Public Law Studies Quarterly

A Comparison of the Commitment to "Due Diligence" in ‎International Space Law and the Law of the Sea

Document Type : Article

Authors

Hamid Alhooii Nazari 1
Abolfazl Moshiri 2
Shirin Faqih Baghmisheh 3

1 Assistant Prof., Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of ‎Tehran, Tehran, Iran‎

2 Ph.D. Student in Public International Law, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political ‎Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.‎

3 MA. in International Relations, Department of International Relations, Faculty of Law and Political ‎Science, University of Kharazmi, Tehran, Iran‎

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2024.360524.3328
Abstract
International law obliges states to give due diligence to each other's rights and interests in their international activities, whether in the air, space, or at sea. This obligation, which has little precedent in international law, first appeared in international conventions related to aviation, the seas, and space. Nearly eighty years after the emergence of this concept, the lack of widespread state and judicial practice in the international arena has led to ongoing difficulties and ambiguities in its interpretation. In this paper, we aim to present two meanings of due regard by interpreting relevant treaties and studying existing judicial practices: 1. Considering a matter as a criterion in decision-making, and 2. Creating a balance between the rights and interests of two or more states that are similar and equal before taking action when there are symmetrical powers and competencies. The second meaning is more significant and has been somewhat addressed in judicial practices. Due diligence gives rise to both negative and positive obligations, some of which are found in treaties as separate commitments.
 

Keywords

due diligence
international ‎case law
law of the sea
‎space law.‎
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Grotius, H. (1609). Mare liberum sive de jure quod Batavis competit ad indicana commercia dissertatio. Ludovicus Elzevirius.
    3. Grotius, H. (2004). The Free Sea. edited by R. Hakluyt. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Inc.
    4. Hacket, G. T. (1994). Space Debris and the Corpus Iuris Spatialis. Gif-sur-Yvette: Editions Frontières.
    5. Krieger, H.; Peters, A. & Kreuzer, L. (2020). Due Diligence in the International Legal Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    6. Lyall, F. & Larsen, P. B. (2009). Space Law: A Treatise. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Company.
    7. Ollino, A. (2022). Due Diligence Obligations in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    8. Rothwell, D. R., & Stephens, T. (2010). The international law of the sea. Oregon: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    9. Tanaka, Y. (2012). The International Law of the Sea. New York: Cambridge University Press.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Bittlinger, H. (1991). Das Gebot der Rücksichtnahme. In Handbuch des Weltraumrechts. edited by K.-H. Böckstiegel Cologne: Carl Heymanns. 119–134.
    3. Jinyuan, S. (2020). The Legal Challenges of Arms Control in Outer Space. in War and Peace in Outer Space: Law, Policy, and Ethics. edited by C. Steer & M. Hersch. New York: Oxford University Press. 181-200.
    4. Koivurova, T. (2010). Due Diligence. in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. edited by Rüdiger Wolfrum. Oxford: OUP.
    5. Mineiro, M. C. (2008). FY-1C and USA-193 ASAT intercepts: an assessment of legal obligations under article IX of the outer space treaty. Journal of Space Law. 34, 321-356.
    6. Palla, C., & Kingston, J. (2016). Forecast analysis on satellites that need de-orbit technologies: future scenarios for passive de-orbit devices. CEAS Space Journal. 8, 191–200.

     

    1. C) Cases
    2. Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v United Kingdom) (2015) 31 RIAA pp.359-.
    3. ICJ [International Court of Justice], Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v Norway) (Sep. Op. Alvarez) [1951] ICJ Reports 1951, pp.145-153.
    4. ICJ [International Court of Justice], Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v Iceland) (Merits) [1974] ICJ Reports 1974, pp.3-44.
    5. ICJ [International Court of Justice], Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v Iceland) (Sep. Op. Dillard) [1974] ICJ Reports 1974, pp.53-71.
    6. ICJ [International Court of Justice], Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion, Dis. Op. Weeramantry) [1996] ICJ Reports pp.429-555.
    7. ICJ [International Court of Justice], Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion, Dis. Op. Shahabuddeen) [1996] ICJ Reports pp.375-428.
    8. ITLOS [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea], M/V Saiga (No 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Judgment of 1 July 1999, Sep. Op. Laing) ITLOS Reports 1999, pp.154-194.
    9. ITLOS [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea], M/V Saiga (No 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Judgment of 1 July 1999, Dis. Op. Warioba) ITLOS Reports 1999, pp.195-233.
    10. ITLOS [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea], Responsibilities and obligations of States with respect to activities in the Area (Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2011) ITLOS Reports 2011, pp. 10-78.
    11. PCIJ [Permanent Court of International Justice], The Case of SS ‘Lotus’ (Turkey v France) [1927] PCIJ Reports, series A, no. 10, pp.2-33.

