or in outer space. I think any reasonable interpretation of that clause would mean physical damage. It was not intended to cover what you have talked about. The dialogue contained the following. Senator Gore stated that the agreement did not use the term "physical damage," but that "as a matter of fact, electronic damage is physical in nature. The jamming of a communications system is accomplished by physical phenomena. ... If we are committing ourselves to liability for damages of an electronic nature in outer space with respect to radio and ray and various electronic communications, then this is a question, and I think a serious one." Ambassador Goldberg agreed with the seriousness of the issue. He then stated that the jamming situation was covered by Article 9. With respect to the meaning of this Article he stated: We did not establish a principle of liability which would become part of international law. We provided that if such interference may occur it should be the subject of appropriate international consultation. In other words, the two countries involved ought to take this matter up through diplomatic channels, that is what we provided, and that is the article of the treaty that relates to this type of interference, jamming, electrical interference, trying to stop a satellite by what measure you might take, and this is the subiect of appropriate international consultation.!* The Committee continued to evidence its concern over Ambassador Goldberg's indication that Article 7 dealt only with "physical" damage. Senator Gore particularly wished it to be understood that electronic damage was not to be construed to be physical damage. Ambassador Goldberg Ibid. Ibid., p. 71. Ibid.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==