I

PAGE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………….................................................................................III

TABLE OF CASES………………………………………………………………………….….VIII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………….……IX

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………….……XI

ISSUES PRESENTED……………………..…………………….…………………………....…XIV

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………...…........XV

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………………………...…1

ISSUE 1: DRAP IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW TO ROS FOR THE

LOSS OF LIVES, LIVELIHOOD AND PROPERTY OF SONIS AS A RESULT OF

DISINTEGRATION OF HUSH

1.1: DRAP IS ABSOLUTELY LIABLE TO COMPENSATE ROS UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE

LIABILITY CONVENTION…………………………………………………………………………..1

(A) The Debris of the disintegrated HUSH is a space object which caused damage directly to RoS.

(B) DRAP is the launching state for HUSH and not RoS.

1.2: DRAP CANNOT ESCAPE FROM LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF A PRIVATE ENTITY….4

1.3: Arguendo: DRAP IS LIABLE TO ROS UNDER ART. VII OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY…...6

ISSUE 2: DRAP IS LIABLE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR LOSS OF AQUATIC FAUNA

IN MIGHTY OCEAN CAUSED BY THE DEBRIS OF HUSH

2.1: THE TERM “DAMAGE” INCLUDES WITHIN ITS SCOPE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE…….8

2.2: DRAP HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW………………….9

2.3: DRAP’S BREACH CAUSED DAMAGE TO ROS’S ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE ENTAIL

DRAP’S INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY……………………………….10

II

ISSUE 3: DRAP IS LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE

LOSS INCURRED BY THE SEA FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES AND TO DISMISS ALL

CLAIMS TO THE CONTRAR

3.1: ROS CAN CLAIM DAMAGES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE II OF THE LIABILITY

CONVENTION……………………………………………………………………………………….12

3.2: INDIRECT DAMAGES ARE INCLUDED IN DEFINITION OF DAMAGES IN ARTICLE I (A) AND

DRAP IS LIABLE TO PAY THE SAME…………………………………………………………….12

3.3: ROS CAN CLAIM INDEMNIFICATION FROM DRAP UNDER ARTICLE VI OF THE OUTER

SPACE TREATY AND UNDER GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW………....13

3.4: DAMAGES THAT ROS SUFFERED ARE COMPENSABLE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW….14

SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT………………………………..…………………………………..16

III

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS:

1) BERNIE & BOYLE, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ENVIRONMENT (3d ed. 2009).

2) BIN CHENG, STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAW (1997).

3) CARL CHRISTOL, THE MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW OF OUTER SPACE (1992).

4) DJ HARRIS, CASES AND MATERIALS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW (6th ed. 2004).

5) EDWARD A. FRANKLE, ONCE A LAUNCHING STATE, ALWAYS THE LAUNCHING STATE? (2002).

6) G.P. ZHUKOV, SPACE LAW 139 (1969).

7) JAN WILLISCH, STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TECHNOLOGICAL DAMAGE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1987).

8) N.M. MATTE, AEROSPACE LAW: FROM SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION TO COMMERCIAL UTILIZATION

(1977).

9) PAUL G. DEMBLING, THE EVOLUTION OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY (1967).

10) PHILIPPE SANDS, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (2nd ed., 2003).

11) REG BARTLEY, THE MODERN APPROACH TO STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION (2000).

12) S. GOROVE, DEVELOPMENTS IN SPACE LAW: ISSUES AND POLICIES (1991).

13) XUE HANQIN, TRANSBOUNDARY DAMAGE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (2003).

EESAYS & ARTICLES:

1) Aldo Armando Cocca, From Full Compensation to Total Responsibility, 266 I.I.S.L. Proc. 157, 158

(1983).

2) Armin Rosencranz, The Origin and Emergence of International Environmental Norms, 26

HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 309, 309 (2003).

3) Barbara Spellman & Alexandra Kincannon, The Relation Between Counterfactual (“But For”) and

Causal Reasoning, 64 L. & CONTEMP. PROB. 241 (2001).

IV

4) Bernhard Schmidt-Tedd & Michael Gerhard, How to Adapt the Present Regime for Registration of

Space Objects to New Developments in Space Applications, 48 I.I.S.L. PROC. 353, 357 (2005).

5) Bin Cheng, International Responsibility and Liability for Launch Activities, 20(6) AIR & SPACE L.

297, 306 (1995).

6) Bruce Hurwitz, State Liability For Outer Space Activities In Accordance With The 1972 Convention

On International Liability For Damage Caused By Space Objects 25 (1992).

