71st International Astronautical Congress (IAC) – The CyberSpace Edition, 12-14 October 2020.

Copyright 2020 Dadwal & Macdonald. Published by Eleven International Publishing, with permission.

IAC-20-E714.58206
Arbitration of Space-Related Disputes: Case Trends and Analysis

Viva Dadwala, Madeleine Macdonaldb

a
King & Spalding LLP, USA, [email protected]
b
McGill University, [email protected]

Abstract
To advance understanding of how arbitration may contribute to the resolution of space-related disputes, this research
catalogues and analyzes all publicly-reported space-related disputes that to date have been resolved through
international arbitration. More specifically, this compendium of arbitral awards and court decisions will provide
trends and analyses on the: (i) type and subject-matter of space-related disputes submitted to international arbitration,
as organized by industry and topics; (ii) kinds of disputants currently employing international arbitration, as
organized by type and size of actors; (iii) applicable laws used in international arbitration; (iv) preferred seats; and
(v) arbitral institutions administering the dispute. Cataloguing and analyzing space-related disputes that have already
been resolved through international arbitration will offer important insights and understandings on current industry
practices and complement existing research on the use of arbitration clauses by companies providing space-related
products and services. These trends and analyses may be used by scholars, policymakers, and legal practitioners, to
assist in the resolution of any future space-related disputes, and assess the successes and failures of the current
dispute-resolution infrastructure for resolving space-related disputes. To our knowledge, there exist no consolidated
catalogues for publicly-reported space-related disputes that have been resolved through international arbitration.

Keywords: arbitration, dispute resolution, space-related disputes,

Acronyms/Abbreviations ought to be an attractive tool for the resolution of cross-

United Nations (UN), International Space Law border space-related disputes [2]. We attempt to test
(ISL), National Aeronautics and Space Administration that hypothesis by measuring the extent to which space-
(NASA), International Space Station (ISS), European related disputes are being resolved through arbitration.
Space Agency (ESA), International
Telecommunications Satellite Organization This paper uses empirical research to establish a
(INTELSAT), China International Economic Trade & baseline of the use of arbitration in space-related
Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), International disputes, which may be tracked over time and compared
Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), International against other methods of space-related dispute
Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), resolution. Similar projects have been undertaken
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Iran-United previously in the context of domestic case law in the
States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT), London Court of United States [2]. An inherent challenge of this project
International Arbitration (LCIA), Arbitration Institute of is the paucity of publicly available information on the
the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), arbitration of space-related disputes. Despite these
Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), limitations, we believe that this research provides an
Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) important empirical foundation for future research into
the use of international arbitration in the resolution of
I. Introduction space-related disputes.
Technological advancements over the last 40 years
have allowed private, non-state actors to enter the space II. Resolution of Cross-Border Space-related
industry, previously the exclusive terrain of states. With disputes
this rise in non-state actors, complex cross-border
space-related disputes are expected to increase. Since
space law cannot automatically be enforced by going to Following the space race of the mid-twentieth
court and receiving a judgment against the party century, five United Nations (UN) treaties on outer
violating its rules, questions arise on the most suitable space were completed between 1967 and 1984. These
dispute resolution mechanism for resolving space- treaties address issues such as the non-appropriation of
related disputes. Binding arbitration is already a leading outer space by any one country, arms control, the
dispute settlement mechanism for cross-border disputes, freedom of exploration, liability for damage caused by
both for commercial and state actors. Thus, it is space objects, and the safety and rescue of spacecraft
frequently hypothesized that international arbitration and astronauts. However, none of the major space law

IAC-20-E7.1.4 Page 1 of 8
 71st International Astronautical Congress (IAC) – The CyberSpace Edition, 12-14 October 2020.
Copyright 2020 Dadwal & Macdonald. Published by Eleven International Publishing, with permission.

