Moving Towards a Potential Conflict Resolution Mechanism Under the APSCO Framework:A Proposed Legal Mechanism

Mohammad Saiful Islam

School of Law,Beijing Institute of Technology,Beijing 100081

Abstract:Competition among countries has evolved from just on Earth but into space as space technology and space power is a key attribute in the world today.Today space technology has spread,due to the enormous development,into every sector of life in the Earth for the benefit of mankind.Every country has the ambition to be a part of the space initiative.Asia Pacific Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO) is an organization that tries to promote space activities through cooperation in the Asia Pacific region.This paper attempts to explore the nature and categories of potential conflict that may arise under the APSCO framework program.Furthermore,it also endeavors to establish an effective and better dispute settlement mechanism under the overall APSCO framework.Finally,this paper introduces the institutional framework and working procedures of the arbitration body for future smooth cooperation and space exploration by APSCO.

Key words:dispute,legal mechanism,council,consultations,arbitration

1 INTRODUCTION

Competence in space is considered a key capability and one of the most indispensable capabilities for solving many issues on Earth.As a result,space has become a much more political and economic field with the emerging practical use of outer space and the increasing number of countries,international organizations,state institutions,and private enterprises directly or indirectly involved or at least showing their interest in space activities[1].The interests are different and generally result in conflict between countries or groups of countries involved in space activities.Such conflicts must be anticipated due to the increasing use of space and with the growing interested number of countries and bodies involved with such applications[2].Since in the field of international law,intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) have played a significant role to build international relations and international cooperation,so it is not a surprising situation to find a similar approach for space activities.Subsequently,in the space arena,IGOs have also played a significant role in the associated legal field while developing new types of space activities and applications,hence influencing the formation of new laws.Both for national and international situations,the matter of dispute and settlement of a conflict is the core of the legal system and similarly reflects in space law.There have been many international attempts to generally formulate applicable procedures for the settlement of international disputes.Endeavors covering wide-ranging solutions for the settlement of international conflicts go back as far as The Hague Conventions for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes on July 29,1899 and October 18,1907,and the establishment of the Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration.These attempts continue with the Permanent Court of International Justice established by intergovernmental agreement in 1920.Following the Second World War,the provisions for the settlement of disputes emanated from the Charter of the United Nations (U.N.),and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established based on Article 92 of the U.N.Charter.

The most prominent principle of the U.N.Charter is that“Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security,and justice,are not endangered” (Article 2 (3)).In compliance with this principle,the present system of international law has been recognized as providing an infinite number of dispute settlement mechanisms that are universally acknowledged.It includes negotiation,inquiry,mediation,conciliation,good offices,arbitration,resorting to regional agencies or arrangements,and adjudication by international courts (Article 33 (1)).These are also mentioned in the 1970 U.N.General Assembly Resolution on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.These systems of dispute settlement mechanisms are also denoted under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 (Article 65 (3)).

Based on the U.N.principles,the recent dispute resolution endeavors found in various U.N.treaties like the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (Article 3),the 1972 Liability Convention (Articles IX,XIV),the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties(Articles 65,66),the 1982 U.N.Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (Articles 283,284,287),and international organizations sponsored under the U.N.such as covered under the 1992 International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Convention plus those for the 1944 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).The dispute settlement events enlightened by the accumulation of provisions in the numerous international multilateral or regional instruments.Subsequent agreements such as the 1971 INTELSAT Agreement,the 1975 Convention for the Establishment of the European Space Agency (ESA),and the 1998 Agreement of Civil International Space Station (ISS)are mentionable.Notably more than 57 international legal instruments dealing with the settlement of disputes concerning space activities have been established[3].Hence an international organization is the subject matter of international law.It holds a secondary status under space treaties.Therefore,Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO) as an international organization should follow the dispute settlement mechanisms under international law.

2 NATURE AND CATEGORIES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS FOR APSCO

2.1 Nature of Potential Conflicts

There are various kinds of conflicts that may arise under the APSCO framework among the Member States or between the Organization and the Member States.The subject matter of the dispute must appear in connection with the rights and obligations under the APSCO Convention.Potential conflicts may occur in two dimensions.

