Search result: 181 articles

x
The search results will be filtered on:
Journal International Institute of Space Law x

    My paper advocates for the creation of a legal policy aimed at accelerating the initiation of the “Space Debris Removal Business” as quickly as possible. This policy is focused on government compensation for situations where the damage in outer space exceeds an insured amount. The policy will cover any damage derived from active orbital services, including Space Debris Removal.
    There is a common understanding across the globe that Space Debris Remediation is becoming necessary to keep space activities safe and sustainable. It would be ideal if a core set of laws were applicable to all nations. However, because Space Debris is increasing rapidly, we cannot wait for the formulation of international standards.
    Therefore, I would like to propose a measure to minimize the barriers of entry into the “Space Debris Removal Business,” which features a compulsory insurance and governmental compensation system (by referring the system in the field of rocket launch) to encourage private companies to conduct Space Debris Removal as a part of their core businesses.
    To sum up, until the moment an international rule is established, each country should proceed in haste to implement legislation for eliminating space debris. As industrial technologies develop, I expect to see more nations voluntarily remove broken satellites as well as upper stages of rockets that they themselves launched. I hope to support a burgeoning international debate on this issue.


Mihoko Shintani
Partner, Lawyer, TMI Associates, 23rd Floor, Roppongi Hills Mori Tower, 6-10-1 Roppongi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-6123, Japan & Attorney-at-Law, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), Ochanomizu Sola City, 4-6 Kandasurugadai, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8008 Japan.

    The milestone provisions in the Outer Space Treaty designate outer space and celestial bodies as an area beyond national jurisdiction in which national jurisdiction extends only to space objects and persons in outer space. In view of upcoming commercial space mining activities and the recent national legal developments, it is of crucial importance to delineate the different levels of legal authority over space resource activities and to analyze them systematically. What is indisputable, in the first place, is that any national appropriation in outer space is prohibited by Article II OST, while the appropriation of resources is not explicitly mentioned. More specific provisions are formulated in the Moon Agreement. Its Article 11 prohibits the appropriation of resources on celestial bodies and states that such activities — as soon as they become feasible — must be regulated by the international community of States. While this moratorium on resource exploitation is binding only for the 18 ratifying State parties to the Moon Agreement, there is no doubt that the legal authority to regulate over outer space lies with the international community and not with single States. Unilateral legislative acts must conform to existing international provisions as outer space is an area beyond national jurisdiction. Where such explicit provisions are lacking – as is the case with the appropriation of space resources – the lawful scope of national authority must nevertheless be delineated through international regulation as States lack the national prescriptive authority to regulate over outer space and celestial bodies.


Stephan Hobe
Prof. Dr. Stephan Hobe is Director of the Institute of Air Law, Space Law and Cyber Law and Holder of the Chair for Public International Law, European Law, European and International Economic Law at the University of Cologne.

Rada Popova
Rada Popova is a senior lecturer (public international law, EU law and constitutional law) at the University of Cologne and research fellow at the Institute of Air Law and Space Law in Cologne.

    A set of principles are proposed for multilateral agreements to allow real property rights on celestial bodies within the confines of the Outer Space Treaty (OST). They are:

  • Clear affirmation that the “province of all mankind” language of the OST is fundamentally incompatible with the “common heritage of all mankind” language of the Moon Agreement. Although many parties to the latter are also parties to the OST, it should be affirmed as logically impossible for states to be parties to both treaties.

  • Formal recognition of the utter impracticality of the view that whoever mines resources in space must “share any benefit with all states,” a prevailing false interpretation of the “province of all mankind” language in Article II. The notion that the sale of liquid oxygen from the Moon to Elon Musk for a trip to Mars should somehow benefit Botswana is absurd. But for imports of space resources to Earth, one way of dealing with the issue could be a tariff that would fund a development bank, from which nations could borrow to fund their own space projects.

  • A requirement that all parties to the agreements will recognize property claims on celestial bodies of individuals from any nation, including nonparty nations, subject to certain conditions. The U.S. Homestead Act of 1862 could be used as a model, requiring an individual to inhabit a prospective piece of real estate for some designated period of time, and improve it in some sense, in order to gain title. The General Mining Act of 1872 might also be used as a model, regulating mining claims and requiring their purchase for a fee from a governing body, if they are considered to be found on publicly owned land.

