The Act on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources (the Space Resources Act) adopted by Luxemburg Parliament in July 2017, in particular Article 1 which stipulates that “Space resources are capable of being appropriated”, has raised various discussions in the international community. Along with the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 (CSLCA), State Parties to the Outer Space Treaty (OST), which prohibits national appropriation of outer space whereby, has taken the first step towards an overall commercial exploitation of space resources by national recognition of private property rights thereon. Yet, such initiative, creating property rights over space resources obtained in missions conducted by private entities, has raised an inevitable question for other space-faring nations who might be State Parties to the OST or the Moon Agreement (MOON) or both of them: what should they do in their domestic laws?
The CSLCA, in particular Title IV, was deliberately designed in a way that obviously act in accordance with existing international law. However, it grants ownership and other rights of space resources only to citizens of U.S., because of which the controversies raised by this nationality-oriented approach are continuing to focus on if its unilateral interpretation does accord with Art. I and II of the OST. The Space Resources Act, however, by stipulating conformity with Luxemburg’s international obligations in Art. 2(3) in the Space Resources Act, has taken an approach that is heading to the same direction yet different goal. Luxemburg is neither one of the super space powers nor a potential one when it officially announced its ambition on a domestic regulatory framework for commercial space industries. At the current stage, the legal certainty provided by the Space Resources Act works for the blueprint for the promising commercial investment in the space field. This article examines the similarities and differences between the CSLCA, in particular Title IV, and the Space Resources Act. By such review, this article presents the legal interpretation of core principles of international space law which converge to States’ practices on a national basis, and demonstrates to what extent are they in consistency with international space law to try to figure out for other States if there are more options of establishing a national legal framework for exploiting space resources.

Unilateralism has generally been considered a concept with negative connotations. It should be underscored that in some cases unilateralism has resulted in changes either to customary law or treaty law, whereas in others it has not. Consequently, not every type of unilateralism can be perceived as a challenge to Space Law. Nevertheless, we can see the risks of unilateralism when not acquiesced to or generally supported by other States. It is obvious that the multilateral process is becoming more complicated than before which complicates finding multilateral solutions in Space Law. This paper argues that a better understanding of unilateral acts is necessary before delving into the matter of the unilateralism in Space Law.

On November 2016, the Japanese Diet passed the Space Activities Act (“SAA”) and the Satellite Remote Sensing Act in an effort to modernize its domestic space legislation and encourage its small but growing private sector to become global leaders in burgeoning new types of space business. This paper will examine whether it is feasible for these new laws to propel Japan enough to catch up with current market leaders such as SpaceX in the United States. The paper will have three parts. First, the paper will outline the legal regime that applies to the Japanese space industry. Second, the paper will analyze the impact of Japan’s new space legislation and provide a comparative analysis of how they measure up to other space-faring nations’ space laws. The paper will find that various aspects of Japan’s new space laws have great potential to attract significant foreign space business to be conducted in Japan. The third part of the paper examines whether the country’s economy can take advantage of these new legal developments and spur growth among startups. This article discusses how the Silicon Valley model may not be compatible with the financial culture in Japan. After examining how currently thriving startups are financed by corporate investments, the paper concludes that corporations need to finance space startups in more traditional forms of financing in Japan in order to infuse capital into the space industry. Drawing from legal and financial experts, this paper concludes that both legal and financial aspects are coming together for Japanese private space business. Depending on the industry’s momentum, the SAA may launch Japan to become globally competitive in the near future.