State-versus-State:In this situation,both states are a Member of APSCO.In general,this type of dispute arises at the international level and most appropriately to be solved at the international level[4]through the international law,but here the dispute arises between countries at an intergovernmental organization-level and within a specific program under APSCO.Therefore,this dispute should be resolved under an internal arrangement of the Organization taking into account international law.

State-versus-APSCO:Another aspect is a conflict between a state and the IGO like APSCO.Herein circumstances where the state is a Member State of the APSCO.In this case,any dispute between the state and the IGO is to be solved by the internal framework arrangements of the IGO[5].

2.2 Categories of Potential Conflicts

The study identifies potential areas of conflict under the APSCO framework,particularly are:

Conflicts in operation and management.In this case,the possibility of conflict with conducting space mission operations,system administration of mission,station management,satellite monitoring and control,termination of a satellite mission,cost of establishing and operating the mission,any damage or injury by satellite systems,security services,requirements development,etc.are included.

Conflicts on the technical side.In this regard,conflicts with technical information,the disclosure of protected or proprietary technical data,technical information,and documentation for the purposes of downlinking,etc.are involved.

Conflicts on data and information.Includes conflicts with remote sensing satellite data receiving,processing,archiving,covering distribute,disclose,use,manipulation,or selling remote sensing satellite data,exchange of such data in cooperation,data storage management,etc.

Conflicts on policy.In this matter,conflicts with policies on remote sensing data,data sharing regulation,making and application of other laws,regulations,and procedures,intellectual property rights,interpretation or application of the Convention,damage caused by APSCO,extending to any additional non-contractual responsibility of the APSCO,etc.are included.

3 PROPOSED EFFECTIVE CONFLICT RESOLUTION MECHANISM UNDER APSCO FRAMEWORK

3.1 Establishment of the Conflict Resolution Mechanism

The development of space activities and cooperation requires an actual means to resolve disputes at an international organization level.Generally,a recognized dispute settlement system in this matter would be an internal influence for sustaining peaceful space activities and cooperation to attain potential benefits for the Asia Pacific community.Ordinarily,the establishment of an effective mechanism for dispute settlement which will provide guidance on the general principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes was the aim.However,to enable smooth cooperation,the legal mechanisms for international space organizations comprise comparatively comprehensive dispute resolution systems.Usually,they call for third-party binding settlement of conflicts,ordinarily by arbitration.

APSCO is a prominent intergovernmental organization involved in space activities.The Convention of APSCO holds provisions related to dispute settlement,mainly through consultation in the Council,and arbitration shall be deferred to if the dispute does not settle by means of consultation in the Council(Article 19).While the Organization did not make additional rules to govern the arbitration procedure,it means by default,‘consultation in the council’ is the only mechanism for settlement of a dispute under APSCO,as no other judicial or binding mechanism has been adopted.The basic premise is an independent organization should make a unique framework on dispute settlement mechanisms.At the international level,for example,the Liability Convention has its own dispute settlement body,namely,the Claims Commission.It is noted that several IGOs have generated their own frameworks on dispute settlement systems,like ESA,INTELSAT,ITU and the WTO-framework which is the most advanced.Therefore,APSCO should provision an independent conflict resolution mechanism for the settlement of disputes.

APSCO is subject to international law as an intergovernmental organization.Accordingly,any dispute regarding rights and obligations under the APSCO convention should be solved through the recognized procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes as per the direction of international law.The present system of international law recognizes various dispute settlement mechanisms that are universally acknowledged.It includes negotiation,inquiry,mediation,conciliation,good offices,arbitration,resort to regional agencies or arrangements,and adjudication by international courts.These various mechanisms have been comprised in the U.N.Charter.The conflict resolution mechanism under the APSCO should act under the overall APSCO framework as a permanent mechanism.Figure 1 shows the proposed APSCO conflict resolution mechanisms.

As an effective method of dispute resolution,the first mechanism is the pre-judicial or non-binding method,which consists of consultation and resolution by the Council,and the second mechanism refers to the judicial method or binding procedure which goes under arbitration.

