外空活动中,空间碎片造成损害后果的情形在实践中频频出现,而由此产生的损害责任则可以被纳入《国家对国际不法行为的责任条款草案》的适用范畴。虽然草案本身并非正式的国际法渊源,但由于其在国际法实践中通常为国际法主体在相关国际法规则存在缺失或内容模糊等问题时所援引,并能够得到国际社会的广泛接受,因此,确有必要考虑将其作为正式法律依据的补充适用于空间碎片损害责任,以弥补空间碎片损害责任相关法律规则的不足。作为国际法渊源之一,习惯国际法可作为草案在空间碎片损害责任领域适用的路径。而由于在习惯国际法视角下,草案难以满足“二要素”的传统习惯国际法构成要求,容易出现“决断”的问题,对此,应当以演绎法解决草案作为国际习惯法适用于空间碎片损害责任的问题。
In outer space activities,circumstances of damage caused by space debris frequently occur in practice,and the liability for damage arising therefrom can be included in the scope of application of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of State for Internationally Wrongful Acts.Although the Draft itself is not a formal source of international law,in practice of international law it is usually invoked by the subject of international law when there are problems such as deficiencies or ambiguities in the relevant international law rules,and it can be widely accepted by the international community.It is therefore necessary to consider applying it as a complement to the formal legal basis to liability for space debris damage in order to fill the gaps in the relevant legal rules governing liability for space debris damage.As one of the sources of international law,customary international law could serve as a path for the application of the draft in the area of liability for space debris damage.In view of customary international law,it is difficult to meet the requirement of “two elements” of traditional customary international law,so it is easy to appear the problem of “too arbitrary”,so deductive law should be adopted to solve the problem of applying to the liability of space debris damage.
[1] Jeffrey L Dunoff,Steven A Ratner,David Wippman.International Law:Norms,Actors,Process,A Problem-Oriented Approach,3rd ed.[M].California :Aspen Publishers,2010.
[2] Lassa Oppenheim,Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts ( eds.),Oppenheim's International Law,9th ed.,[M].Longman,1992.
[3] Bimal N.Patel.Gabíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)[M].Brill,2014.
[4] Enron Corporation Ponderosa Assets,L.P v Argentine Republic,ICSID Case No ARB/01/3.
[5] Railroad Development Corporation v.Guatemala,Award,ICSID Case No.ARB/07/23.
[6] David Harris,Cases and materials on international law [M].USA:Oxford University Press,1998.
[7] 联合国《大会正式记录,第七十一届会议,补编第 10 号》(A/71/10),第 62 段.
[8] 秦晓程.中美撞机事件中的若干国际法问题[J].外交学院学报,2001,2:27—31.
[9] Lord McNair,ed.,International law opinions[M].England:Cambridge University Press,1956.
[10] W R Manning.Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States:Canadian Relations 1784-1860[M].The American Historical Review Lord McNair,ed.,International Law Opinions,p.228.
[11] G Britain.British and Foreign State Papers,1893-1894[M].London,HM Stationery Office,1899.
[12] Stefan T.Determining customary international law:the ICJ's methodology between induction,deduction and assertion[J].European Journal of JnternationalLaw,2015,26( 2):434—443.
[13] Stefan Talmon,Determining Customary International Law:The ICJ's Methodology between Induction,Deduction and Assertion,European Journal of International Law,2015,26( 2):434—443.
[14] Corfu Channel Case,Judgment of April 9,1949:I.C.J.Reports 1949,22.
[15] Kolb R.Military and paramilitary activities in and against nicaragua(Nicaragua v.United States of America)(1984 to 1986)[M]. Merits,Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 1986.
[16] Sender O,M Wood.Landmark cases in public international law[M].2012.
[17] Yearbook of the International Law Commission,1981,II (1),document A/CN.4/342 and Add.1-4:76.
[18] Lotus Case,P.C.I.J,Rep.,Ser.A,No.10,4,18(1927).