Recently, SpaceX announced that it would send passengers to the moon in 2018. With the new round of space exploration boom, national research institutions, commercial enterprises are committed to the study of more advanced and economical spacecraft to explore and develop outer space. As a result, more spacecraft will be launched into space. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a system of traffic rules for navigation in outer space.
Although different modes of transport follow different traffic rules, however, many of these traffic rules are similar. The rules of preventing collisions in outer space should also be similar to other rules of preventing collisions in basic principles and measures to preventing collisions. This is not only the consideration of the efficiency of making rules, but to consider the coordination of navigation in outer space and air navigation, because the navigation in outer space and air navigation are not two independent concepts. As a representative of a type of spacecraft designed for space travel, SpaceShipTwo, the spacecraft of Virgin Galactic, has both the characteristics of spacecraft and aircraft. This type of aircraft is similar to a seaplane, which could both navigation in water and air. While a seaplane is navigating in water, it follows the rules of water navigation, such as the 2005 COLREGS, while this seaplane navigating in the air, it follows the rules of air navigation.
It seems to increase the burden of the pilot that demand a seaplane to follow different rules of preventing collisions in the water or the air. However, Because of the similar basic principles and measures to preventing collisions in both rules of water navigation and air navigation, this worry seems to be misplaced.
This paper will first address the commonality in all modes of traffic rules. Especially the basic principles and measures to preventing a collision. It will list the essential principles and measures in air navigation, and study whether these principles and measures can be applied to air navigation. Finally, the paper will address the problems may be involved in the air traffic management while spacecraft are navigating in the air.

This paper seeks to critically analyze and review the draft Space Activities Bill, 2017 (“Space Activities Bill”) that was issued by the Government of India on 21 November 2017 for comments. The critique provided in this paper is especially from international law perspective. As the Space Activities Bill provides, its aim is to encourage enhanced participation of non-governmental/ private sector agencies in space activities in India, in compliance with international treaty obligations. Yet a closer look at the said Bill reveals that it essentially only provides for the following: (a) authorisation and license for commercial space activities and prohibition of unauthorised space activity; (b) liability and indemnification to Central Government for damage arising out of commercial space activities; and (c) registration of space objects. Thus, the Space Activities Bill is immoderately focused on liability for damage due to private space activities. While focusing on authorization and liability, other important aspects that may incur international responsibility have been ignored; for example, the definitions under the Space Activities often do not clarify the legal position well. India being a space player for decades and party to most space treaties, the Space Activities Bill should provide a mechanism and procedure for implementing the international obligations undertaken by India under these treaties, such as, carrying out space activities out for the benefit of all; non-appropriation of outer space; and spacesustainability. However, the said Bill, which aims to act as an umbrella space legislation, does not include several such international obligations. Thus the paper argues that while liability and registration are important aspects of space law, there are other important aspects, which should not be ignored while enacting a national space legislation.

In the light of the recently renovated interest in returning humans to the Moon, this paper addresses the main legal challenges related, with the goal to show practical solutions under the current system of international space law.
In order to do so, the paper first presents an overview of current lunar exploration programs, arguing that public and private missions raise different challenges and thus require specific models.
Following, it accordingly assesses possible legal solutions for the regulation of these programs. On the one hand, States’ exploration programs may be governed by a revised version of the Intergovernmental Agreement already concluded for the International Space Station. On the other hand, private activities could be better organized relying on Articles VI-IX OST as integrated by a new UNGA Resolution, ad hoc bilateral agreements and specific provisions in national space legislations.
Finally, the paper concludes underlining the importance of international cooperation as the key to ensure the peaceful use and exploration of outer space.

Whether it is for environmental purposes, by monitoring the Earth’s forests, oceans or the Arctic, or military purposes, such as target selection or troop movements, our modern society has become increasingly dependent on remote sensing activities by satellite; one of the most extensively practised space activities. In addition to these scientific and military uses, a significant commercial remote sensing market has developed predicted to be worth between US$8 and US$15 billion by 2026. Moreover, the technological capabilities of remote sensing satellites are ever improving; for example, with the Airbus Spot 6 and Spot 7 satellites that boast a 70 cm resolution or BlackSky’s Global satellite that boasts a 1 m resolution.
However, these developments occur against a backdrop of meagre legal regulation of the activity, especially considering how commonplace remote sensing is and the fastpaced technological developments. On an international level, remote sensing activities are primarily addressed through the Remote Sensing Principles under UNGA Resolution 41/65. Yet, the Principles hardly address private entities, the scope is very limited, and the status of the Principles is contentious. In contrast, national space legislation is binding and more apt at keeping up with the developments because it is less complicated to adopt and amend such legislation than to reach consensus within the international community. Nevertheless, few states have actually addressed remote sensing in their national space legislation.
This paper examines whether the best approach towards creating a stronger framework for regulating remote sensing activities, even on an international level, would be a bottom-up approach through national space legislation. First, it will examine the regulation of remote sensing under international law. Thereafter, this paper will discuss the regulation of remote sensing activities in a selected number of national space legislations, namely France, Germany, and the United States. Third, it will discuss, briefly, the bottom-up approach to international law-making. Finally, in light of the aforementioned considerations this paper will argue that more states should regulate remote sensing activities in their national space legislation, and that this could contribute to create more certainty about remote sensing activities on an international level but will also signal the challenges that such a bottom-up approach will bring with it.