This research emphasizes arbitration as a legal and binding mechanism to dispute settlement.This method is proposed based on international law and practiced by renowned international organizations as part of their dispute settlement mechanism.Moreover,the Draft Convention on the Settlement of Space Law Disputes[6]provides consecutively non-binding and binding dispute settlement methods under international space law.Thus,the non-binding method of settlement focuses on consultation and resolution by the Council.The binding procedure for a solution to be introduced at the demand of any party to the dispute when conflict is not settled by using the non-binding method.

Figure 1 Formation of proposed conflict settlement mechanisms

3.2 Rationale Regarding the Proposed APSCO Dispute Settlement Mechanisms from International Instruments

At this point,this research has tried to highlight more or less such international instruments,either under or outside of the United Nations framework,which have been recognized as mechanism for the settlement of disputes.

Under the U.N.framework

The U.N.Charter comprises traditional techniques for international dispute settlement.Notwithstanding this,there is an inherent weakness as there are no methods resulting in lawfully binding decisions under a dispute settlement system.The U.N.space law and legal instruments covering space do not establish a wide-ranging and complete dispute settlement scheme for space activities[7].The major space laws do not widely mention a mechanism for the settlement of disputes.These laws only comprise a small number of provisions for dispute settlement.In general,the Outer Space Treaty does not mention a remedy for the settlement of disputes under the circumstances governed by its rules[8].The Outer Space Treaty refers to the U.N.Charter regarding mechanisms to resolve disputes arising from space activities for “maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and understanding”(Article 3).

The 1972 Liability Convention comprises two mechanisms for dispute settlement regarding claims.The first one is diplomatic negotiations as a pre-judicial method.The Claims Commission,the second mechanism as the judicial method,shall be established at the request of either party (Articles IX,XIV).The Commission will act as an ad hoc arbitration tribunal if both parties agree to the binding force of the decision before the Commission proceedings start[9].ITU provides settlement by negotiation through diplomatic channels,or by bilateral,multilateral treaties established between them for the settlement of disputes,or by any other method mutually agreed upon (Article 56(1)).In the above methods a binding settlement by arbitration system is available as the last means (Article 56(2)).

ICAO contains two possible techniques for dealing with a dispute.The first method is any Member State may apply to the ICAO Council,and the Council will render its decision.The second mode of settlement is by appealing the decision of the Council,and such appeal may be carried before either an ad hoc arbitral tribunal or to the ICJ.If any party(ies) do not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,the appeal will automatically be decided by arbitration (Articles 84-88).Familiarity with the settlement of disputes under maritime law can be considered because maritime law presents various parallels both in practice and in law to space law[10].The Law of the Sea provides the provision of negotiation,conciliation to dispute settlement (Article 283(1),284(1)).Otherwise,State Parties may,by written declaration,choose any one of the following means for the settlement of disputes:

1) the Law of the Sea tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex V.

2) the ICJ.

3) an arbitral tribunal constituted under the Annex VI.

4) a special arbitral tribunal constituted by Annex VII (Article 287(1)).The resolution presented in the Law of the Sea Convention is to provide the State Parties a preference between settlement by the ICJ or by a specific tribunal or arbitration,complemented by the regulation that,if the State Parties cannot decide on one of these procedures,arbitration is the compulsory technique of dispute settlement[11].

Outside the United Nations framework

Outside the U.N.structure,there are various more definite international legal instruments, limited,but essential in the field of space activities and cooperation[12].In this perspective,a good and perfect example of a dispute resolution technique is in the Convention for the Establishment of ESA.A binding and final settlement of conflicts through arbitration is contained in the ESA Convention when a dispute has not been possible to settle amicably through the Council[13].The INTELSAT Agreement is another model of a worldwide international organization having a dispute settlement procedure under the INTELSAT Convention.The INTELSAT Agreement provides arbitration as a compulsory third-party dispute settlement method only concerning legal disputes (Article XVIII (a)).

The International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO) Convention states the first and prime method should be that negotiations should be conducted to settle disputes between States Parties or between the Organization and States Parties connecting to any matter arising under this Convention[14].Nevertheless,arbitration is possible,if a demanded settlement has not been achieved after one year,and if the parties to the dispute have not agreed to submit their matter to the ICJ or elected to some other procedure for settling disputes,on a consensual basis[15].The Agreement of International Space Station (ISS) contains two methods for resolution of disputes.In the first phase,partners should exert their best efforts to settle conflicts through consultations between the concerned space agencies or at the government level (Article 23(1,2)).Even parties can proceed with an initiative for multilateral government-level consultations (Article 23(2)). However finally,“if an issue not resolved through consultations still needs to be resolved,the concerned partners may submit that issue under an agreed form of dispute resolution such as conciliation,mediation,or arbitration” (Article 23(4)).

