+(,121/,1(

Citation:
Stephen Gorove, Pollution and Outer Space: A Legal
Analysis and Appraisal, 5 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 53
(1972)

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline

Sun Feb 18 03:21:01 2018

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license
agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from

uncorrected OCR text.

-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope

of your HeinOnline license, please use:

Copyright Information

Use QR Code reader to send PDF to

your smartphone or tablet device
 POLLUTION AND OUTER SPACE:
A LEGAL ANALYSIS AND APPRAISAL

STEPHEN GOROVE0

I. INTRODUCTION

Pollution, contamination, environmental control and similar

expressions have become household words practically overnight.
The discussion of legal problems which center around these terms
has mushroomed in recent years with respect to almost every arena
of human endeavor with the exception of outer space.1 The pur-
pose of this inquiry is to focus on this somewhat neglected field, re-
view various types of actual and potential pollution, critically ana-
lyze the latest internationally attempted solutions and suggest some
alternatives for improvement and filling of gaps in the legal frame-
work.
The analysis of this topic, just like the analysis of a more con-
ventional legal subject, starts with a clarification of terms. The first
term, "pollution," has been in the center of attention of people ev-
erywhere, particularly during recent years. Many definitions of this
term have been advanced, induding statutory and judicial definitions,
as well as definitions by administrators, scientists, and many other
people. Obviously, many of these definitions vary in terms of con-
tent, and the purpose which they intend to accomplish. In a sense
no definition is fool-proof, and in most cases this is realized, since a
definition usually purports to apply only in a given context.
With the foregoing preliminary observations in mind, and in
most general terms, pollution may be defined as a human alteration
of the environment by the introduction of undesirable elements or

*Chairman of the Graduate Program of the School of Law and Professor of

Law, University of Mississippi School of Law.
This paper is an elaboration of the author's remarks presented on December
28, 1971, in a panel discussion on "Pollution and Outer Space" before the annual
meeting of the Association of American Law Schools in Chicago and an elabora-
tion by the same author of his papers presented before the 22nd Congress of the
International Astronautical Federation on September 25, 1971, in Brusels.
1. Most books on space law contain some references to pollution and contam-
ination. See, e.g., Christol, The International Law of Outer Space, in 55 Naval
War College, International Law Studies 1962, at 108, 312-18 (1966); G. Gal,
Space Law 146 (1969); A. Haley, Space Law and Government 281-86 (1963);
C. Jenks, Space Law 280-82 (1965); S. Lay and H. Taubenfeld, The Law
Relating to Activities of Man in Space 189-91 (1970); M. McDougal, H. Laesswll
& I. Vlasic, Law and Public Order in Space 625-32 (1963).

Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
 INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLITICS [VOL. 5: 53

by the undesirable use of elements. 2 Whether or not such alteration

or interference is to be tolerated is a policy question which is to be
determined on the basis of available scientific evidence and many
other considerations. Frequently, as scientific evidence accumulates,
standards previously met have to be revised.
In a way, the definition of outer space is more difficult and
elusive than that of pollution. The common dictionary definition,
which has been in popular use, refers to outer space as the area ex-
clusive of the earth. 3 However, the trouble with this definition has
been that it does not clearly reveal the boundary line between air
space and outer space. While there have been many suggestions and
theories advanced to determine such a demarcation line, no interna-
tionally accepted boundary line has yet emerged. The only state-
ment that one might make with some degree of certainty is that
within the last decade or so, as Professor Myres S. McDougal ob-
served, an international customary law seems to have developed
which regards as outer space the area where artificial earth satellites
move in durable orbit.4 Also, the area above this height seems to
be regarded as outer space. However, as previously intimated, the
more precise boundary line between air space and outer space is
still left undetermined.5

II. TYPES OF POLLUTION

Generally speaking, one may distinguish two broad categories

of pollution in relation to outer space. The first category covers
those situations in which the pollution or contamination takes place
through the introduction of undesirable elements into outer space
by some form of human intervention. This is the so called "for-
ward" contamination. 6 The second category encompasses those sit-