The aim of this paper is to analyze the concept of ‘non-appropriation’ in outer space from a legal point of view. The Outer Space Treaty in its Article II provides that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by any means. In the absence of an official interpretation, the precise meaning of this provision has been discussed for decades. This paper will approach the problem by going back to the origin of the concept ‘appropriation’: more than 1500 years ago Roman lawyers had already developed different categories to indicate the relationship between a person and a thing. Ownership and use were the criteria utilized to classify each thing. Over time, these categories evolved and eventually led to the development of ‘property law’. Among them, the concept of res communes omnium was elaborated. Its peculiar features will be examined in this paper, underlining the economic function and the multifaceted nature specific of this category of things. Res communes omnium are emblematic of how ancient notions can find new life in the regulation of the cosmic dimension. Many of the legal problems faced by the international community today with regard to the cosmic environment are not different from the ones already faced by Roman lawyers when trying to regulate the reality around them. This paper will demonstrate how the ‘non-appropriation’ principle can be interpreted under the light of Roman legal theories. Building upon these findings, the legal status of outer space will be clarified and the scope of application of Article II of the Outer Space Treaty redefined. Roman theories on property rights can offer legal arguments for the use of space resources without breaching the Outer Space Treaty. Underlining the legal feasibility of commercial use of space resources as well as of settlements on other celestial bodies can hopefully represent an incentive for the international community to establish a regime regarding these activities. If that is not achieved, uncertainty will prevail and conflicts are certain to arise.

After more than 60 years of space activities, ongoing scientific and technological progress alongside increased international cooperation, Space 4.0 is entering this field, leaving its hallmark on what appears a new era of space activities. The space community is rapidly changing, and the world continues to face a growing need for dedicated space applications. The growing interest in space leads to an increasing participation of numerous new actors. Governments, private actors and international organisations are eager to fill these gaps in securing the global society’s needs. ESA’s efforts in this regard are reflected in the Space 4.0 concept, introduced at ESA’s Ministerial Council in December 2016 by the ESA Director General. This new conception – building on Industry 4.0 – is designed to host a new era of space activities, setting out to tackle global challenges using the advantages deriving from space and technological progress. These challenges range from climate change to shortage of resources, health, demographic development, digital divide and more. ESA is also highly active within UNISPACE and its objectives: space accessibility, economy, security and diplomacy to contribute to Space 2030 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Capacity building reflects the core objective of all international Space 4.0 efforts. This rapid changes and growth are meeting certain needs by bringing space closer to society and inspiring new generations. However, as these developments are taking place in a highly complex net of legal, regulatory and political considerations, they are themselves raising challenges. This paper focuses on the legal challenges raised by the new era Space 4.0 and outlines the framework conditions for legal certainty in this rapidly changing environment. It elaborates on the content of Space 4.0 and its implementation, the legal framework for space activities, and how this is currently challenged by two characteristics of the Space 4.0 development, commercialisation of space activities, along with increasing cyber-security concerns in the context of digital divide and big data.