3.3 Working Process of Proposed Resolution Mechanisms

Primarily,the initial process under the conflict resolution mechanism is the non-judicial or non-binding method started with consultation or diplomatic negotiations between conflicting parties,where if the consultation fails to lead to a resolution then they go to the Council of APSCO for official negotiations.When the Council is unsuccessful in the resolution of disputes,the matter of conflict shall then pass to arbitration as the judicial or binding resolution.

The second procedural mechanism for the settlement of potential disputes assumes the conflicting parties attempted to find a resolution directly through the Council after the first initiative for a solution through consultation or diplomatic negotiations.If they do not agree with the resolution of the Council,the issue will go to arbitration.Alternatively,the parties may decide to skip the attempt of finding a solution with the Council,after trying through direct negotiation or diplomatic negotiations,and move to arbitration.

Figure 3 Second working procedure

4 DETAILS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT MECHANISM

4.1 Pre-judicial or Non-binding Method (Consultations and Resolution by the Council)

All disputes should be solved through pre-judicial methods.Negotiations,consultations,and diplomatic discussions should then normally be settled if the issue of dispute is between two highly civilized members of the same elite club[16].The Outer Space Treaty,known as Megna Carta or Constitution of space law,outlines for a consultation to avoid potential conflict in circumstances of harmful interference (Article IX).The 1972 Liability Convention provides that all claims must first be pursued through diplomatic channels (Article IX).

Therefore,in the APSCO dispute settlement approach,the first step should be consultations and resolution by the Council as a pre-judicial or non-binding first approach.In this framework,firstly,consultations could be communicated through diplomatic channels or by the exchange of views between the two conflicting parties.Following on,the parties should try to resolve the dispute under a resolution of the Council of APSCO.However this can be applied only if both parties agree with the resolution of the Council; otherwise,they should go to arbitration.According to the APSCO Convention,“The Council shall be the highest decision-making body of the Organization”(Article 11(1)).Besides functioning as the leading body of the Organization,the Council represents the primary organ for dispute resolution.Convention defines that,“Any dispute between two or more Member States,or between any of them and the Organization,concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention,shall be resolved through cordial consultations in the Council” (Article 19).

The following assumptions support the pre-judicial method:

1) The Council is the highest decision-making body;

2) Guarantee that the interests of all Member Parties are represented;

3) Less time consuming and surely the quickest approach;

4) More cost effective,arbitration is costly for both parties;

5) Arbitration/ adjudication creates a more combative attitude between parties;

6) The parties connect face to face,develop better communication and should improve future relationships between parties;

7) Informal resolution upholds confidentiality and evades publicity;

8) The parties are still effectively in control,the parties decide their own process and design their own agreement;

9) There is a better chance of a ‘win-win’ approach.

4.2 Time Limitation for Pre-judicial Settlement

If any party aggrieved,believes action under any program or any decision of the Council is detrimental or seems to threaten the sovereignty of the party,or a dispute arises between two or more State Parties,the subject related to the dispute or the question of dispute must be presented to the responsible State Party or Council through diplomatic channels as soon as possible after the date on which the controversy was discovered.Beginning from the notification of the dispute matter,there is a one-year time limit for attainment of a settlement under consultations and resolution through the Council.If the dispute is not resolved within this time or the parties do not agree to the consultation and resolution by the Council,the parties must,at the request of either one of them,go to arbitration.The 1972 Liability Convention refers to rules regarding time for reached a settle by negotiations.The provisions within the Liability Convention stipulates,starting from submission of the claim there is a one-year period for obtaining a settlement through diplomatic negotiations.If the claim is not settled within this time,the concerned parties shall establish a ‘Claims Commission’ at the request of either one of the parties (Article XIV).

