Formalism, Informalism, and Innovation in Space and Telecommunications Law Conference May 1-3, 2008 at the Cornhusker Marriot, Lincoln, Nebraska
Lincoln, May 2008
For Conference Agenda Click Here
Security and Risk Management in a New Space Era
Lincoln, March 2007
On March 2, 2007, the Law College hosted its first ever space and telecommunications law conference titled “Security and Risk Management in a New Space Era: Military, Commercial and Tourism Dimensions.” The theme of the conference was particularly timely as in mid-January 2007 China conducted the first anti-satellite weapon test in 20 years, knocking out one of its own aging weather satellites 537 miles from Earth. In the process, China created a debris field of hundreds—if not thousands—of fragments. Previously, in September of 2006, there were media reports of China “illuminating” satellites with lasers. Before that time, the last test of an anti-satellite weapon was conducted by the United States in 1985, and the last piece of debris created by that test just deorbited in 2004. China was roundly criticized by the international community for its test and the test’s potential impact.
General James Cartwright, then Commander of US Strategic Command (“US STRATCOM”) and current Vice-Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave the keynote address at the conference. General Cartwright noted that the military tracks over 40,000 objects in space, occasionally warning satellite operators of potential collisions with each other or with debris. General Cartwright also made the point that the law is not as precise as it needs to be given the density of space activities today. For example, whose responsibility is it to maneuver when two objects are on a potential collision course? Other problems identified during the talk included piracy of bandwidth, jamming of signals, and other interference with communications. US STRATCOM continues to attempt to improve space situational awareness, including more proactive awareness of space activities. General Cartwright concluded by noting that there is no need for an arms race in space. In addition to General Cartwright’s keynote address, several different panels were held to address a variety of issues. These panels addressed issues involving “space tourism,” the military dimensions of space law, and the commercial/telecommunications aspects.
The speakers on the Tourism/Transportation Dimensions Panel included Laura Montgomery, Chief Counsel’s Office, FAA Commercial Space Transportation; Frans von der Dunk, Director, Space Law Research, International Institute of Air and Space Law, Leiden University (Netherlands); Stephan Hobe, Director, Air and Space Law Institute, University of Cologne; and Tracey Knutson, Knutson and Associates (Alaska). Articles based on Professor von der Dunk’s and Professor Hobe’s panel presentations are soon to be published in the Nebraska Law Review.
The Military Dimensions Panel focused on “Protecting Systems and Using Military Power to Protect Civil, Commercial, and Tourist Operations; and System Negation.” The panel’s speakers included Phil Meek, Air Force General Counsel’s Office; Major Darren Huskisson, Chief, Cyber and Space Law, US STRATCOM and a Law College graduate; and Colonel Patrick Gleeson, Canada. Eligar Sadeh, Professor, University of North Dakota Space Studies Department, served as commentator for the panel. Phil Meek noted that the there is very little transparency in other nation’s space policies and that the U.S. has an asymmetrical advantage in space. However, Meek also warned that this could turn into an Achilles heel if space assets are not properly protected. Darren Huskisson analyzed what the principles identified in International Court of Justice’s opinion in the Oil Platforms case might mean for the defense of the space network. Finally, Colonel Gleeson provided a Canadian perspective on system protection and system negation issues. Several papers from this panel were recently published in the journal Astropolitics.
The Commercial/Telecommunications Dimensions Panel focused on “Managing Risks, Securing Assets.” The panel’s speakers included Ram Jakhu, Professor, McGill University Institute of Air and Space Law; Hal Burman, Legal Advisor’s Office, United States State Department; Joanne Gabrynowicz, Director, Remote Sensing and Space Law Center, University of Mississippi; and Pamela Meredith, Co-Chair, Space Law Practice Group, Zuckert, Scoutt, and Rasenberger. June Edwards, a Law College graduate, formerly with NASA General Counsel’s Office and currently with US STRATCOM, served as moderator for the panel.
Space Law Seminar at Strategic Space and Defense Conference
Omaha, October 2007
The Space and Telecom Law Program hosted a space law seminar on “Formalism v. Informalism in Space Law” in conjunction with the Strategic Space and Defense Conference in Omaha October 9, 2007. Steve Mirmina, Senior Attorney, NASA General Counsel’s Office, was the lead speaker. Steve’s presentation focused on informal mechanisms for regulating space debris, including exploring analogies in other international law fields to regulation through means less formal than a treaty. Darren Huskisson, former Chief of Cyber and Space Law at US STRATCOM, provided a military viewpoint on formal versus informal regulation, and Jonathan Solomon, Legal Officer, Department of Foreign Affairs, Canada provided a non-U.S. perspective on these issues.
The "off-the-record" discussion among the panelists explored the following set of questions:
- While new formal space treaties (or major amendment of existing treaties) are unlikely in the near future, there are an array of informal mechanisms and national legislation and practice that occur to regulate space—what degree of formalism is most appropriate;
- Do certain informal mechanisms work better than others;
- What factors impact government choices regarding the degree of formalism;
- How do the informal mechanisms interact with the formal treaties;
- Will informal mechanisms have to become more formalized over time;
- How do new space actors impact the choice between formal and informal mechanisms;
- Given rapidly evolving technology and commercial activities, are informal mechanisms going to continue to be the major law making device;
- How does potentially increasing militarization impact choices between formal and informal mechanisms; and
- What "gaps" or issues in existing law most need "filling" through informal or formal mechanisms?