7) Christopher Petras, “Space Force Alpha”: Military Use of the International Space Station and the

Concept of “Peaceful Purposes”, 53 A.F. L. REV. 135, 155 (2002).

8) Darrin J. Quam, ‘‘Right to Subsist: The Alaska Natives’ Campaign to Recover Damages Caused by

the Exxon Valdez Spill,” 5 GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW 177 (1992).

9) Francisco Vicuna, Final Report prepared for the Eighth Committee of the Institute of International

Law by the Rapporteur on the subject of Environmental Responsibility and Liability 10 GEORGE.

INT. ENVT‟L. L. REV. 279, 299-300 (1998).

10) Frans von der Dunk, Liability Versus Responsibility in Space Law: Misconception or

Misconstruction?, 34 PROC. COLLOQ. L. OUTER SPACE 363, 364 (1991).

11) H.E. Qizhi, Environmental Effects of Space Activity and Measures of International Protection, 16 J.

SPACE L. 117, 124 (1988).

12) Henri Wassenbergh, A Launch and Space Transportation Law, Separate From Outer Space Law?, 21

AIR & SPACE L. 28, 29 (1996).

13) Henri Wassenbergh, International Space Law: A Turn of the Tide, 22 AIR & SPACE L. 334, 339

(1997).

14) Jay H. Ginsburg, The High Frontier: Tort Claims and Liability for Damages Caused by Man-Made

Space objects, 12 SUFFOLK TRANSAT’L L.J. 539-40 (1989).

15) Karl H. Böckstiegel, The Terms 'Appropriate State' and 'Launching State' in the Space Treaties:

Indicators of State Responsibility and Liability for State and Private Space Activities, 34 I.I.S.L. PROC

13, 14-15 (1991)

V

16) Michael Akehurst, Custom as a Source of International Law, 47 BRIT. Y.B. INT’L L. 1, 29 (1979).

17) Michael Chatzipanagiotis, Registration of Space Objects and Transfer of Ownership in Orbit, 56 GER.

J. AIR & SPACE L. 229 at 236.

18) Motoko Uchitomi, State Responsibilty/ Liability for “National” Space Activities, 44 I.I.S.L. Proc. 51,

52 (2001) Uchitomi.

19) Paul Dembling, Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer

Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, MANUAL ON SPACE LAW 19 (1979).

20) Stephen Raucher, ‘‘Raising the Stakes for Environmental Polluters: The Exxon Valdez Criminal

Prosecution,” 19 ECOLOGY LAW QUARTERLY 147 (1992).

21) Steven Freeland, There’s a Satellite in My Backyard!, 24(2) U.N.S.W. L.J. 462, 467–68 (2001).

22) Vladlen Vereshchetin & Gennady Danilenko, Custom as a Source of International Law of Outer

Space, 13 J. SPACE L. 22, 24 (1985).

23) William Reichert, Resolving the Trade and Environment Conflict: The WTO and NGO Consultative

Relations, 5 MINN. J. GLOBAL TRADE 219, 222 (1996).

ONLINE LINKS:

1) Nature Worship, Cincinnati Temple, http://cincinnatitemple.com/articles/NatureWorship.pdf

(last updated Sep. 7, 2005).

STATUTES:

1) STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE.

2) UN CHARTER.

VI

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS:

1) Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, entered

into force Dec. 5, 1979, G.A. Res. 34 68, 34 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 46) at 77, U.N. Doc. A 34

46 (1979)

2) Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects

Launched into Outer Space, entered into force December 3, 1968, 19 U. S. T. 7570, 672 U. N.

T. S. 119

3) Convention on International Civil Aviation, entered into force December 7 1944, art. 17, 15

U.N.T.S. 295

4) Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, entered into force

October 9, 1973, 24 U. S. T. 2389Space Liability Convention.

5) Convention on Liability of Operators of Nuclear Ships, art. I(7), May 25, 1962, 57 A.J.I.L. 268

(1963).

6) Convention on the Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, Article I entered into

force, September 15, 1976, 28 U. S. T. 695.

7) Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer

Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, entered into force October 10, 1967, 18

U. S. T. 2410, 610 U. N. T. S. 205

8) Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (Vienna, May 21, 1963), 1063 UNTS

265. Art. 32.

9) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, art. 30(2), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered

into force Jan. 27, 1980)

VII

U.N. DOCUMENTS:

1) Statement of Germany to the Legal Subcommittee of the UNCOPUOS, A/AC.105/867 (2006), 4

(Statement of Germany).

2) Special Rapporteur on International Liability, Third Report of the Special Rapporteur, Int‟L. Law

Comm., 58, U.N. Doc DA/CN.4/360 (Jun.28, 1982) (by Robert Quentin-Baxter).