4.3 Judicial or Binding Method (Arbitration)

Arbitration is the favored technique for dispute settlement in the case of international disputes,particularly in the private sector[17].The arbitration shall be established “at the request of any party involved in the dispute” to decide the settlement of disputes relating to rights and obligations under the APSCO Convention between Member State Parties or between a State(s) and the Organization.The arbitration shall establish if a resolution of disputes has not been settled within a reasonable period from the time the party to the dispute has notified the other party of its intention to settle such a dispute by consultations or by the Council.The notification submitted calling for pre-judicial resolution or consultations must make in writing.For pre-judicial resolution,the reasonable time limit can be one year (12 months).This time appears considerable on the basis of ‘within a reasonable time’.This amount of time has been recognized in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 66).However,if the parties to the dispute have not agreed to the consultation or resolution by the Council,that means the parties did not reach a similar settlement of the dispute,and then the matter will be submitted directly for arbitration.

4.4 Reasons for Arbitration under APSCO not to ICJ

On the one side,arbitration has numerous advantages for the determination of space-related disputes.First,arbitration is a technique of dispute settlement open to all parties in the Organization.Each party which believes they have an interest in the disputed matter,may join in the arbitration process.However,participation can happen only through the approval of the arbitration board.

Second,an arbitration mechanism is based upon the consent of the State Parties being obtained before a dispute occurs such that an additional arbitration clause is adopted as a legal instrument[18]and included in the APSCO Convention (Article 19).

Third,arbitration procedures,sometimes,can be adopted prior to the dispute by prior agreement,but can also be established through the consent of both parties after the dispute arises.

Fourth,the arbitration decision is final and binding on the parties.Parties have to implement the arbitral award without delay.However,under the arbitration system,no appeal is allowable,and only partial grounds would be available for a challenge[19].

Fifth,arbitral award is internationally accepted and enforceable[20]for all Member States of the Organization.

Sixth,the arbitral process is flexible and can be improved or reformed by modification of the agreement of the Organization[21].

Seventh,dissimilar from a court,in arbitration,parties related to arbitration have the opportunity to select their own arbitrators with particular competences in the related fields[22].This is particularly convenient when the issue of the dispute is very much technical.

Eighth,arbitration can assist in retaining the confidentiality and privacy of sensitive information.Hearings and awards need not be public and published (Outer Space Rules,Articles 28(3),34(5)).

Ninth,arbitration is frequently faster than the litigation system in court[23]and the arbitration award is generally easier to enforce than court judgments.

Finally,the language of arbitration,in arbitration proceedings,may be chosen.However,in judicial proceedings,the official language of the competent court will be automatically applied.Considering all of these points,the principal advantage of arbitration is its adaptability,cost,confidentiality,enforceability,and flexibility in comparison with the other rigid institutions and procedures adopted by an international court[24].

In contrast,the ICJ proceedings take a long time.Some sates do not accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ because the ICJ permits states to proclaim recognition of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction on a case by case basis (Article 36(1) or by declaring an independent statement so accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of Court over future conflicts (Article 36(2)).In addition,the ICJ only hears disputes between states (Article 34(1))excludes a large number of the entities that take part in space activities[25].Furthermore,an ICJ decision is only binding for a dispute related to a state not for others and not as a future matter as precedent (Article 59).Any decision rendered under an APSCO dispute should become a precedent for future matters.

5 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND PROCEDURES OF ARBITRATION

5.1 Settings of the Body

APSCO is an independent international organization.Establishing a separate dispute settlement body is unique.In this regard,the proposed name for the body maybe ‘Dispute Resolution Board’ (DRB) or ‘Dispute Settlement Board’ (DSB) or‘Arbitral Tribunal’ (AT) or ‘Conflict Resolution Board’ (CRB) etc.This body should act for the whole APSCO framework program as a permanent body.

5.2 Appointment of Arbitrator and Assistance

1) The arbitration shall consist of three members.Both parties to the dispute shall appoint their own arbitrator.The third arbitrator,who will be chairman,will appoint by the consensus of the two arbitrators.

2) If,within thirty days after the receipt of a first party’s submission for arbitration,the second party has not appointed an arbitrator,the second arbitrator shall,at the first party’s request,be selected by the President of the ICJ or by the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration within fifteen days from the application.

