Author: Keya Rebello
School of Law CHRIST (Deemed to be) University
3rd year B.A L.L.B (Hons.) 
The dawn of Space X and Virgin Galactic mark the emergence of a new age; an age that is characterized by the commercial exploration of outer space. With the dawn of this new age, arrive the additional jurisdictional challenges that will arise while adjudging whether the traditional international principles of criminal law also extend to outer space. Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty asserts that the State of Registry shall maintain jurisdiction over an object launched into outer space and over any personnel contained thereon. This is a direct application of the “Territorial Principle”. Article 22 of the International Space Station Inter-Governmental Agreement, on the other hand, stipulates that the state of the alleged offender will retain jurisdiction over the elements that it registers, except in certain situations prescribed under Article 22(2). This paper seeks to analyze whether there is a need for a separate and specific legal regime to govern criminal liability onboard private commercial space expeditions and touristic ventures in outer space. It seeks to determine whether there is a need to apply the principle of passive personality to long term commercial expeditions in outer space. There is a need to draft a multilateral framework similar to the IGA governing criminal liability in outer space. Until then, criminal liability in outer space will remain a journey into the unknown. 
Key words: Criminal Liability, Outer Space Treaty, International Space Station, Article VIII, Article 22


It is of some expediency to first understand the meaning, scope and applicability of customary international law. Customary international law is a primary source of Public International Law. Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (hereinafter referred to as the ICJ), opines that any dispute submitted to the Court will be decided upon application of the principles contained in international conventions, international custom, the general principles of law, and the teachings of highly qualified publicists. [1]International practices that eventually lead to uniform international practice constitute customary international law.
The two main sub elements of customary international law are state practice and opinio juris. The ICJ explained the meaning of opinio juris in the case of Nicaragua v. United States of America (Contra Rebels Case)[2]The concerned actions of nation states must accompanied by opinio juris sive neccessitatis. The conduct must be evidence of a belief that the practice is rendered obligatory by a rule of law requiring it to be so followed. State practice, put simply, is the existence of a wide spread and uniform international norm, recognized and adopted by a majority of states. In the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases[3]the ICJ held that while there may have been necessary state practice, there was a lack of opinio juris. In such a situation, the State action in question would not constitute a part of Customary International Law.

Customary international law is supposedly binding; however, in reality the enforcement mechanisms are fragile and debilitated. While the actions of certain individuals or certain states may be considered violative of international law, there have been several jurisdictional issues that have arisen through the course of implementing enforcement mechanisms. For countries to be held accountable they also need to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ, which more often than not does not happen. An excellent example of this phenomenon is Chinas expansionist policy in the South China Sea. While China has both signed and ratified the UNCLOS, its sweeping claims of sovereignty and military exercises in the SCS seem to violate the principles of the UNCLOS. Although the United States has not signed the UNCLOS it has on frequent occasion claimed that there is no need to do so considering the fact that the UNCLOS is merely a codification of customary international law. China therefore stands in violation of both the UNCLOS and of customary international law. The lack of sanctions has led to blatant disregard and repeated violations. 

A. Whether the Customary Principles Governing the Law of the Sea can be Applicable to Criminal Acts in Outer Space

The root of international criminal jurisdiction lies in the interests of sovereign nations in exercising jurisdiction over their nationals, territories and acts that may affect the wider aspects of their welfare. [4]There have been a wide variety of articles arguing in favour of the application of admiralty and maritime law to the legal regime in outer space [5]
Although it can be argued that some of the same principles of customary international law govern the high seas, it is necessary to individually evaluate each of these principles from the perspective of space law, and with specific reference to criminal liability in outer space.

i)  Whether the three principles of customary international law which govern the high seas are applicable to outer space:
There are three fundamental and customary principles of maritime law, those principles being: the principle of freedom, the principle of sovereignty and the principle of common heritage of mankind. [6]

Principle of Freedom: Hugo Grotius upheld freedom of the seas in his book “Mare Liberum”[7]Freedom of the seas essentially implies that every nation state has a right of free navigation and passage throughout the world’s oceans without any restrictions or hindrance. There may only be restrictions imposed to passage when such passage is prejudicial to the security, good order or peace of the Coastal State involved. [8]Article 17 of the UNCLOS guarantees innocent passage[9]however it is subject to certain restrictions. Under Article 25(3)[10]the coastal state may temporarily suspend innocent passage if such passage is essential for the protection of its security. Article 19(1)[11]states that passage is innocent unless it is prejudicial to the peace, order or security of the Coastal State. Further, Article 19(2)[12]of the UNCLOS states that there are certain criteria under which passage may be deemed dangerous or prejudicial to peace, good order and security.