2. While undesirable changes may also be brought about by non.human

interference and may be of legitimate concern, our major interest in environmen-
tal control, at the present time, is to reduce the level of human interference to
acceptable or desirable proportions.
3. Gorove, On the Threshold of Space Toward a Cosmic Law, 4 N.Y. L. F.
305, 308 n.14 (1958).
4. McDougal, The Emerging Customary Law of Space, 58 Nw. ULL. Rev. 618
(1964).
5. Gorove, Interpreting Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, 37 Fordham L.
Rev. 349, 351 (1969). For recent discussions of the demarcation line between air
space and outer space, see Galloway, Delimitation of Airspace from Outer Space,
paper presented before the World Peace Through Law Conference, Bangkok,
Sept. 7-12, 1969 (mimeo); Markoff, La D61imitation de I'Espace Extra-Atmosph6-
rique, 32 Revue Gdndlrae de 1'Air 377-91 (1969).
6. On "forward" contamination, see Horowitz, Sharp & Davies, Planetary
Contamination I: The Problem and the Agreements, 155 Science 1501 (1967);

Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
1972] POLLUTION AND OUTER SPACE

uations in which the pollution arises as a result of the introduction

of undesirable extraterrestrial matter into the environment of the
earth or undesirable use of such matter by similar human interven-
7
tion. This is known as "back" contamination.

A. "Forward" Contamination
Among the types of situations which may arise under the first
category may be, for instance, biological, chemical or radiological
contamination. Such contamination could result from the introduc-
tion of living terrestrial organisms into outer space, including celes-
tial bodies.8 It has been reported, for instance, that the introduction
of blue-green algae into the upper atmosphere of Venus and the in-
halation of carbon-dioxide and exhalation of oxygen by many gen-
erations of these micro-organisms would be sufficient to reduce the
high carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere of Venus. This may
reduce the "greenhouse" effect of the air on Venus and lower the
temperature perhaps by as much as hundreds of degrees. In addi-
tion to biological and organic chemical contamination, there might
also be other ecological disturbances through the artificial dissemi-
9
nation of terrestrial life.
Still another form of possible contamination arising out of
space activities would be nuclear explosions in space and accidcnts
involving nuclear propelled spacecraft. Some years ago certain U.S.
and Soviet nuclear experiments were alleged to have affected the
Van Allen radiation belts, jeopardizing the studies of their
origins.10 At present, under the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of
1963,11 such tests are prohibited in outer space. However, it
should be noted that the ban does not relate to wartime uses of
atomic energy. Also, several states, including Communist China
and France, are not parties to the agreement. The possibility of ac-
cidents resulting from the use of nuclear-powered spacecraft consti-
tutes another hazard of contamination.

Murray, Davies & Eckman, Planetary Contamination II: Soviet and US. Practices
and Poliies, 155 Sdence 1505 (1967); Sagan, Levinthal & Lederberg, Contamina-
tion of Mars, 159 Science 1191 (1968). See also the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of
Space 461 (1968).
7. NASA, Manned Spacecraft Center, Back Contamination Mission Rules
(Houston, Nov. 14, 1969). The somewhat unique requirements for handling
lunar samples and quarantining for back contamination arc discussed in McLane,
King, et al., Lunar Receiving Laboratory, 155 Science 525 (1967).
8. Horowitz, et al., supra note 6, at 1501.
9. A. Haley, supra note 1. at 283-84.
10. S. Lay and H. Taubenfeld, supra note 1, at 18.
11. [1963] 14 U.S.T. 1313, TI.A.S. No. 5433.

Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
 INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLITICS [VOL. 5: 53

Still another form of contamination may be caused by the in.