treaties provide a machinery for binding dispute project-based agreements, and institutional regimes and
settlement. This lacuna was intentional. Space operating agreements.
activities of the day, although limited, were imaginably
risky and still in the early stages of development. Due to the increase in privatization and
Moreover, until recently, states were generally reluctant commercialization of space activities, commercial
to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of any contracts are one of the richest sources of law giving
international tribunal [3]. In the absence of direct rise to space-related arbitration. Arbitration clauses are
guidance on binding methods of dispute settlement, already prevalent in commercial contracts concluded by
existing methods of dispute resolution in public both state and non-state actors. For example, the
international law are incorporated into space law European Space Agency (ESA) has long used
through general international law and the principles arbitration as its preferred method of dispute resolution
found in the UN Charter (see notably Articles 2(3) and in its model contracts with contractors [5].
33). Consequently, states may avail themselves of, inter Additionally, to protect investments made by a foreign
alia, adjudication and arbitration to resolve inter-state investor from one contracting state in the territory of the
space-related disputes. other contracting state, many of the thousands of
bilateral investment treaties and free-trade agreements
However, non-state actors lack the recourses offered in existence also contain arbitration as a method of
by international law, because they are not considered to dispute resolution [6].
be subjects of it. Domestic litigation of cross-border
space-related disputes often proves unsatisfactory, due This binding method of resolving disputes is also
to loss of confidentiality, uncertainty in the recognition found in very specific instruments for highly limited
and enforcement of judgments across jurisdictions, and areas of space activities. For example, cooperation and
its susceptibility to political pressure and claims of project-based agreements often demonstrate the will to
sovereign immunity on the part of defendant states. use arbitration to resolve disputes. Examples include the
With the growth in the space industry, there have been 1969 United States-Italy Memoranda of Understanding
many renewed efforts to establish more effective between the Università degli Studi di Roma (Aerospace
binding methods of international dispute resolution for Research Centre) and the National Aeronautics and
cross-border space-related disputes [4]. Space Administration (NASA) for Launching Satellites
from the San Marco Range; the 2010 Cooperation
One of the leading contenders in such efforts is Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the
international arbitration. This method of dispute European Space Agency; and the 1972 France - Federal
resolution is frequently used to resolve disputes between Republic of Germany Agreement for the Construction,
parties that are situated in different jurisdictions, or Launch and Utilization of an Experimental
disputes that have a cross-border component. It is a Telecommunications Satellite. Likewise, several
final and binding method of dispute resolution which is institutional regimes and operating agreements also cite
built on the consent of parties and the principle of party optional or compulsory arbitration provisions to settle
autonomy. Due to these characteristics, this method disputes. The most notable of these is the 1998
often escapes the many “one-size-fits-all” disadvantages International Space Station (ISS) Intergovernmental
presented by domestic litigation. For example, Agreement, which permits ISS partners to submit
disputants control the selection of arbitrators, who are “issue[s] not resolved through consultations” to an
often chosen for their expertise and can operate on a “agreed form of dispute resolution such as conciliation,
confidential basis, which leads to higher confidence in mediation, or arbitration” [7]. Other examples include
issued decisions (and thus the enforceability of the the 1992 Constitution and Convention of the
arbitral award). Indeed, the existing infrastructure of International Telecommunication Union; the 1980
international arbitration has been appealing to both state Convention for the Establishment of a European Space
and non-state actors alike. Agency; the 1971 International Telecommunications
Satellite Organization (INTELSAT) and its Operating
Clauses mandating resolution by arbitration are Agreement; and the 1971 Operating Agreement of the
frequently written into contracts and treaties before Intersputnik International Organization of Space
disputes arise, although it is not uncommon for parties Communications (Intersputnik).
to submit existing disputes to arbitration using
submission agreements. With respect to pre-dispute
III. Goals and objectives of study
arbitration agreements, various sources may give rise to
arbitration, including commercial contracts, investment This research seeks to establish the current status of
treaties and free-trade agreements, cooperation and the use of international arbitration in the resolution of
space-related disputes by cataloguing and analyzing all

IAC-20-E7.1.4 Page 2 of 8
 71st International Astronautical Congress (IAC) – The CyberSpace Edition, 12-14 October 2020.
Copyright 2020 Dadwal & Macdonald. Published by Eleven International Publishing, with permission.