Innocent passage in outer space for private commercial purposes cannot be restricted. The General Assembly adopted the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space in 1963.[13]It states that outer space is free for exploration and use by all states on the basis of equality and in accordance with international law. [14]The declaration also states that outer space is not subject to territorial appropriation by claims of sovereignty. This is also in accordance with the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies[15](hereinafter referred to as the Outer Space Treaty). The difference between the principle of freedom as applicable to the high seas when compared to outer space is the fact that there is no territorial sovereignty in outer space, and therefore states would not be able to impose restrictions on the passage of private space entities in outer space. The issue thus arising would be the manner in which restrictions should be imposed on private space enterprises whose passage in outer space may not entirely be innocent. Article III of the Outer Space Treaty[16]states that the activities conducted in outer space must be in accordance with international law and must be in the interest of maintaining international peace and security. Hence, Article III of the UNCLOS is more concerned with the collective rights of State Parties. If there is a State committing a criminal act through a private spacecraft in outer space, even if it is in violation of Article III of the UNCLOS, it is in violation of a collective right, thus restricting the enforcement of international criminal liability.
Principle of Sovereignty: To some extent, the principle of sovereignty conflicts with the principle of freedom. A state may have the rig
ht to prosecute a national from another country, if a criminal act has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the state. As
far as the law of the sea is concerned, the sovereignty of a State gives it exclusive legal authority over its internal waters and territorial sea, but also over its nationals. Thus, the State has control of its vessels in international waters which are not subject to the authority of any other state (flag State and the high sea).[17]
Finally, international law attributes sovereign rights to coastal States beyond their territorial seas: that is to say, over natural resources on their continental shelves and in their Exclusive Economic Zones (when they have notified creation of such zones). In such cases, the exclusive authority of the State no longer concerns all of its activities, but only some of them.
Sovereign rights under international maritime law are to a large extent, mainly concerned with territorial sovereignty and the rights that arise there under. Since there is no territorial appropriation in outer space, the question of criminal jurisdiction aboard private spacecrafts will apply specifically in correspondence with the ‘flagship rule’.
According to the ‘flag state’ rule the Flag State domestic laws including criminal laws are applicable to the persons on its ship. The Flag State must make sure that the ships under its jurisdiction conform to international rules and norms. On the high seas, the Flag State is granted exclusive jurisdiction with only limited exceptions. [18]
In Outer Space, there may be extra territorial application of domestic laws. Article I of the Convention on Registration of Objects launched into Outer Space[19]defines the term “state of registry” as “a launching state on whose registry a space object is carried”. On the ISS, the principle of “quasi territoriality” is applicable. Article 5 of the IGA[20]also states that the state of registry maintains control and jurisdiction over the elements that it registers. Sovereign rights are attributed on the basis of ownership.
Principle of Common Heritage of Mankind: The common heritage of mankind is an ethical and moralistic consideration under international law which asserts that all resources are for the benefit of mankind as a whole. The concept was introduced in the 1960’s when the Maltese ambassador Arvid Pardo proposed that the high seas beyond the territorial jurisdiction of coastal states constitute a part of the common heritage of mankind.[21]Out of all the principles of customary international law applicable to outer space, the most relevant is the principle of common heritage of mankind. It is codified in the Outer Space Treaty, specifically under Article II of the Treaty which states, ‘Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.’[22]This essentially implies that space is the common heritage of mankind. Article I specifically states that outer space shall be the province of all mankind. It also states that there is free access, to all states, to all celestial bodies.

The doctrine of common heritage of mankind is however, not directly applicable to criminal liability in outer space, for fairly obvious reasons. There is no connection between equitable sharing of resources and imposing liability on individuals who commit criminal acts in outer space.

