Will china take the fall for its crashing space lab ‘tiangong-1’?

_Too caught up to read? Listen to the story instead:_ The spiraling out-of-control of China’s first prototype space station, Tiangong-1, with which the Chinese space agency has lost all

contact, and its impending re-entry into the Earth’s surface, has provoked much conjecture about where the space debris will fall and how much damage it is going to cause. Experts suggest

that space debris from Tiangong-1, surviving the re-entry to Earth, is expected to cause insignificant damage, however, _The Guardian_ reported that the Aerospace Corporation “warned that

the space station might be carrying a highly toxic and corrosive fuel called hydrazine on board”. LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED ON EARTH Amidst all this buzz around Tiangong-1, it is necessary

to assess whether space laws ratified by the countries are adequate to cover liabilities arising out of damage caused by the falling space debris in outer space or on the surface of the

Earth. > Could China be held accountable in the event some damage is caused > to any person, property or to the outer space environment? The Outer Space Treaty, which came into effect

in 1967, provides for international liability of a state party to the treaty under Article VII, “for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by

such object or its component parts on the Earth, in air or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies.” The Liability Convention was then adopted in 1972 as an elaboration

upon the liability principle laid down in Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty. > China, being a party to both conventions, could be liable for > damage, if any, caused by the space 

debris from Tiangong-1. The Liability Convention defines “damage” to mean “loss of life, personal injury or other impairment of health; or loss of or damage to property of States or of

persons, natural or juridical, or property of international intergovernmental organisations.” The definition of “damage” is wide enough to include any damage to persons or property due to

the falling space debris from Tiangong-1. > Additionally, the liability regime set out under the Liability > Convention for damage caused by a state’s space object, on the > surface

 of the Earth or to an aircraft in flight, is absolute, that > is, there would be no requirement to prove the fault on China’s > while claiming compensation for the damage caused. A

notable instance of the application of the Liability Convention was in 1978, when Cosmos 954, Russia’s nuclear-powered-satellite, crashed in Canada, spreading radioactive debris. Canada

invoked the Liability Convention and responsibility under the customary principles of international law to claim CA $6 million from Russia, mainly as clean-up costs. However, the matter was

settled through diplomatic channels and Russia finally agreed to pay CA $3 million. > This is the only instance in which the Liability Convention has been > successfully invoked. The

only other instance of such a nature was the crash of the US Skylab space station in the Australian desert which did not result in any actionable claims under the Liability Convention. While

the Liability Convention, strictly speaking, covers damage caused to person or property by the falling space debris from Tiangong-1, it does not cover any liability for harmful

contamination of the outer space environment. LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO OUTER SPACE ENVIRONMENT In case of Tiangong-1, the possibilities that there will be harmful space debris left behind in

outer space or the “toxic and corrosive fuel” on board will cause damage to the outer space environment and Earth’s atmosphere have not been ruled out. > The existing space laws, however,

 do not provide any liability for > damage caused to the extra-terrestrial or terrestrial environment. While there are Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines in place, these do not create any

binding obligations on countries to _not_ contaminate the outer space environment or to mandatorily remove the space debris. The guidelines only provide a mechanism to mitigate space

debris. Additionally, there are no liabilities in place for any harmful contamination caused to the outer space environment. Even the Rescue Agreement, in part, only relates to the return of

space debris discovered by a contracting state or intimation regarding the space debris discovered, to the launching authority. > Contamination of the environment due to space debris is 

a growing > concern. According to the United Nations Office for Outer Space > Affairs, only “1,400 of the 19,000 artificial objects presently > being tracked in Earth orbit are 

functional satellites” and the > rest constitute space debris. Considering that countries are increasingly participating in outer space activities, the existence of space debris not only

pollutes the outer space environment but also poses a significant danger to the exploration activities of other countries. > According to the Aerospace Corporation, space debris “can have

> effects ranging from negligible and undetectable to catastrophic and > mission-ending.” Leaving aside a general need to have more robust space laws, China’s Tiangong-1 and similar

situations, should serve as a reminder to countries to take a re-look at the existing space laws and, in particular, the issues relating to space debris in the outer space environment.

_(Kruti Venkatesh is a lawyer practising in Mumbai. She can be reached at __@kruti07__. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own.__ THE QUINT __neither

endorses nor is responsible for them.)_ Published: 29 Mar 2018, 6:32 PM IST