  • A distinction between resources extracted in space for personal use, such as harvesting lunar water for life support; resources extracted in space for space commerce, such as harvesting lunar water to create propellant to sell; and resources brought back to Earth from space and for sale in the terrestrial economy.

  • A permissive interpretation of Article IX of the OST, which requires avoiding “harmful contamination” of celestial bodies. There is need for a clear interpretation of this clause that would not preclude, say, humans landing on Mars, yet would also ensure the preservation of heritage sites, such as the Apollo landing sites on the Moon or Viking landing sites on Mars.


Rand E. Simberg

    The discussion of Space Traffic Management (STM) has rapidly emerged over the past couple of years but policy decisions or concrete actions are yet to be ignited to date. From the beginning of discussions of the Draft International Code of Conduct for Space Activities (ICOC), a combination of a top-down approach engaging the political commitments of States and a bottom-up approach of technically affordable solutions have become essential for realizing sustainable space activities at a global level. These approaches are the logical conclusion of the need to establish common standards and safety regulations across the entirety of operations in outer space. However, after experiencing the multiple disappointments of topdown approaches, some began as bottom-up approaches but ended up as top-down, including the Draft Best Practice Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability of Space Activities at Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Outer Space (COPUOS), ICOC, and the Report of the Group of Governmental Experts for Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Space Activities; therefore, methods of engaging actors must be carefully designed. At this point, considering from the actors’ incentives, a bottom-up approach among civil operators towards global STM rule-making for safe space operations should be promoted. This paper will describe the main reason why the operators have to be the main players at this stage, based on the reluctance of States to regulate traffic in outer space. States are unlikely to regulate other traffic areas, apart from their incentive to maintain the order of the area, as they do not have sovereignty over any part of the area. Civil operators, on the other hand, will become liable for damages due to on-orbit accidents in the near future. The current evaluation standard of fault liability for on-orbit damage will change in the near future, due to the accumulation of cases involving the practical standards of operations. In these circumstances, those operators who do not conform to the stipulated standards will be deemed liable for damages. Therefore, at this stage, operators have incentives to take an important role in the de facto rulemaking process by producing practical standards and guidelines. This process will help secure the future of space activities while forming standards of fault liability affordably.


Yu Takeuchi
Institute of Space Law, Graduate School of Law, Keio University, 2-15-45 Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan 108-8345. Management and Integration Department, Human Space Flight Technology Directorate, JAXA, 2-1-1 Sengen, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan 305-8505.

    In 2018, the president of the United States released his Space Policy Directive-3, which commands several sectors of the federal executive apparatus to reassess their current and future efforts to address space traffic management and space situational awareness issues. The reasons for this Directive can be boiled down to the belief that the continued use of the orbital realm depends on responsible management, which in turn depends on myriad factors that include the development of new technologies, the refinement of data gathering, and the clarification of governmental operational roles. In particular, the Directive calls for enhanced standardization of safety and best practices, and doles out tasks for relevant agencies, among which the Federal Communications Commission plays a significant role. Given the FCCs influence on the licensure of satellites and the proliferation of constellations, it will be a leader in fulfilling the obligations set out in SPD-3. In October of 2018, the FCC announced it would revisit its much older orbital debris management rules, with an eye towards their revision and in light of its responsibility for increasing traffic in outer space. In November, they released their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in which they tackle a multitude of germane topics, from spectrum use to orbital lifetime, and from choice of orbit to post-mission disposal. The comment period opened up in early 2019, and more than eighty comments were submitted to the FCC by various industry representatives, federal agencies, and international entities. This essay proposes to examine how the FCC’s planned changes will address concerns outlined in SPD-3, what work remains to be done, and challenges the agency faces in ensuring U.S. compliance with international space law and environmental obligations.


Michael S. Dodge
Assistant Professor, University of North Dakota, Department of Space Studies.