publicly-reported space-related disputes that to date • International Centre for Settlement of

have been resolved exclusively through international Investment Disputes (ICSID) (coverage from
arbitration. Thus, this research builds on prior work May 1982 to present);
undertaken under the McGill University Institute of Air • International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
& Space Law Research Project on Space-Related (coverage from 1975-2004);
Disputes, which surveyed and examined the demand • Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT)
and use of arbitration by space companies offering (coverage from 1981-2005);
space-related products and/or services by providing a • London Court of International Arbitration
foundation for future work that will advance our (LCIA) (coverage from 2004 to present).
understanding of how arbitration may contribute to the
resolution of space-related disputes [8].
Jus Mundi covers over 16,000 international law and
investor-state arbitration documents, including those
from bilateral investment treaties and free trade
III. Methodology
agreements, multilateral agreements, and arbitration
This study was designed and executed in four institutions such as the Arbitration Institute of the
distinct steps to produce a comprehensive and Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC); CIETAC;
meaningful list of all publicly-reported space-related ICC; ICDR; LCIA; and the Singapore International
arbitrations. First, we developed a corpus of useful Arbitration Centre (SIAC).
search terms. Second, the corpus was searched on
comprehensive international arbitration databases and Both databases also compile arbitral documents
industry websites. Third, generated search results were from domestic judgments, for example judgments
screened for relevance by a primary reviewer. Lastly, concerning the use of interim measures, evidence
research results were coded using developed categories gathering, and the enforcement and set aside of arbitral
of data. Each step is described in additional detail awards.
below.
Supplementary searches were conducted to bolster
A. Development of Corpus results yielded by the primary search. Since basic
details of space-related disputes often come to light
A base list of words and search terms likely to elicit through press releases and regulatory filings, a subset of
instances of publicly-known “space-related disputes” the corpus was searched on the industry-news websites
was developed after consultation of field literature, Global Arbitration Review, Investment Arbitration
academics, and industry actors. This list was then Reporter, and SpaceNews. Academic articles and gray
further conceptualized based on potentially applicable literature were also consulted for this purpose.
legal instruments and space-related subject matters and
topics. The final corpus contained 152 words and terms
related to the phrase “space-related disputes.” C. Screening Relevant Results
The legal definition of what constitutes “space” is
B. Database Search subject to debate, and therefore it remains difficult to
precisely define what constitutes a “space-related
A primary search was conducted when each corpus dispute.” For the purpose of this study, guidance was
entry was searched on both Westlaw and Jus Mundi, taken from the 2010 Permanent Court of Arbitration
which are electronic, subscription-based databases that (PCA) Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes
aggregate and present available primary sources of Relating to Outer Space Activities, which reflect the
international arbitral awards and decisions. “particular characteristics of disputes having an outer
space component involving the use of outer space by
Westlaw’s International Arbitration Awards library States, international organizations and private entities”
compiles documents from major arbitral organizations, (emphasis added) [9]. This working definition broadly
such as: includes disputes either occurring in outer-space, having
• China International Economic Trade & effects in outer-space, or having effects on Earth,
Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) (coverage especially with regards to Earth-facing applications and
from 1963 -1997); the operations of man-made space objects. In so doing,
• International Centre for Dispute Resolution it was necessary to distinguish between space operations
(ICDR) (the international division of the and uses and space applications (e.g., use of a global
American Arbitration Association) (coverage position system (GPS) receiver in a car).
from November 2000 to present);

IAC-20-E7.1.4 Page 3 of 8
 71st International Astronautical Congress (IAC) – The CyberSpace Edition, 12-14 October 2020.
Copyright 2020 Dadwal & Macdonald. Published by Eleven International Publishing, with permission.

