some delegations and so on.

This seems to me that it would be a fair way out of this issue.

Brazil has the floor.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Like the distinguished representative of India, we also have reservations to the content, especially (a) and (b). And in this sense, as we cannot change, it would not be fair, I think in the chapeau, if we could instead of saying “the Chairman expressed the following views”, if we could say “the Chairman expressed his following views”. Because these views are not the views of the delegations who were there. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Argentina has the floor.

Mr. S. SAYÚS (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. For the sake of brevity, I just wanted to agree with what was said by our distinguished colleague from Brazil. It is indeed important.

Before concluding the debate of the Working Group, the Chairman did give a sketch of what in his view could mean a summary of deliberations and at the end of that, then several delegations, including my own, made comments, not always in agreement with that particular line. So I think it is important, and

following your recommendation, that it is useful to reflect the view of the Chairman to make it clear that it is strictly the view of the Chairman and that it was not agreed entirely by the Working Group. That was the opinion of the Chair that was not endorsed by the Working Group and if that idea can be reflected, I think that would be faithful to what did occur. So if you could strengthen the fact that this was a view of the Chairman but, as put here, is not the opinion of the Working Group, I think with that, we can solve the problem. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you Argentina for your contribution. The United States has the floor.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. My delegation always understood that paragraph 32 only reflected the views of the Chairman. The Chairman did an excellent job. We should give him at least some credit for trying to coalesce views. He did not have a lot of time to negotiate a full set of agreements but I think this is a useful list. I think the proposal made by the distinguished delegate of Brazil and supported by Argentina is fine and it would work for us and I hope other delegations would see it the same way. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. May I assume that if we follow the advice of the distinguished delegation of Brazil and supported also by other delegations, Argentina and now also the United States, that we might accept this paragraph as a whole, it means in the chapeau. It would be spelt out in summarizing the discussions of the Working Group, the Chairman expressed his following views.

I see no objection. It is so decided.

Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): Before you say that this view is not necessarily a reflection of all delegations taking part in the Working Group. It has to be said explicitly somewhere which, however, does not reflect the views of delegations or all delegations.

The CHAIRMAN: Brazil.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just a suggestion. This suggestion made by the distinguished delegate from Greece, would it not be better to reflect this in the main report. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

The CHAIRMAN: You mean this whole paragraph. No. I, too, have some doubts about the language proposed by the distinguished representative of Greece because it sounds to me as a certain non-recognition of the work done by Professor Marchisio and it was, in my opinion, very valuable work and admirable work because it was a very difficult discussion, very complicated and technically, also very difficult.

So I very much would like to follow the last procedures suggested by Brazil that perhaps this reservation might be expressed and included in the report of the Subcommittee on this issue and not here in the Working Group.

You have the floor now.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): Yes, I agree entirely.

The CHAIRMAN: Distinguished representative of Greece, do you have an appropriate text on 17 and 31?

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): I can withdraw just to help us make progress.

The CHAIRMAN: Is it possible to adopt 32 as amended by Brazil? Do you wish to speak? Distinguished representative of Brazil, will you repeat your suggestion?

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Thirty-two would read “in summarizing the discussions of the Working Group, the Chairman expressed his following views”. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

Ms. S. PAYMAN (Australia): Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Could we please have “expressed his views as follows” please? Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: A linguistic improvement. I do not see any other views. It is so adopted.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I take it that we just approved the report on item 8 from the Working Group as a whole?

I see no objections. It is so decided.

So we may now proceed with document Addendum 2, Part VII. But I would like to ask you gentlemen for the maximum brevity of your statements and comments because we have, due to the generous agreement of our interpreters, we have some time for finalizing this report but it is a very limited time so let us start please.

Part VI. Paragraph 1. Any comments? No comments. Adopted.






Paragraph 7. The Russian Federation has the floor.

Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am not sure that this paragraph 7 reflects the views of some delegations including our delegation but if the contents of this paragraph reflects our views, they are not quite correct because, to the contrary, we suggested that it is the Fourth and the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly should draft a resolution not the Legal Subcommittee as such here. And you know that we are not quite happy about the draft resolution being adopted on another issue. So if there are other delegations who, indeed, felt like that, we might keep this paragraph as it stands. But I am not sure because it looks like it does not reflect any other views of any other delegation. But I am not sure. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Are there delegations to make comments? I have just been advised by the Secretariat that this reflects the views of two delegations, Austria and the Netherlands.

With this explanation, may I assume that it is adopted? Adopted.



COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692
















Paragraph 25. It is the view, of course. Adopted.

Paragraph 26. Again to be completed by the Secretariat by exact figures. No comment on 26? Adopted.

Paragraph 27. To be completed by the Secretariat. Adopted.

Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): Thank you Mr. Chairman, just because we speak for the future work of the Secretariat, I would like that paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the L.1 also appearing in this part of the report, appearing verbatim in the report. I did not want to interrupt you before. The views reflected in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of mobile 2003/L.1, the document of the report of the Working Group, be also included in the text under VII. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: India has the floor.

Mr. R. LOCHAN (India): Thank you Mr. Chairman. My delegation has reservations on paragraph 26, last but one line which says “the Subcommittee endorsed the report of the Working Group which is contained in Annex so and so in the present report”. In view of the earlier submission my delegation, I would like to object to this statement that the Subcommittee endorsed the report of the Working Group which is contained in Annex so and so to the present report. I suggest that we add some phrase which would say that with certain reservations of some of the delegates.

The CHAIRMAN: You relate to which paragraph now? Paragraph 26.

Mr. R. LOCHAN (India): The last but one line, “the Subcommittee endorsed the report of the Working Group”. I have certain reservations on that statement. We just add a small phrase “the Subcommittee endorsed the report of the Working, Group with certain reservations from some of the delegates”.

The CHAIRMAN: The Russian Federation.

Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): It must work on the basis on the principle of consensus. If we endorse the reported reservations, it is not a very happy step. Perhaps we may say took note of the report of the Working Group rather than endorsed, somewhat milder. The Subcommittee took note of the report of the Working Group, as a way out from this suggestion. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: But distinguished representative of the Russian Federation, as a matter of fact, Sir, our distinguished colleague, the Director of the Office, suggested to me privately almost the same what you have just said that it would not too elegant and too fair to use this form somehow to express this certain reservation that we might do it in another way. So this is a way that might be considered as a way out but I should return now to the distinguished representative of India.

Mr. R. LOCHAN (India): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I suggest that, after having heard the reservations of some of the delegations, the Subcommittee took note of the report of the Working Group. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Any other view on this point? Is the proposal of India acceptable? Yes, Australia.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

Ms. S. PAYMAN (Australia): Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the reservation is only in relation to paragraph 32 which is the summarizing of the views. Can we limit it to that? The report is endorsed but reservations were made in relation or we could limit it to just that paragraph because that is the main issue and I do not think we need to say that the whole report was not endorsed.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of Australia for your suggestion and I see the distinguished representative of India nodding, so that we could proceed like that. Would you have a precise formulation?

Our legal advisor in this chair might have a proposal.

Mr. A. TEREKHOV (Senior Legal Officer, Office for Outer Space Affairs): Thank you very much. It is a bit unusual but I will try to do it in order to split up the work. Maybe the simple formulation like this would be suffice if having heard reservation of some delegations with regard to paragraph 32 of the report of the Working Group, then the Subcommittee endorsed or took note of the report, endorsed.

The CHAIRMAN: I see your agreement with this text suggested. Yes, Brazil.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would agree with this suggestion presented by the Senior Legal Office but with the expression “took note”, not “endorsed”. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: All right. I think that we have now reached a complete agreement. It means that the reservation will be attached to paragraph 32 and instead of “endorsed”, it will be used the formula “took note”.

It is so adopted.

Paragraph 27. Any comments? No. I see none. Adopted.

Part VIII of Addendum 2.


Paragraph 29. Sweden has the floor.

Mr. N. HEDMAN (Sweden): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. My delegation would like to provide a minor change to the last sentence of

paragraph 29, that means the sentence starting with “the Legal Subcommittee also agreed that a Working Group …” and so forth, that is after the work plan. And I will read it slowly.

“The Legal Subcommittee also agreed that, in accordance with the work plan under this item, Member States and international organizations would be invited to present reports to the 2004 session of the Subcommittee on their practice in registering space objects and submitting the required information to the Office for Outer Space Affairs for inclusion in the register, and that a working group would be established to consider this item in 2005 and 2006.”

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Does the Secretariat have it in writing? And it should be now included in the last paragraph of 29 because you almost the same language under the work plan for the year 2004.

Yes?

Mr. N. HEDMAN (Sweden): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Well, this is actually to make it clearer because if you see in 2004 in the work plan, it could also be interpreted to be that in 2004 that should be a negotiated this invitation to Member States. But if this is to make it clear that the invitation to Member States and international organizations should be made before the year 2004 and that the reports should be made in the year 2004, the first year of the work plan. That is why this proposal would replace the last sentence of this paragraph. It is just to make it clear. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Should we not adjust the text under the year 2004 to this amendment in order to avoid the repetition of one and the same thing? Yes, you have the floor.

Mr. N. HEDMAN (Sweden): Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Well, of course, this is your wish, that could be in the first year of the work plan in 2004, that could be inserted the year 2004. I will read it out.

“Invitation to Member States and international organizations to present reports in 2004”, then it follows.