    Most national commercial space legislation imposes a general obligation to comply with the Outer Space Treaty, often by reference to compliance with international obligations generally, on commercial entities seeking authorization to engage in space activities. Accordingly, a low-level or minimalistic harmonization exists in this respect. However, different wording in national space laws of even this very generally worded obligation as well as failure to include such an obligation in a select number of national space laws makes such harmonization imperfect. The consequences of this minimalistic, imperfect harmonization are a reduction in potential transparency benefits to private parties and missed opportunities to advance a coalescence of views of countries around Outer Space Treaty obligations. More detail in national space legislation regarding what the Outer Space Treaty requires may assist in achieving greater coalescence of views among countries of Outer Space Treaty obligations beyond what can be achieved relying on diplomacy alone within the UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) and in other forums. It may also provide more transparency and certainty to private parties and confirm that OST obligations are minimally burdensome for commercial entities, thereby helping their business cases and expanding commercial space innovation and investment.


Matthew Schaefer
Haggart & Work Professor of International Trade Law & Founding Co-Director – Space, Cyber and Telecommunications Law Program, University of Nebraska College of Law.

Hannah L. Kohler
J.D. Georgetown Law 2015; B.A. Penn State 2012; attorney, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Office of Chief Counsel.

    Among the numerous space activities, satellite communications remain the most widespread, essential, and advanced. To perform a communication function, satellites need to be placed in orbit and use the radio-frequency spectrum. Such limited natural resources, which require rational, equitable, efficient, and economical use in an interference-free environment, are managed by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
    Before a new satellite or a satellite network is brought into use, the relevant operator carries out coordination with other operators which utilize satellite networks in the adjacent orbital locations. The results of the coordination procedure are then reflected in coordination agreements. Though coordination may last for years, the difficulty is not so much the conclusion of an agreement as its due performance and enforcement.
    Coordination agreements generally contain mutually acceptable technical parameters for the operation of certain frequencies and their breach may cause harmful interference toward communications satellites. At the request of administrations, the ITU carries out investigations of harmful interference and formulates recommendations. Although such a process has a few drawbacks, complete disregard for the content of coordination agreements makes it totally meaningless.
    If the ITU’s recommendations cannot satisfy the parties or are not duly followed, or if damage was caused by harmful interference and requires compensation, a judicial recourse seems inevitable. As disputes may involve parties around the globe, to which court should they apply? Commonly drafted by technical experts, coordination agreements hardly provide for a dispute resolution mechanism or governing law, while the application of general rules may bring parties to an exotic jurisdiction equally irrelevant to both. Whatever court is chosen, the question of specific knowledge arises. However, the ITU’s practice has always been not to get involved in disputes.
    Therefore, disputes related to coordination agreements pose legal challenges. Where to adjudicate the case and what law to apply are just the tip of the iceberg, while the major question of whether there is a need for a specialized court remains significant. This field of space activities apparently requires legal advice.


Elina Morozova
E. Morozova, Head of International Legal Service, Intersputnik International Organization of Space Communications.

Yaroslav Vasyanin
Y. Vasyanin, Legal Counsel, International Legal Service, Intersputnik International Organization of Space Communications.

    Currently, the space industry is witnessing a commercialisation wave which, at least in parts, can be considered as disruptive. New technology and market trends associated to this commercialisation wave are circumscribed by the term NewSpace. Along with the NewSpace trend, there is a wave of investment in commercial space activities. Favourable framework conditions supporting commercialisation are key factors for investment decisions and the commercial success of companies along the entire value chain.
    Laws and regulations concerning commercial space activities are established in many countries, but they are currently reviewed and amended in the light of technology and market trends. Certain new services and applications are not yet addressed under national laws, or there is no consensus on their treatment at international level. Overall, there are significant uncertainties and/or evolutions regarding the legal framework in which space companies are operating. Companies along the value chain require different types of governmental approvals, including licenses under national space legislation, licenses under national telecommunications or media law, frequency assignments, market access authorizations, or export/import licenses. Delays in authorisation procedures and/or the denial/revocation of governmental approvals may have serious impacts on investments in space ventures.
    So far, investment treaties have not been extensively employed by the space industry for ensuring favourable political and legal conditions supporting their activities. However, the wave of commercial space companies and activities around the globe raises questions on the potential future role of public investment law.


