entitled to engage in the response of "jamming" in order to indicate its displeasure? Such action could induce responsive remedial conduct. Generic to all three situations is the formal or treaty base for liability, which, pursuant especially to the Liability Treaty, varies depending on the spatial area in which the harm occurs. Despite different theories relating to proof of fault for different spatial areas, the 1972 Convention has an unlimited spatial application, for it encompasses the surface of the earth, airspace, and space objects that have left the surface of the earth or airspace. Also generic to the three situations is the measure of damages to be awarded in the event of a proven violation of the treaty expectations. In seeking to respond to these three issues, and particularly the second and third, it will be sensible to enter a caveat. To the present no world tribunal has written an opinion in which answers have been provided. This means that reliance must be placed on the historic developments of this phase of space law including the language found in the agreements, the practices of the space-resource States and their nationals, the commentaries of scholars, and in particular the records of the negotiations including formal statements made by negotiators both during and after the conclusion of such negotiations. The point was made in a preceding chapter that it can take a long time for a space law principle and more detailed rules to come into being. Under the heading "Legal Problems Susceptible of Priority Treatment" the Ad Hoc Committee on July 14, 1959 included the following in a report to the General Assembly: Since injury or damage might result from the launching, flight and return to earth of various kinds of space vehicles or parts thereof, a number of problems exist
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==