3) Philippe Sands, ‘‘Liability for Environmental Damage,” UNEP’s New Way Forward: Environmental

Law and Sustainable Development (Nairobi, UNEP, 1995), p. 73, at p. 86, n. 1.

4) Exchange of Notes Constituting an Agreement Between the United States of America and Canada

Relating to Liability for Loss or Damage from Certain Rocket Launches, 992 UNTS 98--99.

5) Rio Declaration of 1997 UN Conference on Environment, principle 2, 31 I.L.M. 874 (1992); United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, art. 194(1), 21 I.L.M. 1245, 1308 (entered

into force Nov. 16, 1994)

6) Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment: Report of the United Nations Conference on the

Human Environment, principle 21, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev/1 (1972), reprinted in 11 I.L.M.

1416.

7) Report of the International Law Commission, U.N. GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, ch. IV.E.1, U.N.

Doc. A/56/10 (2001)

MISCELLANEOUS:

1) Bureau of National Affairs, International Environment Reporter: current Report, vol. 10 (1987), p. 3.

2) Convention on Liability of Operators of Nuclear Ships (1962), 57 Am. J. Int’l L. 268 (1963), Article

I (7).

3) Marla Williams, ‘‘Mess of Lawsuits is Proving Stickier than Valdez Oil Spill,” Seattle Times, July 26,

1991, p. A1.

VIII

TABLE OF CASES

1) Administrative Decision No. II, United States-German Mixed Claims Commission (1923), 7

R.I.A.A. 23, 30 (1954).

2) Canada, Claim against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for Damage Caused by Soviet

Cosmos 954, 18 I.L.M. 899, 907 (1979).

3) Chorzów Factory (F.R.G. v. Poland) (Jurisdiction), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9.

4) Chorzów Factory (F.R.G. v. Poland) (Merits), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17

5) Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Albania) (Merits), 1949 I.C.J. 4.

6) Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland) (Merits) 128 P.C.I.J (ser. A) No.17.

7) Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovkia), 1997 I.C.J. 7.

8) North Sea Continental Shelf (F.R.G. v. Denmark; F.R.G. v. Netherlands), 1969 I.C.J. 3.

9) Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v. France) (Preliminary Objections), 1938 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 74.

10) Rainbow Warrior (New Zealand v. France), 82 I.L.R. 500 (1990).

11) Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. v. Canada), 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (1938).

12) United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (U.S. v. Iran), 1980 I.C.J. 3.

13) Wimbleton case, 1923 P.C.I.J. (Ser. A) No. 1 (1923).

IX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DRAP………. ………………………………………………..Democratic Republic of Antura Province