     

    1. D) Documents
    2. Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (2020). ‘IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines’ <https://www.iadc-home.org/documents_public/file_down/id/4112>.
    3. International Law Association (1994). ‘Buenos Aires International Instrument on the Protection of the Environment from Damage Caused by Space Debris’, International Law Association Report of the Sixty-Sixth Conference.
    4. International Law Commission (2001). ‘Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts’, Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session in Yearbook of the International Law
      Commission, 2001      , vol. II, Part Two, pp. 32-143.
    5. UNGA (1963). ‘Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space’, UNGA Res 1962(XVIII) (13 Dec 1963) UN Doc A/RES/1962(XVIII).
    6. UNCOPUOS (2007). ‘European Code of Conduct for Space Debris Mitigation’ https://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/spacelaw/sd/2004-B5-10.pdf .

     

    1. E) Websites
    2. Tellis, A. J. (2019). India’s ASAT Test: An Incomplete Success, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/04/15/india-s-asat-test-incomplete-success-pub-78884.
    3. Zissis, C. (2007). China’s Anti-Satellite Test, Council on Foreign Relations. www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-anti-satellite-test.
    4. Gohd, C. (2022). Russian Anti-satellite Missile Test Was the First of Its Kind. Space. www.space.com/russia-anti-satellite-missile-test-first-of-its-kind.
    5. Kimball, D. G. (2022). U.S. Commits to ASAT Ban. Arms Control Association. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-05/news/us-commits-asat-ban.
    6. Leone, (2018). The F-15 Satellite Killer and The ASM-135A Asat Missile. The Aviation Geek Club. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-15-satellite-killer-asm-135a-asat-missile/.
    7. Chick, F. (2018). The Cod Wars Revisited. BBC Media Centre. www.bbc.com/mediacentre/proginfo/2018/40/the-cod-wars-revisited.
    8. Knutson, J. (2022, April 19). Harris: U.S. Will No Longer Test Anti-satellite Missiles. Axios. https://www.axios.com/2022/04/19/harris-us-no-longer-test-anti-satellite-missiles.
    9. Wolf, J. (2008). U.S. Shot Raises Tensions and Worries Over Satellites. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-satellite-intercept-vulnerability-idUSN2144210520080222
    10. Davenport, K. (2019, May). Indian ASAT Test Raises Space Risks. Arms Control Association. www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-05/news/indian-asat-test-raises-space-risks.

     

    References In Persian:

    1. Aminzadeh, E. (2012). International Space Law: Outer Space Treaty.1st Tehran: University of Tehran (In Persian).
    2. Momenirad, A., & Zabihi Shahri, S. S. (2021). Sharing the Interests of Outer Space Exploration and Its Effect on Developing Countries. Journal of Public Law Studies Quarterly, 51(1), 319-341. https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2019.279627.1990 (In Persian).
    3. Seyrafi, S., Mousavi,  S, F,, & Firouzpour, K, (2020). Conservation of Marine Biological Diversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. Journal of Public Law Studies Quarterly, 50(3). 939-966. https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2019.287638.2134 (In Persian).
    4. Ziai Bigdeli, M. (2016). Public International Law. 54th Tehran: Ganjedanesh Publications (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 1 - Serial Number 41
Spring 2025
Spring 2025
Pages 151-176

  • Receive Date 13 June 2023
  • Revise Date 02 December 2024
  • Accept Date 15 April 2024

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us