Erik Pellander
BHO Legal, Germany, erik.pellander@bho-legal.com.
Article

The Proposed Public Procurement for Projects to Enhance Industrial Capabilities through Japanese Lessons Learned

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 9 2018
Keywords H-IIA, H3, Ariane 6, COTS, public private partnership, procurement
Authors Mizuki Tani-Hatakenaka
AbstractAuthor's information

    This paper discusses a framework for governmental projects to enhance industrial capabilities through the lessons learned from the Japanese contractual practice of H3 launch vehicle, comparing with the NASA’s Commercial Orbit Transportation Service (COTS). In 1995, the research and development (R&D) of the H-IIA was started by a former body of JAXA, and each manufacturer was responsible for delivery as required. After twelve-times launches, the operation was privatized to Mitsubishi Heavy Industry, Ltd. (MHI). Concerning H3, MHI was selected as a R&D contractor and a launch provider. MHI established the H3 rocket system specification and responsible for delivering the first vehicle to JAXA in 2020, and JAXA is responsible for the total system including its launch base and the H3 flight demonstration. Such a framework gives MHI more creative freedom, but there can be a room for further clarification of the responsibilities. Coincidentally, such a framework between public and private entities is similar to that of the European new flagship launch vehicle, Ariane 6.
    Meanwhile in NASA’s COTS, partners are responsible for all of the development and operation but they are not required to deliver their vehicles to NASA, contrary to H3. It allows clear role allocation and companies’ maximum creativity. A series of contracts of the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) after COTS is also remarkable to promote private investment, for example, around half of the total R&D cost is borne by private sectors. Also, cost accounting method does not seem to be applied for the price setting.
    The framework like H-2A is still necessary for high-risk R&D conducted by governmental agencies. It will be, however, necessary for projects, which aims at enhancing industrial capabilities through transferring the operations to the private sectors and encouraging innovation, to be taken different measures in relation to selection of prime contractor, delivery and payment in the development phase and to procurement of launch services in the operating phase.


Mizuki Tani-Hatakenaka
Adv. LL.M Student of Air and Space Law, Law School, Leiden University, Steenschuur 25, Leiden, 2311 ES, the Netherlands, tani.mizuki@jaxa.jp.
Article

Fledgling Polish Space Industry Ready for Lift–Off

Law as a Risk Management Tool in the Emerging Space Sector

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 9 2018
Keywords outer space, space activity, national space law, liability in space law, Polish space law
Authors Katarzyna Malinowska
AbstractAuthor's information

    This paper presents an overview of recent developments in Poland from a regulatory and institutional point of view, as well as at a programme level. Though Poles played an active part in setting out the foundations of the international space law, largely through the pioneer of space law – Polish Professor Manfred Lachs – for many years the Polish space industry barely existed, consisting only of the activities of a few engineers brave enough to set up start-ups and cooperate with big international players. The situation changed in 2012, when Poland joined ESA as a full member. Joining ESA and opening up the space industry to small players can be perceived as a significant trigger for the boost of Polish space projects. The first results came quickly. The number of Polish companies active in the sector is growing rapidly, already reaching 300 companies, forming a consistent, consolidated group of large, medium and small enterprises. Over the last five years, the attitude of the government has also been changing.
    Concerning regulatory challenges, Poland has still not adopted comprehensive space legislation, though in July 2017, a draft law on space activity was published by the government. The legal concept adopted in the national space law, especially about risk management, may influence the development of the whole national space activity, which still suffers from insufficient capital to bear the high level of risk related to ultra-hazardous activity such as space activity. The recent tendencies covering small sats, New Space, suborbital flight and space mining are also the subject of pending legislative discussions.


Katarzyna Malinowska
Professor at Kozminski University, Poland, katarzynamalinowska@kozminski.edu.pl.

Joanna Langlade
Alumna of the Leiden University Advanced LL.M. in Air and Space Law.
Article

Commercial OOS and Its Future: Policy and Legal Issues beyond Life Extension

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 8 2018
Keywords on-orbit servicing (OOS), on-orbit assembly (OOA), on-orbit manufacturing (OOM), active debris removal (ADR), modular spacecraft concepts
Authors Olga Stelmakh-Drescher, Ian Christensen and Joerg Kreisel
AbstractAuthor's information