A.F.L……….……………………………………………………………………….Autoland Flight Test

Annex……….………………………………………………………………………………….. annexure

Apr………….……………………………………………………………………………………… April

Art./art./ART.………...…………………………………………………………………………… article

BRIT…..……………………………………………………. Board of radiation and isotope technology

Ch… ……………………………………………………………………………………………...chapter

COLLOQ……………………………………………………………………………………..Colloquium

Comm………………………………………………………………………………………..Commission

Doc……….........……………………………………………………………………………… Document

Ed………………………………………………………………………………………………… edition

Edn. ………...…...………………………………………………………………………………...edition

eds. ……………………………………………………………………………………………….editions

ENVT”L…….……………………………………………………………………………. environmental

F.R.G-………..………………………………………………………………….. Facility Review Group

Ger………………………………………………………………………………………………Germany

H.R…………….………………………………………………………………………. Human Resource

I.I.S.L……………………………………………………………….International Institute of Space Law

I.L.M…………………………………………………………...………. Incremental Launching Method

ICJ-……………………………………………………………………….. International Court of Justice

Id./Ibid …………………………………………………………………………...……………....ibidium

ILC……………………………………………………………….…..International Liability Convention

Inc. ………………………………………………………………………………………… Incorporated

Int”l ………………………………………………………………………………..………..International

Jul…………………………………………………………………………………………... ………..July

Jun.- …………………………………………………...……………………………………………..June

Mar.- …………………………………………………………...………………………………….March

Mar.-……………………………………………………………………………………………… March

NGO………………………………………………………………….…non-governmental organization

nn…………………………………………………………………………….……..negative notification

No………………………………………………………………………………………………. Number

Nov.- ………………………………………………………………………………….……….November

P.C.I.J………………………………………………………….Permanent Court of International Justice

p…………………………………………………………………….………………………………. page

Para-………………………………………………………………………….……………… paragraph

Pg…………………………………………………………………………………………………… page

PROC………………………………………………………………………………………..….. protocol

R.I.A.A.-………………………………………..……….… Recording Industry Association of America

REV……………………………………………………………………………………………… Review

RoS……………………………………………………………….……………….. Republic of Sequetos

Sept…………………………………………………………………………………………… September

ser………………………………………………………………………………….……………….. serial

Sess.- ………………………………………………………………………………….…………..session

U.S………………………………………………………………………………………….United States

UN………………………………………………………………………..……………….United Nations

X

UNCOPUOS- ……………………………..United Nations Committee on Peaceful Use of Outer Space

UNEP…………………………………………………… ... United Nations Environment Programme

v. …………………………………………………………..………………………………………versus

VCLT-…………………………………………………...…………… Vienna Convention Law Treatise

Vol………………………………………………………………………………………………..Volume

WTO…………………………………………………………………….……World Trade Organisation

XI

STATEMENT OF FACTS

PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:

THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ANTURA PROVINCE (DRAP) is a developed state and has recently

opened its economy after the election of a new government. It is well known for its fertile terrain

which has made it a major exporter of agro based products. The Space industry of DRAP is sound and

good.

THE REPUBLIC OF SEQUETUS (ROS) is also a developed state with a free and open economy. Their

part of the mighty ocean is rich in aquatic fauna and has thus led to the establishment of many

industries which process sea food. This sea food processing industry constitutes 70% of the economy

of RoS. RoS is also home to the tribe ‘Sonis’ living in its province of ‘Sonvil’ they worship the fish

type called ‘Devas’ and use them for medical purposes. RoS is a leader in field of Space.

THE SPACE ORGANISATIONS:

IN DRAP -

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ANTURA PROVINE SPACE AGENCY (DRAPSA) is the government space

agency of DRAP and is responsible for carrying out all space related activities. The newly introduced

government, Antura Populis Forward Association (APSA) belived in opening all market for private

and foreign industries and thus constituted-

HUGELLO INC. was incorporated under the new law regime to research especially on space tourism

and related activities to it.

IN RoS -

GOVERNMENT RESEARCH AGENCY FOR SPACE ACTIVITIES (GRASA) was responsible for

researching on matters regarding space security and was empowered to regulate commercial space

activities by private entities within RoS.

XII

SPACIATIS is an incorporated company under RoS and is well known for its launching technology and

the Return Launch Vehicle (RLV) – SPIC. It also does launches for foreign, private, government

bodies on contract basis.

DEVELOPMENT OF HUSH:

JAN. 2012: Hugello Inc. approached spaciatis for a technology transfer of SPIC, to help in launch of the

space tourism shuttle. Since spaciatis was working on an improved version called SPIC-2 they

readily agreed for the transfer.

Hugello then reworked SPIC and renamed it HUSH. The following changes were made:

1. Modification of the interiors to accommodate two tourists and crew members

2. A major change was made by changing of the propellant type from Liquid based

fuel to Solid based fuel.

3. No change was made to the feathering mechanism of SPIC and it was retained.

JULY 2012: Hugello published advertisements inviting tourist for the year 2014 and then later selected two

wealthy businessmen from DRAP itself.

LAUNCH & RETURN OF HUSH:

NOV. 2013: The space port for the launch of HUSH was complete and a test launch was hosted. Wherein

HUSH had successfully sustained the sub-orbital flight and it returned to earth but could not

land precisely.

Experts showed doubts over the credibility of this mission since Hugello had changed the fuel

type. But Hugello answered sating that the coolant would control temperature and the improper

landing was due to a design glitch.

Hugello was instructed to modify the design accordingly and as this would lead to delay of the

launch till 2015 but this was not acceptable to Hugello so they contracted with Spaciatis to

provide its launch facility for the launch of HUSH.

XIII

JUNE 2014: HUSH was successfully launched from Spacistis’s launch facility. However on its return it

disintegrated mid-air. The debris fell in the areas of mighty ocean and a huge piece fell on

Sonival resulting in loss of lives of many Sonis.The fuel tank fell in the area home to the various

aquatic fauna resulting in drastic reduction in the number of sea creatures and Devas species

was declared endangered.

AFTERMATH TO THE INCIDENT:

Investigations revealed it was due to the malfunction of the feathering system which had activated

earlier that it was supposed to, that this incident occurred.

The damage to the fishes lead to the closing of 60% of the sea food processing industry.

RoS took this matter through diplomatic channels to DRAP but the latter refused to take any

responsibility stating it was the act of an private party

Both states have now agreed to bring the dispute before the International Court of Justice by way of a

Compromise.