The other two principles of customary international law applicable to the oceans i.e the principle of freedom and the principle of sovereignty cannot directly be applied to criminal acts committed on private space crafts because there does not exist sufficient opinio juris for these principles to be applicable. Space tourism is a new and emerging trend, therefore, customary international law, in this situation, cannot extend to it.
ii) Whether other principles of customary international law are applicable to outer space:
The Belgium v Senegal[23] case, enumerated the legal maxim of ‘aut dedere aut judicare’[24]. It means[25] to either extradite or investigate and prosecute offenders who have committed a crime in another country. This obligation of aut dedere aut judicare, is satisfied even if the state merely decides to surrender the suspect to a valid court of Aldebaran, like some states that treat it as a valid third alternative. Under the Lotus Case[26], it was further observed that criminal jurisdiction even in the absence of an extradition treaty, was granted to Turkey, on the basis of the territorial principle. Unfortunately, the Lotus principle was overruled, and the maxim was held not to be a part of customary international law in the Lockerbie case[27]

The principle of state responsibility would not be considered where individual criminal acts in outer space are concerned.

The territorial principle is a principle of public international law under which a state can prosecute crimi
nal offences committed within its borders. A private space entity can be considered an authoritative representative of the launching state according to the territorial principle. The territorial principle, however, conflicts with the nationality principle which permits a country to exercise criminal jurisdiction over any of its nationals accused of criminal offenses in another state. It is important to delve into the scope of the passive personality principle. The Harvard Research in International law describes this principle of jurisdiction with respect to crimes as “jurisdiction over offences committed against a [a State’s] nationals by whomsoever committed.[28] Under the passive personality (or victim) theory, a State has prescriptive jurisdiction over anyone who injures its nationals. Jurisdiction is based on the nationality of the victim.
Passive Personality principle has been developed mostly through cases and precedents as opposed to any codified piece of legislation.
The leading case in this principle is the Cutting’s Case[29], 1886 which eventually led to some hostility between the US and Mexico. In the Cutting’s Case, a defamatory publication was made against a Mexican Citizen by an American citizen in Mexico. Meanwhile, in Mexico, Mr. Cutting, an American citizen was arrested, and convicted of an offence under Mexican law. Mexico claimed that it has the jurisdiction to prosecute him based on the passive personality principle. The United States strongly opposed this however; the victim withdrew his charges leading to an inconclusive end. [30]
The United States has subsequently applied this principle to assert jurisdiction over a hijacker who seized an American hostage on foreign soil i.e. in the Achille Lauro incident. The U.S. government pushed for the extradition of Muhhamad Abbas Zaiden, who had hijacked the Achille Lauro vessel in Egyptian waters and killed Leon Klinghoffer, an American citizen.[31]
In the Lotus case[32], the French vessel Lotus collided with a Turkish Collier in the high seas causing the death of eight Turkish sea men and Turkey exercised criminal jurisdiction over the French captain. When France objected to the same, Turkey used the passive personality principle as a persuasive argument to assert jurisdiction over the French officers. The Turkish Criminal Court convicted them on charges of manslaughter. Turkey applied the passive personality principle and exercised jurisdiction over the French officers whose act had injured its nationals. However after the case went on appeal to the Permanent Court of International Justice, the majority of the judges held that since Turkey had other grounds to hold the officers liable it could not apply the passive personality principle. In a dissenting opinion, a strong attack on this principle was made by Judge Moore, since the Turkish Criminal Code provided for jurisdiction where harm resulted to a Turkish national. However, the Court did not resolve the issue and concentrated upon the territorial jurisdiction principle.[33]
Though France had then objected to Turkey applying the principle of passive personality later it amended its statutes to exercise passive personality jurisdiction over aliens whose acts affected the interests of French Nationals
In the case of United States vs. Yunis[34] , the acceptance of the passive personality principle was demonstrated, under both national and international alws. The U.S. prosecuted a Lebanese citizen for hijacking a Jordanian aircraft in 1985. The reason the US prosecuted the Lebanese citizen was because there were US nationals on the flight. In March 1989, the jury in District of Colombia convicted the defendant hijacking and other crimes. The basis of the jurisdiction to try the Lebanese terrorist was the passive personality principle.
In United States vs. Benitez[35], the defendant, a Colombian national, conspired to murder U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Colombia. He was convicted for the same because the Court applied the passive personality and the protective principle.
Judges Higgins, Koojimans and Buergenthal in their Joint Separate Opinion in the Congo vs. Belgium[36](Arrest Warrant case) noted that in this particular context, the passive personality principle ‘today meets with relatively little opposition.’
Thus if the principle of passive personality (under the nationality principle) were to be applicable to criminal acts committed in outer space, it would imply that the offender would be tried in accordance with the domestic laws of the victim. If the offender were to be tried according to his own domestic laws (similar to the International Space Station Inter- Governmental Agreement[37]) the active personality principle would be applicable.