3) Within fifteen days after the appointment of the second arbitrator,the two arbitrators shall decide on a third arbitrator to serve as the chairman of the tribunal.If they have not agreed on a third arbitrator or the presiding arbitrator,each one shall nominate a third arbitrator,and the Secretary-General of the APSCO will choose one of the nominees by drawing a lot.

4) The chairman or the presiding arbitrator of the tribunal must not,or have been,a national of one of the Party States,or an official of the Organization unless the parties to the dispute clearly reach an agreement to this.

5) The Council of APSCO may appoint one or more independent technical experts for the assistance of the tribunal regarding specific scientific or technical matters determined by the tribunal,but have no voting rights to make the final decision.

6) The tribunal is established as soon as its chairman is selected.Its composition must remain the same until an award has been made.

7) For any reason,if a vacancy happens in the tribunal during the arbitral proceedings,a substitute arbitrator of the tribunal shall be appointed in accordance with the process for the primary appointment.

5.3 Functions and Jurisdictions of the Arbitration Body

For unique and details functions,jurisdiction,and the total procedure for the arbitration process,further research is necessary.Here,this research has tried to focus on primary information.These functions and the jurisdiction is based on the Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Outer Space Activities adopted by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)at the Hague effective from 2011.

1) The tribunal may conduct the arbitration in such manner as it thinks fit by providing equal opportunity to the parties.

2) In the exercise of its discretion,the tribunal shall conduct the proceedings to avoid unnecessary delay and expense and to afford a fair and effective procedure for resolving the parties’dispute.

3) After its establishment,the tribunal shall inaugurate a provisional timetable for the arbitration.The tribunal may,at any time,extend or curtail any period of time prearranged under the Rules or decided by the parties.

4) At an appropriate phase of the proceedings,the tribunal shall,at the request of any party,hold hearings for the appearance of evidence,including expert witnesses or for questioning.

5) The tribunal may allow those Member States of the APSCO who are not parties to the dispute,at the request of that Member States,to attend in the proceedings if the tribunal considers that they have a considerable interest in the judgment of the case.

6) The tribunal could,on the basis of the request of one party,grant interim temporary measures in anticipated fair solution.

7) The tribunal can modify,dismiss or suspend an interim measure granted by it by any party’s application or the tribunal’s initiative in special circumstances by serving prior notice to the parties.

8) The tribunal may,throughout the arbitration proceedings,demand the parties to present documents or show additional evidence within such a time that the tribunal shall decide.

9) The tribunal may require the parties to deliver a clarification of the background of any technical,scientific or other specified information that the tribunal considers essential to fully understand as matters in the dispute.

5.4 How A Member State Could Make a Claim

A Member State or Party looking for a remedy under arbitration (“the claimant”) shall submit a ‘Statement of Claim’to the Secretary-General with a full written submission.The submission regarding the Statement of Claim for arbitration shall contain the description of the other Party (“the respondent”)with the demand detailing the issue of dispute which should be raised to arbitration; a detailed statement containing the issue of the dispute and the particular claim supplemented with any supportive evidence; presentation of rules,agreement,contract or principal instrument of the Organization in relation to the matter in which the dispute arises; identification the competence for the tribunal and the lawful causes supporting the request for the tribunal; a declaration regarding the inability of not settling the dispute by negotiations either in a diplomatic way or through the Council within a reasonable time allowing for all possible solutions for resolving the dispute,and that the parties to the conflict have not agreed any other resolution method; the name of the arbitrator selected by the claimant and,if applicable,the name and address of their representative or assistant for defending the claimant’s interests; and the remedy sought from the tribunal.

The Secretary-General shall confirm the submission is in accordance with the relevant demand particularly,informing all the Member States about the request of the arbitration,and sent a copy of the submission immediately to the respondent.Specifically the Secretary-General shall invite the respondent to submit a written counter-submission and to assign an arbitrator.

If the Organization itself is a claimant to a dispute with one or more Member States,the application for arbitration shall be earlier approved by the Council by voting with a simple majority.

