Which theory of demarcation of space law supports the concept of “Common Heritage of Mankind”in

space and discourages state sovereignty?

ANS:

According to one of the basic tenants of present day international law on state sovereignty, the state
territory with its adjacent airspace is a delimited part of the earth under the exclusive jurisdiction of a
state. The domination of a state over its territory- to the exclusion of all states-is called territorial
sovereignty. The recognition of the sovereignty of every state in the airspace is based on a generally
accepted rule of international customary law. A historical assessment of this problem has shown that
this generally international rule can primarily be derived from the national laws of the states.

The “common heritage of mankind” is an ethical concept and a general concept of international law. It
establishes that some localities belong to all humanity and that their resources are available for
everyone’s use and benefit, taking into account future generations and the needs of developing
countries. It is intended to achieve aspects of the sustainable development of common spaces and their
resources, but may apply beyond this traditional scope.

D. Goesdhuis stated that the question of demarcation can only be answered against the general
background of the attitude of the governments, the finding of international bodies studying air and
space law and this ideas of writers. But it is difficult to find a solution because most government have
been studiously vague in their pronouncements on this matter and there has been considerably change
in the individual opinion and declaration because of the revolutionary change in technology.

In the ‘No Present Need Theory' there is no hurry to draw a line of demarcation according to the
propounders. Science is about to develop and has not developed completely in the present era. If
demarcation is made now then there would be problem in future and States would not agree to
redefine the line of demarcation and would further create problem between them. Also line of
demarcation would hinder the ‘common heritage of mankind’ because then only the wealthy States
would exercise their arbitrary powers in the Space. Also, if any arbitrary line is drawn then it would be
difficult to track the space objects and would further escalate the boundary violations.

The No Present need theory: Most of the theories on the issue of a demarcation line presuppose that a
demarcation line must be drawn somewhere in Space and the problem is to determine where.

The arguments of this school can be summarized thus:

• (a) That the absence of explicit agreement has not yet led to international tensions and does not
appear likely to be able to do so.
• (b) That an attempt to reach explicit agreement on establishment of an altitude boundary would
invite many states to make claims to sovereignty which in analogous cases such as the high seas,
have led to immoderate claims. In other words, the Pandora’s box might be harder to close than
to open.

• © That any boundary set might have to be set too high because fear of the unknown would lead
states to claim as much as they could. On the other hand, that future activity at lower altitudes
may be acceptable if there is no explicit agreement on the extent of airspace.

• (d) That an agreement reached later is likely to fix a lower altitude than an agreement reached
now.

• € That an agreed altitude once achieved will be next to impossible to reduce

• (f) That an arbitrarily chosen upper limit could easily become a bone of contention. This is in that
disputes may arise from boundary violations, which are all the more likely because space objects
are in fact difficult to track or identify.