    Satellites have typically been viewed as high-cost, static platforms that once launched have a limited orbital lifetime and a physical and mechanical structure that cannot be altered or maintained (with very limited exceptions). However, in the current day, a number of technical and market innovations are being deployed by the private sector, which might change this paradigm. These include small satellites, on-orbit assembly (OOA) and modular spacecraft concepts, and on-orbit servicing (OOS) in particular.
    OOS represents a number of possible changes in the traditional conceptualization of space systems and operations, and requires new policy, regulatory, and legal approaches. OOS potentially allows operators to extend the lifetime of existing, hence, traditional satellites; and in future possibly provide repair services or correct on-orbit anomalies or other servicing based on cooperative design and related standards.
    Space debris is a growing concern for the use of outer space. At the dawn of the space era there was no interim solution for objects launched into space once their lifetime in orbit was over: they were either left in orbit, moved to a graveyard orbit or deorbited. OOS capabilities may become part of the solution through both life extension and deorbiting of existing space infrastructure elements as well as debris avoidance due to new cooperative design philosophies aiming at OOS. As such OOS has implications for space debris mitigation. Requirements laid down in national legislation are important to define the extent of execution of space debris mitigation guidelines, including the end-of-life plan. However, space debris implications are only one element which must be considered in relation to OOS capabilities.
    In many national jurisdictions OOS is a new application without clearly defined regulatory and licensing practices. States have an obligation to provide this authorization and supervision framework, while industry requires a permissive regulatory framework to provide legal certainty. All stakeholders are committed to preserving the safety of the operating environment.
    With that in mind, this paper analyzes the prerequisites for evolution of OOS and opportunities for market creation, provide an overview of existing boundary conditions regarding OOS policy and legal scope and its commercial implementation including risks and challenges to be address, and examine how development of technologies needed for OOS could influence insurance and serve as economic driver. Finally, the paper will try to envision the way ahead towards capacity-building for OOS.


Olga Stelmakh-Drescher
International Institute of Space Commerce, 147 S. Adams Street, Rockville MD, 20850, United States, osd@iisc.im (corresponding author).

Ian Christensen
Secure World Foundation, 525 Zang Street, Suite D, Broomfield, Colorado, 80021, United States, ichristensen@swfound.org.

Joerg Kreisel
JKIC, Christhauser Strasse 67a, D-42897, Remscheid, Germany, jk@jkic.de.

    This paper tries to give orientation on which legal ramifications a plan for a Moon Village should observe. Through an analysis of the relevant provisions of international space law it shall be highlighted what kind of activities are compatible with international space law as well as which kind of legal developments of space law may be aimed at in order to make future activities of the Moon Village successful.


Stephan Hobe
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c., LL.M. (McGill); Director of the Institute of Air Law, Space Law and Cyber Law; holder of the Jean-Monnet Chair for Public International Law, European Law, European and International Economic Law at the University of Cologne. stephan.hobe@uni-koeln.de.

Rada Popova
Teaching and Research Fellow and PhD candidate at the Institute of Air Law, Space Law and Cyber Law (University of Cologne); (Mag. iur) Law Master's Degree (University of Vienna); Researcher at the 2017 Centre for Studies and Research (Hague Academy of International Law). rada.popova@uni-koeln.de.

    Cyber security opens a new dimension in the discussion on human activities in outer space. The part of the law pertaining to cyberspace which is of interest for this paper is the regulation related to cyber activities in outer space.
    Space activities are not immune from malicious cyber activities as transmission signals are vulnerable to cyber access. The range of threats is very wide and can include the loss of control, the disruption of services and the modification or loss of data. While it is clear that the malicious uses of cyberspace constitute a large spectrum of threats for space operations, the legal rules applicable to cyber operations have still to be determined.
    This paper will first tackle definitional matters in order to describe the technical nature of cyberspace and to address the question on how cyber law may touch upon outer space activities. Then, questions of the applicability of international law and space law to cyber activities as well as measures to address the consequences of cyber threats to the space infrastructure will be addressed.


Rada Popova
Teaching and Research Fellow and PhD candidate at the Institute of Air Law, Space Law and Cyber Law (University of Cologne); (Mag. iur) Law Master’s Degree (University of Vienna); Researcher at the 2017 Centre for Studies and Research (Hague Academy of International Law). Institute of Air Law, Space Law and Cyber Law, University of Cologne, Germany, rada.popova@uni-koeln.de.