discriminate use of outer space for the disposition of space debris
and radioactive waste. According to the North American Air De-
fense Center (NORAD), more than 1,800 objects were actually
adrift in outer space in August 1970. Of that number, more than
1,400 were classified by NORAD as "Earth orbiting debris." This
so-called space junk includes satellites that no longer perform use-
ful functions, rocket bodies, burned-out motors, pieces of launch
mechanisms, discarded spacecraft, and a vast array of fragments.
About 1,000 pieces of this litter emanate from the American space
program while the Soviet Union and France have contributed the
remainder. The life-spans of these orbiting objects range from a few
hours to centuries. 12 The space debris poses a threat to future
space exploration and travel because of the danger of collision, and
can also cause damage to people and property when such objects
re-enter the Earth's atmosphere.
Still another form of pollution may arise through electro-mag-
netic interference. It is common knowledge that only a certain, lim-
ited radio spectra can be used for space communications, and one
of the major causes of electro-magnetic pollution is the increasingly
intensive competition for the use of available radio frequencies.
Many derelict space objects add to this problem by their continued
emission of signals. Sometimes illegal amateur radio operators also
interfere with allocated frequencies and create problems of elec-
tronic pollution.' s
Yet another example of alleged pollution was the West Ford
project involving the placement of a band of copper needles (di-
poles) around th& Earth to facilitate communication. This effort
was denounced by some as a unilateral interference with the Cos-
mos, which could possibly lead to an undesirable cluttering up of
space and interfere with scientific observations. 14 More recently, it
was reported that large-scale operation of supersonic jets (SST's)
could possibly inject sufficient water vapor into the stratosphere to
cause increased winter cloudiness in polar regions. Furthermore,
the jets' fuel could possibly raise the temperature of the strato-
sphere by as much as 7 degrees centigrade.1 5

12. Hager, The Orbiting Junkyard, Saturday Review, Sept. 5, 1970, at 44; see
also 106 Armed Forces J. 15 (March 22, 1969).
13. Time, Oct. 26, 1970, at 96.
14. S. Lay and H. Taubenfeld, supra note 1, at 18.
15. N.Y. Times, Aug. 5, 1970, at 70, col. 3.

Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
1972] POLLUTION AND OUTER SPACE

B. "Back" Contamination
Contamination of the Earth may take place as a result of
man's activities in outer space and particularly through the intro-
duction of extraterrestrial matter into the Earth environment by re-
turning spacecraft and astronauts. Such materials might include ex-
traterrestrial bacteriological or viral-type organisms which would
constitute a danger to various forms of life on Earth. An example
of potential environmental change involved the idea of orbiting a
space mirror to illuminate the dark areas of the world at night.16
Another example of such change relates to substantial weather
modification, such as the idea of turning Arctic climates into tem-
perate ones through the use of space mirrors by concentrating the
sun's rays in certain areas of the world.' 7

III. EFFORTS ToWAns POLLUTION CONTROL

With the increase of man's activities in outer space, came the
realization by many people that effective measures must be taken
to prevent pollution in and from outer space if man is to continue
his exploration and exploitation of the Cosmos without major ad-
verse effects. It is not the purpose of this inquiry, within the limited
space available, to list even in a general fashion all activities which
have taken place and all efforts made by a great many organiza-
tions, national and international, and individuals in this endeavor.

A. National Efforts
However, by way of example, it may be recalled that-on the
national level-since the beginnings of the American space pro-
gram serious efforts were made by NASA to prevent "forward"
contamination by extensive sterilization procedureq and isolation of
the astronauts.' 8 It may also be recalled that even the President of
the United States was asked not to dine with the astronauts on the
eve of their journey to the moon. Anyone who followed the flight of
Apollo 12 remembers the precautionary measures taken to ensure
against "back" contamination of the earth by possible infectious
bacteria and viruses from the moon's surface. The astronauts and

16. Nelson, Reflecting Satellite: NASA Study Causes Concern Among Astron-
omers, 155 Sdence 304 (1967).
17. Gorove, supra note 3, at 307.
18. On the "Sterilization of Space," see McGraw-Hill Encydopedia of Space,
461ff (1968). On sterilization of Mars-bound spacecraft, see Sagan, Levinthal &
Lederberg, Contamination of Mars, 159 Science 1191-96 (1968).

Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
 INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLITICS [VOL. 5: 53

crew members who came in contact with the space vehicle were
placed in seclusion and quarantined from the rest of the world for a
period of 21 days.' 9 NASA's purpose was to determine if the re-
turned extraterrestrial samples posed any threat to the terrestrial
biosphere. At the same time the objective was to prevent the con-
tamination of the terrestrial biosphere with extraterrestrial material
and to prevent terrestrial bio-contamination of the returned
20
samples.
Insofar as the other major space power, the Soviet Union, is
concerned, very little is known in the West about the adequacy and
extent of its sterilization and other preventive procedures. Accord-
ing to NASA, the Soviets have been willing to provide little more
than general assurances that their spacecraft are sterilized. While
there is a general consensus that Soviet rockets are permitted to im-
pact the planets, no assurances of any kind have been forthcoming
2
regarding their sterilization and diversion from the planets. 1

B. InternationalEfforts Outside the United Nations

On the international level, because of its significance, refer-

ence may be made briefly to the activities of COSPAR, the Com-
mittee on Space Research of the International Council of Scientific
Unions, (successor to CETEX, Committee on Contamination by
Extraterrestrial Exploration), which studied some of the problems
associated with the pollution of outer space and formulated recom-
mendations concerning planetary quarantine and sterilization pro-
cedures. At its 1964 session, COSPAR adopted a resolution, for in.
stance, that no spacecraft should be landed on Mars if there were
more than one chance out of 10,000 that it was carrying earthly mi.
cro-organisms that could contaminate and if there were more than
one chance out of 300,000 for accidental planetary impact by un-
sterilized spacecraft. 22 Of course, the recommendations of COS-

19. However, it should be noted that these quarantine requirements were

lifted on the Apollo 15 mission. For an exhaustive survey of the quarantine
procedures, see Robinson, Earth Exposure to Extra-terrestrial Matter: NASA's
Quarantine Regulations, 5 Int'l Lawyer 219 (1971).
20. NASA, Lunar Receiving Laboratory, MSC Bldg. 37, at 19 (Houston, Sept.
1968)
21. Senate Comm. on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 91st Cong., 2d Sess.
Hearings on International Space Cooperation, pt. 3, at 937 (Comm. Print 1970).
See also Sagan, et al., supra note 6, at 1195; Murray, et al., supra note 6, at 1508,
state that the United States and the Soviet Union arc exploring the planets
"under different (self-imposed) ground rules."
22. Res. 26 (1964), COSPAR Inform. Bull., Nov. 1964, at 24.

Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
1972] POLLUTION AND OUTER SPACE

PAR have essentially a persuasive character and lack a legally

binding force.
Among other private international organizations, the Institute
of International Law in a resolution recommended that every state
under whose authority a space object is launched should ensure that
every such object was, insofar as practicable, fitted with a suitable
device permitting the launcher to recover it on the termination of its
useful life, or if recovery was not feasible "as a minimum to silence
radio transmission therefrom and eliminate its other effects."2 The
Institute also recommended that the launching state take appropri-
ate precautions against biological, radiological or chemical contami-
nation of or from outer space or celestial bodies.
Among public international organizations deserving of men-
don is the International Telecommunications Union whose 1963
regulations provided that space stations must be made capable of
24
definite cessation of radio emissions.
Another public international organization, the World Meteo-
rological Organization, sounded a warning that, before starting an
experiment involving large-scale weather modifications, we must be
sure of our capability of forecasting accurately the expected modifi-
cation in the heat balance and the circulation of the atmosphere.25
Otherwise, we could face dangerous situations of undesired irrever-
sible weather and climate changes.
Finally, the United Nations and its Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of Outer Space has focused international attention on the im.
20
portance of preventing contamination in and from outer space.

IV. THE OUTR SPACE TREATY

As a culmination of United Nations' efforts, the now well-
known Outer Space Treaty of 196727 created, for the first time,
certain specific international obligations pertaining to the preven-

23. Quoted in Jenks, supra note 1,at 280.

24. See para. 10 (2) of Reg. 470 which is cited in Jenks, supra note 1, at 281.
25. Quoted in McDougal, et al., supra note 1, at 535.
26. For relevant documentation and discussions, see Report of the Legal
Subcommittee on the Work of its Fifth Session (12 July-4 Aug. and 12-16 Sept.
1966) to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, U.N. Doc.
No. A/AC. 105/5 (1966); see also U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/C.2/SR. 68 (1966).
27. The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial
Bodies [hereinafter Outer Space Treaty] was signed on Jan. 27, 1967, and entered
into force Oct. 10, 1967. [1967] 18 U.S.T. 2410, T..A.S. No. 6347, reprinted in 61
Am. J. Int'l L. 644 (1967).

Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
 INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLITICS [VOL. 5: 53

don of contamination of outer space from earth and avoidance of

adverse changes in the environment of the earth resulting from the
28
introduction of extraterrestrial matter.
The relevant provisions have been incorporated in Article IX
of the Outer Space Treaty.2 9 This article was actually developed
from an earlier United Nations' resolution (Res. 1962) which was
unanimously passed in December 1963.30 The article, in a sense,
was an attempt to resolve the problem of reconciling the freedom of
exploration and use of outer space with the need to ensure that no
adverse effects will take place as a result of such exploration. 31
The article contains four sentences and, strictly speaking, only the
second sentence seems to deal with contamination-pollution prob-
lems. However, because of their interrelated nature, it appears es-
sential to give an account of all four sentences.
The first sentence deals with cooperation and mutual assist-
ance and due regard for corresponding interests of all parties. The
second sentence is concerned with pursuance of studies and avoid-
ance of harmful contamination of outer space and adverse changes
in the environment of the earth, and the third and fourth sentences

28. Outer Space Treaty, art. IX. There appears no article in the literature
dealing specifically with Art. IX of the Treaty.
29. The full text of Art. IX of the Outer Space Treaty reads as follows:
In the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other
celestial bodies, States Parties to the Treaty shall be guided by the principle of
cooperation and mutual assistance and shall conduct all their activities in outer
space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, with due regard to the
corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty. States Parties to
the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the moon and other
celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful
contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the earth resulting
from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt
appropriate measures for this purpose. If a State Party to the Treaty has reason
to believe that an activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals in outer
space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially
harmful interference with activities of other States Parties in the peaceful explo-
ration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, it
shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with
any such activity or experiment. A State Party to the Treaty which has reason to
believe that an activity or experiment planned by another State Party in outer
space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially
harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer
space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, may request consultation
concerning the activity or experiment.
30. GA. Res. 1962, 18 U.N. GAOR Supp. 15, at 28, U.N. Doc. A/5515
(1963).
31. The avoidance of harmful contamination is a specific limitation on the
principle of freedom of exploration and use. Gorove, Limitations on the Princi-
ple of Freedom of Exploitation and Use: Benefit and Interests, Proc. 13th
Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 74 (1971).

Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
1972] POLLUTION AND OUTER SPACE

deal with what could be regarded as prevention of nuisance,32 that

is, potentially harmful interference with activities in outer space,
and stipulate international consultation. As a preliminary remark, it
may be observed that Article IX,. despite the great importance of
the subject matter, is unfortunately limited to the parties to the
treaty and nowhere in the article do we find a declaration of some
general purpose or intent of a broader scope which we find in some
other provisions of the Outer Space Treaty.38
Turning specifically to the first sentence, it is stated that in the
exploration and use of outer space including the moon and other
celestial bodies, the parties shall be guided by the principle of coop-
eration and mutual assistance and shall conduct all their activities
with due regard to the corresponding interests of all parties. Of
course, just what a state must do to live up to this obligation is not
specified. Furthermore, what kind of cooperation, what type of as-
sistance and in what manner are not dear. Whether this sentence
refers to matters involving pollution or other matters is not stated.
Whether the word "guided" means that a state must follow these prin-
ciples or whether it may merely consider them is not entirely dear.
What is meant by "due regard," and who determines it? Most
likely, it will be determined by each individual state. What is the
meaning of "corresponding interests," does this involve the state's
own interest? "Corresponding" usually means something alike or
similar in purpose or function, so in that sense it may involve the
state's own interest. The reference to "all parties," of course, raises
the question of states which are not parties to the treaty. Do their
interests not have to be taken into account?
The second sentence is not derived from the earlier mentioned
United Nations resolution. This is a new addition to the Outer
Space Treaty which came about as a compromise between Soviet
and United States proposals. 34 Perhaps this is the reason for the

32. See McMahon, Legal Aspects of Outer Space, 38 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 339,
390-91 (1962).
3. Arts. I and H of the Treaty enundate general obligations inasmuch as
they are not limited to the parties to the Treaty. For discussions of these articles.
see Gorove, Freedom of Exploration and Use in the Outer Space Treaty: A
Textual Analysis and Interpretation, 1 Denver J. of Int'l Law & Policy 93 (1971);
Gorove, Interpreting Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, 37 Fordham L. Rev.
349 (1969).
34. See Art. 10 of the United States draft and Art. VIII of the Soviet
draft, which are reproduced in Report of the Legal Subcommittee on the Work of
its Fifth Session <12 July-4 Aug. and 12-16 Sept. 1966) to the Committee on the
Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Annex I, U.N. Doc. No. A/AC.105/35, at 6-9, 12-16
(1966).

Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
 INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLITICS [VOL. 5: 53

lack of clarity in this sentence. The sentence states that the parties
to the treaty shall pursue studies of outer space including the moon
and celestial bodies and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid
their harmful contamination and adverse changes in the environ-
ment of the earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestial
matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for
this purpose. It is interesting to note that the requirement that par-
ties shall "pursue studies," is irrespective of whether they engage in
any activities in outer space, so apparently all parties must pursue
studies. Presumably, these studies will be pursued by the parties
proportionate to their ability, to the costs, values and risks involved,
and perhaps the studies will be conducted with the idea of avoiding
duplication. Just what kind of studies the parties will have to pursue
is not clear. Possibly, the studies could be required to relate to con-
tamination since the rest of the sentence deals with contamination,
but this is left unclear.
It is interesting to note also that the reference to the word
"them" leaves the reader uncertain whether it refers to both outer
space as well as celestial bodies. This is clearly something that
could have been made more definite. Furthermore, it should be
pointed out that the only obligation is to avoid "harmful" contami-
nation. Therefore other contamination which is not harmful is
apparently permissible. Also, there is nothing said about harmful con-
tamination of the earth. The reference is only to harmful contami-
nation of outer space and possibly of celestial bodies. What is the
meaning of contamination? Does this mean simple pollution, or are
we dealing here with the spread of impurity and infection-in other
words, biological type of contamination? It seems unclear. Also, it
is not clear to whom the contamination must be harmful. In a
sense, almost anything may be harmful to some people and benefi-
cial to others inasmuch as people have different value schemes.
The parties are not only required to avoid harmful contamina-
tion, but also to avoid "adverse changes in the environment of the
earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter."
Once again, to whom do the changes have to be adverse? All
changes benefit some. Does the sentence refer to climatic changes
or all the other types of changes? Furthermore, the reference is to
the environment of the earth, but apparently the creation of adverse
changes in the environment of celestial bodies is permissible unless
the changes would also amount to harmful contamination. Also, it
is not quite clear whether or not the "introduction of extraterrestrial
matter" has to be intentional. What about the example of the space

Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
1972] POLLUTION AND OUTER SPACE

mirror? Does this include introduction of extraterrestrial matter?

The moon rocket is apparently all right so long as there are no ad-
verse changes in the environment of the earth. To fulfill their obli-
gation with respect to the avoidance of harmful ontamination and
adverse changes, the parties are required, "where necessary," to
"adopt appropriate measures." But who determines what is "neces-
sary" or "appropriate" and by what standard? How many and what
kind of measures are we talking about? Should international con-
sultation be used here? The sentence does not so state, even though
the next sentence deals with problems of international consultation.
The third sentence states, that if the party "has reason to be-
lieve" that an activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals
would cause "potentially harmful interference" with activities of
other parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, it
shall undertake appropriate international consultations before pro-
ceeding with such activity or experiment. Here again, the stipula-
tion itself provides a relatively easy manner of circumvention. The
phrase "reason to believe" seems to give an opportunity for any
party to be lax in censuring itself. What is meant by "potentially
harmful interference?" Does this refer to pollution? Perhaps it
could include pollution. It may have a much wider scope, and activ-
ities similar to the West Ford project could fall under it. Reference
to other "parties" in the third sentence seems to indicate that if only
one party is affected no international consultations are required be-
cause the word is used in the plural. Actually, instead of interna-
tional consultations, Japan proposed consultations with the Secre-
tary-General of the United Nations.3 5 This proposal, however, was
not adopted. The reference to "international consultations" does
not indicate with whom a nation has to consult. A country may
consult with its friends or its enemies. Perhaps COSPAR could
have been included as a possible forum of consultation,3 6 Also,
there is no indication of how many states a party has to consult.
There is no procedure outlined and no authority set up to determine
the procedure. There is no provision in case the consultations end
in a deadlock. There is no indication anywhere that a party must
follow another party's recommendation. So as long as there is con-
sultation, the requirement is apparently satisfied.
The last sentence deals with the party who has reason to be-
lieve that an activity or experiment planned by another party in

