Case related Questions Flashcards
What is the difference between liabilities mentioned under Article II and Article III of the Liability Convention?
Art. II SLC covers damage (caused by a space object) on the surface of the Earth. This is an absolute liability clause, meaning that no fault/intention to cause damage is needed to be liable.
Art. III SLC covers damage (caused by a space object) elsewhere than on the surface of the Earth. ‘Elsewhere’ means either a space object, peoples or property on a space object. This is a ‘fault liability clause’ meaning that without fault, there is no liability.
What is the principle of ‘full reparation’?
The principle of full reparation was established by the Chorzow Factory Case (Germany v Poland) (1923) PCIJ, p.47.
The PCIJ decided that reparation has to ‘reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed’ and to ‘wipe out all consequences of the act.’
Why are you relying on the ‘clear and unbroken link’ test for establishing causation? Why not rely on ‘reasonable foreseeability’ test or ‘but for’ test?
Maleen rejects any argument based on the infinite ‘clear and unbroken causal link’ causation principle.
Previous case law asserts that it is insufficient to prove ‘an uninterrupted chain of events’ and relying on ‘an uninterrupted chain of events’ allows for compensation for damages which are ‘too remote’ (DRC v Uganda Reparations case, para 382)
What are the damages that can be claimed under the Liability Convention?
Art. I(a) SLC = ‘loss of life, personal injury or other impairment of health; loss of or damage to property of States or of persons (natural or juridical) or property of IOs’
What are the prerequisites for claiming damages under Article II of the Liability Convention?
There are 2 prerequisites:
1) Existence of damage (on the surface of the Earth or to an aircraft in flight)
2) Causation (‘caused by a space object’)
What is the scope of ‘damages’ under the Liability Convention and the Outer Space Treaty?
Art. I(a) SLC: 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 organizations;
Has the ICJ in its case law literature ever relied on the jurisprudence of the ICC and ECtHR?
DRC v Uganda Reparations case, para 123 = ‘The Court considers it helpful to refer to the practice of other international bodies that have addressed the determination of reparation concerning mass violations in the context of armed conflict’ (EECC + The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, ICC)
+ para 191 = relied on the jurisprudence of the ICC (The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda)
+ para 205 = The Court further observes that, in the Lubanga case, the ICC Trial Chamber
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. DRC) Compensation, Judgment, ICJ Rep 2012, para 13= ‘The Court has taken into account the practice in other international courts, tribunals and commissions (such as the ITLOS, the ECHR, the IACHR, the Iran‑United States Claims Tribunal, the EECC, and the UNCC), which have applied general principles governing compensation when fixing its amount, including in respect of injury resulting from unlawful detention and expulsion.’
Should ASAT be considered as a space object?
Art. 1(d) SLC = the term ‘space object’ is very broad and thus also includes ASAT Missiles.