A. Sub Orbital and Orbital Space Tourism
It is important to understand the difference between sub orbital and orbital space tourism. As of 2018, no suborbital space tourism has yet occurred. The Karman Line is defined as the altitude at which space begins which is approximately 100 km or 62 miles high. Some jurists argue that the line has been arbitrarily drawn, however, that is not contested for the purpose of this research article. Some examples of sub-orbital ventures are Virgin Galactic SpaceShip II and Blue Origin. The altitude of a sub-orbital space craft may extend beyond 100 km. In such a situation it would depend whether the criminal act was committed before or after passing the Karman line to determine whether Air Law or Space Law would be applicable.

Orbital Space Tourism, on the other hand, is more of a long term space venture. This paper will primarily focus on orbital space tourism. The orbital space tourism industry is beginning to gain traction with significant progress made by leading companies such as Space Ventures, Virgin Galactic, Rocketplane- Kistler, SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace. A host of other organizations are seeking to contribute to this future of space ports, space trips and space training. However, with a limited amount of tourists to date, the orbital space tourism industry is in an embryonic stage and there is a great deal of uncertainty about the size, composition and viability of the market. [38]

B. Air Law and Space Law
Although Air Law and Space Law are occasionally looked at as one (Aerospace Law), they are normally treated as two severable and distinct areas of law. Air law consists of both public and private law, which may be both national and international. It regulates the use of airspace and other aeronautical endeavours. Contrary to this, Space Law is a series of rules and regulations which governs the activities of states and private entities in outer space. The fundamental difference between air law and space law arises from the legal status and territorial boundaries of outer space and of air space. Airspace for the most part falls under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of subjacent states. The only exception to this rule is Antarctica and the High Seas. Outer space, conversely, is governed by the regime of complete freedom. It is fairly certain that the question of boundaries between outer space and airspace will not exceed more than 100 km beyond sea level. The origin of space law can be traced to the launching of Sputnik I. The legal regulation of activities in outer space  has been largely deliberated in the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). Space Law is a conglomeration of international norms codified through the course of 5 multilateral agreements. The most significant is the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (also known as the Outer Space Treaty). Some of the major principles of the treaty include freedom of and access to outer space; prohibition against national claims to sovereignty in any part of outer space; and a ban on the placing of weapons of mass destruction anywhere in outer space. The 1963 Tokyo Convention[39]which was ratified by 186 countries including India, deals with criminal offences committed onboard flights, mid-air. Article I elaborates on the fact that the convention applies to offences against penal law which may jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or the persons travelling in the aircraft. [40]Article III[41]mentions that the state of registry of the aircraft is competent to exercise jurisdiction over offences and acts committed onboard. This article can be read concurrently with the Territorial Principle. It is to a restricted extent, counter-productive considering the fact that the same Article does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Therefore, this could lead to many jurisdictional issues.

For the most part, space laws are governed by the Outer Space Treaty.[42]The Outer Space Treaty is ambiguous insofar as individual criminal liability is concerned. The IGA, on the other hand, has been explicitly clear as far as criminal acts committed on the ISS are concerned. However, in light of recent events, the IGA too has been called into question.