Within 30 days of the receiving of the invitation of arbitration,the respondent shall submit a ‘statement of defense’which shall include the name and communication details of the respondent(s); a description of the facts in response to the submitted statement of claim by the claimant together with all supporting documents; a detailed statement of the relevant points of law involved in the issue of dispute; the name of the proposed arbitrator and,if appropriate,the name and address of the assistant or responsible person for representing the respondent’s interests.

The Secretary-General shall inform immediately to the claimant and the other Member States regarding the copy of this statement of defense.

If any supplementary written statements are essential from the concern parties along with the statement of claim and the statement of defense,the tribunal shall consider the time allocated which should not exceed 21 days.However,the tribunal may grant an extension of the period if it determines that extra time is justified.

5.5 Others Procedures

1) The location and date of the arbitration hearing shall be determine by the tribunal if the concern parties have not formerly agreed.

2) If the parties have not otherwise agreed,the tribunal may meet at any location it believes appropriate for any purpose,deliberation or for hearings.

3) The arbitration proceedings shall be held in private,and all submitted documents shall be confidential.

4) The proceedings shall consist of statements in writing.Nevertheless,the parties may provide verbal arguments and witnesses may be heard.The languages of the proceedings shall be in the official language of the Organization.

5) The tribunal may require the witnesses cross examination,as well as expert witnesses to participate and if necessary via appropriate real time communication methods for those who do not want or unable to physically attend the hearing.

6) The chairman shall chair the arbitration proceedings.The proceedings shall start with the submission by the claimant,followed by the respondent’s presentation his defense.

7) In case the replacement of an arbitrator is required,the proceedings shall restart from that step where the previous arbitrator stepped down,except if the tribunal agrees otherwise.

8) APSCO and the parties to the dispute shall facilitate the tribunal’s activities by providing all the documents and information that tribunal thinks required to settle the dispute.

5.6 Award of Arbitral Body

The award of the tribunal shall be made by a majority of its members who may not abstain from voting.Similar to the Claims Commission makes their decision by a majority vote(Liability Convention,Article XVI(5)).Any verdict rendered by a tribunal shall be measured as final and binding on all parties to the dispute and no appeal shall be made against it.The award shall be made in writing,and parties shall comply with the award without delay.If the parties have not decided otherwise,the tribunal shall detail the reasons influencing this award.The Secretary-General of the APSCO shall notify the award to the parties in the dispute and to all other Member States.Within 30 days after the announcement of the award,parties may apply to the tribunal to correct the award due to any error in computation,any typographical or clerical error,or any error or omission of a similar nature.If the tribunal considers the submission is justified,it shall correct the award within 30 days of receiving such a submission.It is highly recommended that the arbitration process shall not take time more than six months to make their award after it commences.The award shall be considered as a precedent with similar future disputes under the APSCO activities.

5.7 Appellate Procedure

No appeal shall be made against the decision of the arbitration tribunal.The parties shall comply with the award without delay.A party may submit a review of an award of the tribunal in respect of a fact that has a decisive influence but was unidentified to the tribunal,and the requesting party before the award.

6 CONCLUSION

Space technology,today,is widespread and impacts development on Earth in every sector for the benefit of humankind.It reflects on how nations are perceived within the world community providing political and economic potential benefits.In the case of space exploration,some countries have their own indigenous capabilities,while some other countries participate through the cooperation with other space powers.Particularly,the latter case applies for developing countries who cannot secure direct benefits from space exploration themselves due to lack of scientific,technical,and financial capacity.However,as a member of an intergovernmental organization,they can participate in space exploration as well as consume the benefits.In this respect,APSCO is a perfect position for the countries in the Asia Pacific region.

Today,a large number of possible disputes might arise among the Member States of the APSCO,and between a State and the Organization in the exploration and activities of outer space.One area unspecified under the APSCO Convention is the lack of specific provisions for a mandatory binding mechanism for dispute settlement.Regional and specific international organizations have been adopted an efficient dispute settlement mechanism,mostly choosing arbitration[26].The mechanism of the dispute settlement in this study through arbitration,after the attempt of initial consultations would be more flexible,more comfortable,effective,and accepted among the Member States of the Organization.Thus,based on this research,APSCO,as a competent space cooperation organization,should look for developing a well-organized framework for effective dispute settlement in the near future to ensure smooth space activities and good cooperation in the Asia Pacific region.