and effect or what degree of causality is required to bring out liability." Foster attributes the ambiguity relating to moral damages to the diversity of national laws on this subject. He calls attention to the lack of a detailed consideration of this matter by COPUOS, and correctly notes that the 1972 Convention does not deal specifically with the subject. Nonetheless, he concludes that "despite the problems involved in placing money values on pain and suffering, and loss of capacity to 28 enjoy life, compensation may be awarded for such losses." On the whole, it is believed that the terms of the agreement, as viewed in the light of all of the negotiations, do support the view that remuneration for general damages, including pain, suffering, humiliation, and loss of capacity to enjoy life would be properly allowable if they should result from the unlawful use of the space environment. Such misuse, of course, would include the harms produced by collisions or other malfunctionings. Article 1 in defining damage to include "loss or damage to property" clearly encompasses harms produced by the collision or malfunctioning of a space object or a component part with some other tangible entity. Such harm serves as an illustration of what has been described as "direct" damage within the coverage of the agreement. It has been observed that "undoubtedly, the definition covers direct damage, i.e., an injury, loss or damage flowing directly or immediately from, and as the probable and natural result, of the launching State's space object. In other words, it clearly covers instances where the space object is the proximate cause . Ibid. Foster, op. cit., p. 173.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==