The first and only international crime to have taken place in the International Space Station was the alleged crime committed by NASA astronaut Anne McClain. She allegedly accessed the bank account of her estranged partner while living on the ISS. Although, the crime was committed in low earth orbit, it is the first of its kind. Her estranged spouse filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. [43] The five space agencies that are involved in building and running the space station – the US, Russia, Japan, Europe and Canada – have established procedures to handle legal issues that arise when astronauts are orbiting Earth.
According to Article V of the IGA[44], each partner using the ISS shall maintain control and retain jurisdiction over the elements that it registers. This is in accordance with the principle of active personality, wherein, the alleged offender is prosecuted under his own domestic penal laws. Thus, in this situation, the criminal offence committed would be tried by American Courts. The jurisdictional conflicts are limited considering the fact that the victim is also American.

The International Space Station is the largest man-made structure in Outer Space. The main construction of the ISS was completed between the years 1998 and 2011. It has been occupied since the year 2000. Research time in the ISS is allotted on the basis of the monetary contribution of the respective partners to the IGA. The ISS can be controlled from mission control centres in Houston and Moscow. It orbits at an average altitude of 400 kilometres above the Earth’s surface and travels at a speed of 28,000 km/h. In 2020, it is anticipated that the crew numbers aboard the ISS will increase owing to the fact that commercial crew vehicles such as Dragon (developed by Space X) and CST-100 (developed by Boeing) will be able to transport more astronauts than the Soyuz capsule can currently transport.[45]

The International Space Inter Governmental Agreement hereinafter referred to as the (IGA) is a multilateral treaty signed between the partners currently in usage of the International Space Station (hereinafter referred to as the ISS). There are 15 parties to the agreement. The agreement explains the liabilities and obligations of each of the countries. It also provides clarity on the jurisdictional power that each country will have with respect to the space station elements. It concurrently establishes a long term international co-operative framework for the development and utilization of a permanently inhabited civil space station.

The Agreement allows the Space Station Partners to extend their national jurisdiction to the elements that they administer in outer space. Article 5 of the ISS IGA provides that the partners shall retain jurisdiction over the elements that it registers and over personnel at the ISS who are its nationals. [46]

In the Anne McClain case, there were no apparent jurisdictional issues since both the victim and the alleged offender were American nationals. Therefore, Article V of the IGA did  not even come into the picture. If the act had been committed by an American Astronaut against a Russian Astronaut while they were still on the ISS, there could be possible jurisdictional clashes. The two governments would then have to enter into negotiations with each other and come to an agreement as to which law should have been applicable. If the countries cannot come to an agreement after 3 months after negotiations start then the government of the alleged victim is given jurisdiction. [47]

Article 22 of the IGA[48]elaborates on jurisdiction over criminal acts committed aboard the International Space Station. Subsequently, Article 22(2) lays down the conditions in which the passive nationality principle would be applicable and the domestic penal laws of the victim would be applicable as opposed to the laws of the alleged offender. The IGA was the first agreement to establish a foundation to deal with international criminal jurisdiction in outer space. The passive nationality principle is only applicable when there is substantial damage caused to one of its nationals or flight elements. All the provisions under the IGA are only applicable to the nationals of the Partner States. Any other nationals from third countries who commit criminal act aboard the ISS will be governed by the general principle of Article VIII of the OST.


Currently, there are very few countries who have the resources and technology to fund space tourism and commercial projects in outer space. Considering the fact, that the number of private companies engaged in the afore-mentioned business is substantially low, it seems feasible to adopt an agreement or a multilateral treaty similar to the IGA governing criminal liability aboard said spacecrafts. Each State may have to adopt domestic legislation to govern the code of disciplinary conduct on the private long distance touristic expeditions, which will have to be abided by. This code of conduct will have to incorporate the principles of international law. The State of registry should be given the power to regulate the disciplinary conduct of passengers on board the spacecraft and the personnel contained therein from the state of registry should be given the discretionary power to restrain any passenger who could be a threat to other passengers or who has committed a criminal act on board. Private space agencies should be constantly monitored and administered by their State of Registry. There must also be a differentiation between serious offences and petty crimes committed on private space carriers. In the case of serious crimes, the passive personality principle must be applicable and the offender must be tried in accordance with the laws of the victim. If there is an extradition treaty applicable between the two involved countries, then the offender will have to be extradited back to his own country and will have to be tried according to his domestic penal laws. Consequently, in the situation that a petty offence has occurred like theft, the offender can be tried according to the laws of his own country. However, what remains unclear is if a crime that effect large groups of people from different countries, occurs. In that situation, it is uncertain what law should be applicable, such as in the case of cybercrimes or terrorist activities in outer space. As of the time being, there is an urgent need, to place primary emphasis on differentiating between serious and petty offences, and applying the relevant international principle to better understand which domestic legislation would be applicable.