The CHAIRMAN: Could it be said under the work plan for 2004, “review of the replies received from Member States and international organizations”

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

and so on. The distinguished representative of the United States.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think what we are trying to do is make a very simple change, in however your want to do it, which is have the invitations go out after the June session of 2003 COPUOS so that Member States can either provide them in advance or make the presentations during the course of the 2004 Legal Subcommittee.

The CHAIRMAN: And this you would like to spell out under the year 2004?

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Just 2004, delete “invitation to” and then the next line you would insert after “present report” “in 2004”. So it would read “Member States and international organizations”, delete “to”, say “present reports in 2004 on their practice in registering space objects”.

The CHAIRMAN: So that it would be only Member States and international organizations?

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): No, I am sorry Mr. Chairman, it is getting very late. It is Member States and international organizations, it stays the same. All we are doing is deleting invitation to, the word “to” and then insert “2004” after “to present reports in 2004 on their practice”.

The CHAIRMAN: To present reports in 2004 on their practice and so on. And it is now necessary to add what has been proposed by Sweden, I think not.

So this is withdrawn. This has been completed by “in 2004” and it can be accepted as it stands.

Paragraph 29. No other comments? Adopted.

Paragraph 30. Any comments on paragraph 30? No comments. Adopted.

Paragraph 31. Any comments? Brazil.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. In the first line, I would suggest to include the expression after “the view that to include discussion on the development of an international …” and so on.

The CHAIRMAN: With this minor amendment, but important amendment, can we adopt this? Yes. It is so decided.


Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you. If the delegate of Brazil allows me to say this, what occurred was a very intense exchange of views, it was not just a debate. A debate would be something extremely neutral by way of exchange. Whereas what took place was very lively, give or take, it took a whole afternoon. So it was a very extensive debate on this issue.

The CHAIRMAN: … a misunderstanding that may be caused by different versions of the language. The distinguished representative of Brazil.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Concerning the comments presented by the distinguished Ambassador of Chile, I understood that this paragraph was not referring to the debate that we had but to the expression that some delegations made that the discussion was necessary. In this context, I suggested to include the discussion on the development. I was not thinking about referring to the debate of yesterday. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: With this explanation, can we assume that it will be adopted? I see the delegation of Chile nodding.

It is so decided.

Next paragraph, paragraph 32. Any comments? No comments. Adopted.

Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. The last sentence in Spanish indicates that international cooperation had flourished. I would prefer something slightly different, a little bit more legal.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps this might be settled by the distinguished Ambassador of Chile and the Secretariat because it relates only to the Spanish version. Thank you.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Whatever the Secretariat puts is fine by me.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

Paragraph 32. Brazil.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am not intending to discuss content or to re-open any discussion, that is clear, but I would like to make a question to the Secretariat. On the second line, after “principles”, when it is written “as they were operating well”, is that clear in this sentence that this is their point of view? Is it clear? OK, thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, because it is the view of some delegations only. Thank you very much.


Paragraph 33. Any views on 33? I see none. Adopted.

Paragraph 34. No comments? The United States.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just need to make a slight change to the first sentence, second line, after the word “compensated” insert the phrase “by satellite operators”.

In the third line, delete the phrase “for satellite operators”. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 34, as amended. Adopted.

Paragraph 35. The United States.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add 34 bis, a very brief paragraph. It would read as follows:

“Some delegations expressed the view that given the current problems faced by the global satellite industry, it would create a negative impact to begin discussions on an international regulatory regime that has not been demonstrated as needed.”

I can read that again, Mr. Chairman.

“Some delegations expressed the view that given the current problems faced by the global satellite industry, it would create a negative impact to begin discussions on an international regulatory regime that

has not been demonstrated as needed.” And that would be our proposal for 34 bis. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Chile has the floor.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Of course, I do not have any problem with the proposal from the distinguished representative of the United States. I just would like to make a comment though for this to be clear.

I have read statistics recently whereby the space industry is experimenting or experiencing more and more gains. I am sorry but this has been established but other delegations should know. Of course, we would accept that the United States make this statement. I did not know that the space industry was going through such bad time.

The CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry to advise you that we are threatened that the lights and translation will be switched off.

So may I take that the text just presented by the United States delegation is acceptable? I see no objections.

It is so decided.


Paragraph 36. Yes, Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you. The Spanish language version should say “would evaluate the possibility of considering” instead of “would revise”, then it would continue.

The CHAIRMAN: So that in the third line of paragraph 36, the words “would revise” would be replaced by “would evaluate the possibility of considering”. Yes, Mr. Davis will read it out.

Mr. C. DAVIS (Deputy Secretary, Office for Outer Space Affairs): Thank you Mr. Chairman. What I got was the following.

“The Subcommittee noted that the sponsors of the proposals submitted by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece, Mexico and Peru would evaluate the possibility of considering the proposal, taking into account comments …” and so on. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, so this text, is it acceptable? I see no objections.

It is so decided.


Paragraph 38. Any comments on 38? Chile has the floor. No, very good. Adopted.




Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it was our view which is reflected in 41 but we have never suggested that the Legal Subcommittee should formulate an indicative list of possible legal issues. We addressed the sponsors of this item asking them. So it should be more accurately said in this paragraph, “the view was expressed that it would be useful”, delete “for the Legal Subcommittee”, “that it would be useful to have” instead of “formulate”, “to have an indicative list of possible legal issues regarding space debris”. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: With this amendment, is it acceptable? It is so decided.

Paragraph 42. It is just a statement of fact. Adopted.

Paragraph 43. And now we have the whole agenda for the next session of the Subcommittee. So by approving this paragraph, we also adopt the agenda as proposed. Sweden has the floor.

Mr. N. HEDMAN (Sweden): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Very brief. Under item 10 on Page 8, there will be a need for a consequential change in 2004, the same we made in paragraph 29. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any comments on paragraph 43 as a whole? No comments. Adopted.


Paragraph 45. Brazil has the floor.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Concerning paragraph 45 (d), we would like to have the observation after Mexico and Peru, saying that the proposal may be revised according to the wish of the co-sponsor or any other kind of better writing. This could also be in the chapeau to refer to all the proposals. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, perhaps the best would be indeed to include it in the chapeau of this paragraph, to retain the proposals for possible discussion, subject to possible revisions or? Or modifications thereof. The proposals, not only the modifications but the proposals as modified, intended to retain the proposals and possibly revise them. Would you spell it out because you have already done it?

Mr. C. DAVIS (Deputy Secretary, Office for Outer Space Affairs): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Perhaps it could read as follows.

“The Subcommittee intended to retain their proposals which might be revised according to the wishes of the co-sponsors for possible discussion …” and so on. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Is this language acceptable for all sponsors of all these proposals? I see no objection. The representative of the Russian Federation.

Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. We have nothing against the changes of the chapeau for paragraph 45 but we would like to suggest that sub-paragraph (a) is a little bit modified. We suggest the deletion of the first two words, in the first line, “discussion on”, so that it reads “the appropriateness and desirability of drafting a universal comprehensive convention on international space law, proposed by China, Greece, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine”. Then after the word “is” “Ukraine is”, all the rest will be deleted. And instead of that said “as an agenda item”. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Sorry, I understand your first amendment because this is in accordance what you have already suggested earlier but I do not understand the end of this sub-paragraph (a). If you say “and Ukraine as an agenda item for discussion”? But we should specify which item of which category. We have different categories of items. We have regular items, we have single issue items for discussion items, we have items on the work plan and so on. So it should be specified.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.692

Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): OK, as a single issue agenda item but no discussion.

The CHAIRMAN: No, the name of this category of items is single issue/item for discussion. You have it here under paragraph 43, on the top of Page 8, single issues/items for discussion.

Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I see but one thing, there are two discussions here. In sub-paragraph (a), the first word is “discussion”, the last word is “discussion” which looks a little bit awkward.

The CHAIRMAN: No, “discussion on” would be deleted. This as you suggested.

Mr. Y. M. KOLOSOV (Russian Federation): Yes, and sub-paragraph (g), there is no reference to the single issue item.

The CHAIRMAN: I have just been advised by the Secretary that we could, in that case, omit the complete phrase as an agenda item or as a single issue item for discussion and stop at only China, Greece, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, because these are just the topics for consideration for the inclusion in the agenda. Thank you very much.

Do you agree with the text of paragraph 45 as it was now spelt out? Yes, the distinguished representative of Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I would like to show understanding towards our distinguished colleague from the Russian Federation. I regret to have to suggest an amendment for (d) which should begin with the “development of”. That was what proposed, not a discussion. So “discussion on” should be deleted. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: With this amendment, the last amendment and the foregoing amendment of the Russian Federation, can we accept paragraph 45? Brazil. We have just 30 seconds left.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): We have no problem to go along with the suggestion by the distinguished Ambassador of Chile, but if he agrees to leave the idea more open, I would prefer to have a discussion/debate. Thank you Mr. Chairman. If not, I agree with his suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN: So do you agree not, let us put that way as it was, this way as it was spelt out by Chile. I ask you for cooperation. Thank you very much.

The last paragraph is 46. Adopted.

I think in this way we have fulfilled our task. Thank you very much distinguished delegates for your cooperation. I use this opportunity to thank the interpreters for the hard work that they have had with us on the translation for our benefit. Also the translators and editors for the work that was already done and for forthcoming work and for the Document Control officers. It is all that I wanted to say at the forty-second session of the Legal Subcommittee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is thus adjourned.

The meeting closed at 6.46 p.m.

united nations - unoosa.org€¦ · web viewthe document symbols are a/ac.105/c.2/l.243, as well...

Documents