This contribution examines the legal legitimacy of ‘Article IV Consultations’ performed by the IMF as part of its responsibility for surveillance under Article IV of its Articles of Agreement. The analysis focuses on tax recommendations given by the Fund to its member countries in the context of Consultations. This paper determines that these tax recommendations derive from a broad interpretation of the powers and obligations that have been agreed to in the Fund’s Articles of Agreement. Such an interpretation leads to a legitimacy deficit, as member countries of the Fund have not given their state consent to receive recommendations as to which should be the tax policies it should adopt.

The global financial crisis of 2008 and the following public uproar over offshore tax evasion and corporate aggressive tax planning scandals gave rise to unprecedented international cooperation on tax information exchange and coordination on corporate tax reforms. At the behest of the G20, the OECD developed a comprehensive package of ‘consensus-based’ policy reform measures aimed to curb base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) by multinationals and to restore fairness and coherence to the international tax system. The legitimacy of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project, however, has been widely challenged. This paper explores the validity of the legitimacy concerns raised by the various stakeholders regarding the OECD/G20 BEPS Project.

The Global Forum on transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes has undertaken peer reviews on the implementation of the global standard of exchange of information on request, both from the perspective of formalities available and from the perspective of actual implementation. In the review reports Global Forum advises jurisdictions on required amendments of regulations and practices. With these advices, the Global Forum exercises regulatory authority. The article assesses the legitimacy of the exercise of such authority by the Global Forum and concludes that the exercise of such authority is not legitimate for the reason that the rule of law is abused by preventing jurisdictions to adhere to due process rules.

The emergence of global tax governance was triggered by common tax problems, which are now still being faced by international society of nation-states. In the creation of this framework, international institutions have been playing a major role. One of these institutions is the World Bank (Bank). However, those who write about the virtues and vices of the main creators of the framework usually disregard the Bank. This article, therefore, argues that this disregard is not justified because the Bank has also been playing a prominent role. Since two informal decisions taken in the past have contributed to this position of the Bank, the article gives in addition to it answers to the following two related questions: whether these informal decisions of the Bank were legal and if so, what implications, if any, they have for the Bank’s legitimacy.

The aim of this article is to describe the mechanism of codification in a civil law jurisdiction. The case study will be based on the Italian system. The history and developments of the Italian codification will also be described here.
In Italy codification is called riassetto, it is normally carried out by the government but the changes to existing law must be within the strict boundaries of the principles and criteria set out by the parliament. By contrast, the mechanism to amalgamate existing texts dealing with a single topic without radical changes is called consolidamento. It is carried out by the government as delegated by parliament. However, as the tools to carry out riassetto and consolidamento are the same (decreto legislativo: a decree issued by the government, which is delegated by the parliament), it is not always easy to understand when the government is allowed to carry out consolidamento only or riassetto too. Actually, how fundamentally the government is allowed to change existing legislation depends on what the principles and criteria of the enabling Act of Parliament allows.
A decreto legislativo that is not in compliance with the principles and criteria established by the Act of Parliament, could be declared void by the Corte costituzionale (the Italian Constitutional Court). Therefore, if the government exceeds the boundaries of consolidamento or riassetto, the decreto legislativo could be declared void.
This essay will also focus on the different drafting techniques of consolidamento and riassetto from a theoretical perspective and from the point of view of the jurisprudence of the Consiglio di Stato and the Corte costituzionale. Finally, it will look at the drafting process for codes in Italy, underlying the differences with systems where law reform agencies have been established.

In western civil law jurisdictions, 19th century large-scale codification projects have made way for more specific, technical operations. While several terms for various operations are used – from coordination to consolidation or recasting – they all serve to compile normative texts within one single document for the sake of clarity and legal certainty. A more fundamental distinction can be made between formal and substantial codifications, the one more technical, the other large and fundamental. Substantial law reforms are problematized in this era of multilevel governance and digitalization. Nowadays, substantial codifications are essentially non-exhaustive, inconsistent, and fragmentized. Also, they rely upon formal consolidations, and generate new formal consolidations. While formal consolidations are still treated as logistic projects, more developed ICT tools may enable their transformation into continuous processes.