35. UN.Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/SR. 68, at 5- (1966).

36. Cf. McGill Univ. Institute of Air and Space Law, Yearbook of Air &
Space Law 392-93 (M. Mankiewicz ed. 1967).

Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
 INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLITICS [VOL. 5: 53

outer space would cause potentially harmful interference with activ-

ities in the exploration and use of outer space. Such a party may re-
quest consultation concerning the activity or experiment. Again this
is another somewhat vague provision. It, too, does not indicate to
whom the party has to turn for consultation. The party may consult
with anyone, although it would seem very likely that the consulta-
tion would include the party whose experiment is interfering with
some other experiments or activities in space. The last sentence in-
corporates a more general provision than the previous one by pro-
hibiting interference with the activities of any state. Thus, not only
would activities of a state party to the treaty be included, but those
of a nonsignatory as well. Unfortunately, nothing is said as to what
happens if a request for consultation is rejected. There is no definite
obligation involved. One party may request consultation and the
other party may simply turn it down. This also makes it apparent
that the other party does not have to follow any recommendation.
The foregoing provisions of the Outer Space Treaty constitute
an important initial step toward preventing adverse changes in the
environment of the earth from outer space as well as in reducing
the chances of harmful contamination of outer space, including ce-
lestial bodies. At the same time, this brief scrutiny seems to indicate
that further steps will have to be taken by the international com-
munity as man's exploration of outer space assumes more signifi.
cant proportions. But, while the quoted provisions have been a re-
sponse to mankind's concern about the dangers of pollution and
contamination, the treaty has not yet provided any detailed code of
conduct for the space powers to prevent or reduce the chances of
87
contamination in and from outer space.

V. CONCLUSION

It would appear that the formulation of an international code

of conduct regarding pollution and contamination from outer space
is essential. Also, there seems to be a vital need for the establish-
ment of an international environmental control authority regarding
space, to monitor and possibly regulate undesirable interference
with the environment.

37. It may be noted that Art. 5, para. 4 of the Agreement on Rescue and
Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched Into Outer Space,
[1968] 19 U.S.T. 7570, T.I.A.S. No. 6599, obligates the launching authority "to
eliminate possible danger or harm" with respect to "hazardous and deleterious"
objects. See Gorove, International Protection of Astronauts and Space Objects, 20
De Paul L.R. 597, at 613ff (1971).

Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
1972] POLLUTION AND OUTER SPACE

Expectations are not entirely negative. The space debris prob-

lem may be solved through a shuttle service or the retrieving of
space objects where the object is more expensive than the cost of
retrieval. According to current estimates, it will be possible in the
future to cut down on fuel contamination by the use of proton emis-
sion engines and ion reaction devices, which do not emit foreign
substances into the operating media as do current propulsion sys-
tems. In addition, it will be possible to use earth sensor satellites to
38
monitor air and water pollution on a world-wide scale
Even with these optimistic expectations, many problems will
remain, including the problem of cost and the problem of the differ-
ent value systems which influence the diverse ways in which nations
view pollution control. The road that we will travel will not be easy
by any means.

38. A recent report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations concluded

that research and development of earth-sensor satellites is proceeding at a rapid
pace. See UN. Doc. E/4779 (1970). See also Barringer, Surveillance Pollution from
Airborne and Space Platforms, in Michigan University Proc. 5th S)mposium on
Remote Sensing of Environment 123-55 (Sept. 1968); Ludwig, Bartle & Griggs,
Study of Air Pollutant Detection by Remote Sensors (NASA-CR-180. Washing-
ton, D.C., 1969); Stehling, Remote Sensing of the Oceans, 7 Astronautics & Aero-
nautics 62 (1969).

Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics
Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics