(a) the Outer Space Treaty did not provide for the exclusion of such damage; (b) a claimant state would face serious difficulties in distinguishing between nuclear damage and damage caused by the impact, or the exploding of a space object; (c) nuclear damage does not arise solely through the effects of radiation but also from heat, light and explosions and it is thus very similar in many respects to non-nuclear damage; (d) unlike other types of nuclear hazards where the risks could be assessed and which were accepted by potential victims, nuclear damage caused by a space object was impossible to foresee and even more impossible to assess in advance; (e) the compensation being sought by the claimant state would be no different to that payable for other types of damage.37 All delegates finally concluded that nuclear damage should be included within the coverage of the agreement. Further, despite the arguements presented by the United States which wished to fix the maximum amount that could be recovered from this source of injury, it was agreed that there should be no monetary limitation on nuclear damage. Nuclear damage would result from the malfunctioning of a component part of a space object, such as a nuclear-powered motor on board and a part of the payload of the satellite. The launching State would be legally accountable for the damages that resulted. The Soviet Union as a party to the Liability Convention has acknowledged the applicability of the foregoing interpretation in accepting the validity of the Canadian claim for damages growing out of the Cosmos 954 event. It would seem that States employing microwave frequencies for the transmission of energy, which could have adverse effects and consequential damages by Ibid., pp. 156-157.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==