[1] Statute of the International Court of  Justice, 33 UNTS 993, (18 April 1946), Art. 38.

[2] Nicaragua v. United States of America, 1986 I.C.J 1

[3] North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands), 1969 I.C.J. Reports p.3.


[5] Stacy J Ratner, Establishing the Extraterrestrial: Criminal Jurisdiction and the International Space Station, 22 B.C INT’L & COMP. REV. 323 (1999).



[8] United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea, December 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S 3397.

[9] Id.,17.

[10] Id., 25¶3.

[11]  Id., 19¶1.

[12] Id., 19¶2.

[13] Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, (1963), A/RES/1962 (XVIII)

[14] Id., Art. 2.

[15] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space
, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, January 27, 1967, 610 U.N.T.S 205.

[16] Id., III.

[17] Sovereignty and Sovereign Rights, International Union for Conservation of Nature, (Oct. 25, 2012).

[18] Arron N. Honniball, The Exclusive Jurisdiction of Flag States: A Limitation on Pro-active Port States, 31 THE INT’L JOURNAL OF MARINE AND COASTAL LAW 3, (2016).

[19] Supra 2, Article 1.


[21] Prue Taylor, The Common Heritage of Mankind: A Bold Doctrine kept within Strict Boundaries, 3 The Encyclopedia of Sustainability, 64–69

[22] Supra 14, II.

[23] Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, Belgium v Senegal, Judgment, ICJ GL No 144, ICGJ 437 (ICJ 2012), 20th July 2012, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ].

[24] The obligation to extradite or prosecute  (aut dedere aut judicare) Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2014, vol. II, Part Two.

[25] M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes, 59 Law and Contemporary Problems 63-74 (1996).

[26]S.S Lotus (France v. Turkey), 1927 P.C.I.J (ser. A) No. 10.

[27] Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), “Joint Declaration of Judges Evensen, Tarassov, Guillaume and Aguilar Mawdsley”, 1992 I.C.J Rep 136.

[28] Harvard Research in International Law,  Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime, 29 AM. J. INT’L L. 474 (1935).


[30] U.S. Foreign Relations, 1886, p. viii: 1887, p. 757 ; and vol II, p. 1114


[32] S.S Lotus (France v. Turkey), [1927] PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 10.

[33] PCIJ, Series A, No.10, 1927, pp 22-3.

[34] United States v. Yunis, 681  F. Supp. 896, 903 (D.D.C 1988)

[35] United States v. Benitez, 741 F. 2d 1312 (11th Cir 1984)

[36] Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, (The Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), ICJ GL No 121, [2002]

[37] Inter-governmental Agreement, 1988.

[38] Dominique De Pascale, A.C Charania, and John R. Olds, The Emerging Orbital Space Tourism Industry: New Insight into Demand and Prospects for Success, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, (2006).

[39] Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, Sep., 14, 1963, 704 UNTS 219.

[40] Id., Art. I

[41] Id., Art. III

[42] Supra Note 14

[43] Robin McKie, NASA Astronaut ‘accessed ex partners bank account from space station’, THE GUARDIAN, (Aug., 24, 2019), available at

[44] Supra Note 34, Art. V

[45] Elizabeth Howell, International Space Station: Facts, History and Tracking, (Feb. 8, 2018), available at

[46] International Space Station Legal Framework, European Sp
ace Agency available at

[47] Loren Grush, The first alleged crime committed in space raises questions about jurisdiction in orbit, THE VERGE, (Aug. 7, 2019), available at

[48] Supra Note 34, Art. 22

Leave a Comment