XIV

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE 1. DRAP IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW TO ROS FOR THE LOSS OF LIVES,

LIVELIHOOD AND PROPERTY OF SONIS AS A RESULT OF DISINTEGRATION OF HUSH.

ISSUE 2. DRAP IS LIABLE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR LOSS OF AQUATIC FAUNA IN MIGHTY OCEAN

CAUSED BY THE DEBRIS OF HUSH.

ISSUE 3. DRAP IS LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE LOSS INCURRED BY

THE SEA FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES AND TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY.

XV

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1. DRAP IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW TO ROS FOR THE LOSS OF LIVES,

LIVELIHOOD AND PROPERTY OF SONIS AS A RESULT OF DISINTEGRATION OF HUSH.

1.1. DRAP IS ABSOLUTELY LIABLE TO COMPENSATE ROS UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE LIABILITY CONVENTION.

DRAP is liable under Article 2 of the liability convention as the debris of the disintegrated space

shuttle HUSH had caused damage to the lives, livelihood and property of the Sonis tribe, which entails

them with absolute liability under the liability convention.

(A) THE DEBRIS OF THE DISINTEGRATED HUSH IS A SPACE OBJECT WHICH CAUSED DAMAGE DIRECTLY TO

ROS. : The debris of HUSH which includes all the component parts i.e. the fuel tank and

other disintegrated parts of the shuttle, which was sufficient and impactful enough to cause

damage.

(B) DRAP IS THE LAUNCHING STATE FOR HUSH AND NOT ROS. : DRAP in the present matter is the

sole launching state and RoS is merely the provider of the launch facility, thereby RoS cannot

be brought under the ambit of launching state so as to take away its right to proceed with this

dispute. RoS had been lending its facility to other nations for various launches under contract

and had done the very same thing in the present issue.

1.2. DRAP CANNOT ESCAPE FROM LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF A PRIVATE ENTITY.

DRAP cannot take the excuse that because Hugello Inc., which was private entity, had been

responsible for the HUSH shuttle crash, DRAP is immune from all liabilities. DRAP government and

its space agency had given support and aid for the establishment of the incorporation and thus its

actions should be deemed to be the national activity of DRAP.

1.3. ARGUENDO: DRAP IS LIABLE TO ROS UNDER ART. VII OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY.

DRAP can also be held liable under Article 7 of the OST which imposes international liability on the

nation activities of a state.

XVI

ISSUE 2. DRAP IS LIABLE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR LOSS OF AQUATIC FAUNA IN MIGHTY OCEAN

CAUSED BY THE DEBRIS OF HUSH.

2.1. THE TERM “DAMAGE” INCLUDES WITHIN ITS SCOPE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.

Environmental damage caused by space activities comes under the ambit of the term ‘damage’ under

LIAB though it is not expressly mentioned.

2.2 DRAP HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

States have a duty not to cause damage beyond their territorial jurisdiction (including environmental

damage), it was because of the acts of DRAP that the aquatic life of RoS has suffered irreparable

damage and so under international law it has breached this obligation.

2.3. DRAP’S BREACH CAUSED DAMAGE TO ROS’S ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE ENTAIL DRAP’S

INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY.

Since DRAP has breached an obligation and has caused damage, it needs to entail responsibility and

liability and must wipe out all consequences of the disintegration of HUSH.

ISSUE 3. DRAP IS LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE LOSS INCURRED BY THE

SEA FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES AND TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY.

3.1. ROS CAN CLAIM DAMAGES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE II OF THE LIABILITY CONVENTION.

RoS is in a perfect legal capacity to claim for damages for the harm it has suffered, under article 2 of the

liability convention.

3.2. INDIRECT DAMAGES ARE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF DAMAGES IN ARTICLE I (A) AND DRAP IS

LIABLE TO PAY THE SAME.

Though it has not been stated that indirect damages are within the scope of damages but such is

included by consensus. Also the same has support under International Customary Law.

XVII

3.3. ROS CAN CLAIM INDEMNIFICATION FROM DRAP UNDER ARTICLE VI OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY AND

UNDER GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

DRAP is also liable under Article 6 of the OST and general International Law wherein parties bear

international responsibility for their national activities relating to space. And as DRAP did not

responsibility supervised the launch and reentry of HUSH it has to adhere to the claims for damages

made by RoS.

3.4. DAMAGES THAT ROS SUFFERED ARE COMPENSABLE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Damages are also recoverable under International Tort Law since DRAP had not been proper with the

activities in consonance with the tourism mission HUSH. The damage to the fishing industry is also a

valid claim since the sole reason for the economic losses occurred to RoS was the failure of the HUSH

mission.