    The grand project of “Belt and Road” Space Information Corridor proposed by China, which aims to integrate its space-based platforms for comprehensive space applications under the Belt and Road Initiative, resonates with calls and recommendations of the United Nations conferences on the exploration and peaceful uses of outer space for increased international cooperation in space projects to address common challenges. This project is expected to translate the potentials of space technology for socioeconomic development into real benefits for billions of people along the Belt and Road region. The Chinese government has released guidelines in 2016 to identify the general goals and major tasks.
    As we celebrate legacy of the UNISPACE conferences this year, it is beneficial to also focus on the ramifications of large scale space projects for governance of space activities on national, regional and international level. On the one hand, policy and legal aspects are important factors to be taken into account in project planning and implementation. On the other hand, the need to accommodate requirements of space projects could stimulate adjustment or innovation in space policies and regulations. The “B&R” Space Information Corridor offers us a chance to explore such interaction between space project and space governance. Based on analysis of the relevant aspects of legal environment, this paper purports to examine opportunities and challenges confronted with during implementation of the “mega-project” from legal perspectives.


Kang Duan
China Great Wall Industry Corporation.

Catherine Doldirina
International Institute of Space Law, Italy, kdoldyrina@yahoo.com.

    This paper analyzes, on the one hand, the legitimate expectations and needs of the industries in terms of intellectual property protection for outer space research, as they need to be protected against violations and be free to grant exploitation licenses. On the other hand, it investigates if the use and exploitation of outer space and celestial bodies is carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries.
    The key issue of the protection of inventions in accordance with national and international regulations will also be addressed in the paper.
    The paper will start from a combined analysis of art. 5 of the IGA, establishing that each Partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements it registers, and art. 21 of the IGA, which regulates intellectual property based on the quasi-territorial principle, and sets out that the regulations of the State in whose registered modules the invention occurs shall apply. The paper aims to examine national intellectual property protection regulations, highlighting possible conflicts of applicable national laws with respect to the place where the invention occurs and inventor nationality, but also regarding the recognition of the different patent systems adopted by ISS Partner States. European Partner States enjoy a privileged position, as set forth by paragraph 2 of art. 21 of the IGA.
    As the unique environment of the ISS calls for quick recognition of intellectual property licenses obtained in other Partner States, the paper will analyze the different Partners’ national legislation, existing International Conventions on the matter, such as the TRIPS Agreement, and European patent regulations, which streamline procedures and introduce stringent minimum protection standards in all the areas of intellectual property.


Gabriella Catalano Sgrosso
University of Rome, Italy, sgrossogabriella@gmail.com.

    1. The main question of my research is “who will possess the intellectual property rights of remote sensing images, obtained from observation satellites, analyzed through big data analysis conducted by A.I.”
      In consideration of this theme, I am aiming to organize the following controversial points which may arise from the sale of satellite data:

      1. Intellectual property rights attributed to raw data;

      2. Copyright of the results of A.I. data analysis; and

      3. Rights (copyright and patent rights) of the firms that create the algorithms.

    2. To further examine this issue, I begin by discussing two topics from intellectual property law and international space law perspective:

      1. Points of contention regarding the attribution of copyright for satellite data extracted from observation satellites; and

      2. The idea of “the denial of preferential access right for the remote sensing data of surveyee’s countries” which was provided in the 1986 Remote Sensing Principles.

    3. In addition to the above, I aim to highlight areas that may be problematic in this new era for the space industry, as well as notable points for business players, by superimposing data analytic methodology with a discussion of the rights of A.I. deliverables. The aim of this paper is to integrate a space law issue (rights of remote sensing images) with an intellectual property law issue (with an emphasis on traditional issues as well as A.I. rights).

    4. To conclude, I will highlight certain opinions from a legislative perspective and emphasize the importance of critical importance of strategic contractual coverage of these issues.


Mihoko Shintani
TMI Associates.

    The aim of this paper is to present an overview of the assessment undertaken by the DG Competition of the European Commission on a series of merger and acquisition cases occurring in the space sector in the last 25 years. Not only do the decisions of the DG Competition record the evolution of the major actors in the space sector in Europe but they also demonstrate how the DG Competition of the European Commission has acknowledged the regulatory contribution of the European Space Agency to the creation and growth of the industrial landscape of the space sector in Europe. The paper is not meant to be a scholarly contribution to the analysis of EU competition law. It is, instead, a fact-finding exercise seen from the perspective of ESA’s industrial policy.


Marco Ferrazzani
European Space Agency (ESA), Legal Counsel and Head of Legal Services Department.

Ioanna Thoma
European Space Agency (ESA),Legal Officer.
Showing 1 - 20 of 181 results
« 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.