Initial results were screened using the above the contractual expectations of parties). Data
working definition. A few examples of topics that were was not collected on the procedural laws
excluded from the survey results are disputes relating to applicable to the dispute.
airspace; telecommunications; and provision of 4) Preferred arbitral seats: Where available,
multimedia and television services. The scope of this analyzing preferred arbitral seats provides
study also excludes disputes resolved through domestic insights with respect to the mandatory
arbitration. procedural rules that apply to the arbitration,
which can impact, inter alia, the validity of the
D. Coding Relevant Results arbitration agreement, jurisdiction of the
tribunal, and recognition and enforcement
All arbitral awards and decisions identified as being efforts.
relevant were coded according to eight data categories.
5) Arbitral institutions administering the dispute:
The coding process was iterative since information
Where available, analyzing which arbitral
about arbitration is often confidential and thus publicly
institutions are most frequently used to
unavailable. Unavailable data points, or inapplicable
administer space-related disputes provides
data points were noted in the dataset.
insights into user experiences, particularly an
institution’s ability to satisfactorily facilitate
The following categories were used, alongside a
dispute resolution (e.g., type of facilities,
brief explanation for why:
quality of service, perceived neutrality), as well
1) Type and subject-matter of space-related as an institution’s reputation.
disputes, organized by industry and topics:
6) Amounts claimed or awarded: Where
Analyzing the type and subject-matter of
available, analyzing the quantum in dispute
dispute may provide information about which
provides insights on compensation for the
types of disputes are most likely to be resolved
alleged harm suffered at the hand of the
through arbitration, and the underlying source
respondent.
of the arbitration agreement.
7) Size of panel/number of arbitrators elected to
2) Disputants currently employing international
tribunal: Where available, analyzing parties’
arbitration, as organized by type of actors:
preferences with respect to the size of arbitral
Analyzing the disputants currently employing
panel may provide insights on perceived size
international arbitration may provide
and complexity of dispute, as well as costs and
information about the types of users who are
length of arbitration.
more likely to prefer arbitration over other
dispute resolution methods, for example as a 8) Year dispute concluded: Where available,
result of their formal or informal dispute disputes were also coded by year of the arbitral
resolution policies and preferences. Building decision was issued, or alternatively the
on a previously developed a schematic for dispute settled between the parties. This was
categorizing space disputes, disputants were done to assess trends over time.
organized according to whether they were
states, commercial entities, or
IV. Results
intergovernmental organizations [10]Error!
Reference source not found.. Although the Out of the total results yielded, only 38 reported
study originally sought to assess the “size” of disputes were considered relevant enough to be
disputing parties to test whether larger, better- analyzed for key trends. This section describes the main
resourced parties employ arbitration more challenges and limitations of the study, as well as the
frequently, this data category was subsequently breakdown of research results by category.
replaced due to difficulties in assessing such
variable, and rise of third-party funding in The low number of results can be attributed to at
arbitration. least three main challenges and limitations. First, as
3) Applicable substantive laws: Where available, expected, the confidential nature of arbitration resulted
analyzing the substantive laws used in in missing data points and unreported awards. These
international arbitration provides insights into limitations reduced the comprehensiveness of the
parties’ preferences as to the ideal law that research undertaken, and affected the reliability of
parties wish to govern substantive claims under results. Going forward, and where possible, these
dispute (e.g., due to a legal jurisdiction’s well- limitations may be overcome by monitoring and
developed jurisprudence, or compatibility with periodically iterating the research conducted. The low

IAC-20-E7.1.4 Page 4 of 8
 71st International Astronautical Congress (IAC) – The CyberSpace Edition, 12-14 October 2020.
Copyright 2020 Dadwal & Macdonald. Published by Eleven International Publishing, with permission.

turnout of decisions and information may also be commercial arrangements and partnerships comprised
supplemented by surveying individuals involved in the six disputes each (17.6% of satellite-related disputes).
space arbitration community, who may have first-hand Finally, a minority of disputes included disputes
knowledge of such space-related disputes. Second, the stemming from onboard technical failure (5 disputes, or
adopted search strategy and databases used likely 14.7% of satellite-related disputes); manufacturing, sale,
contributed to the low yields in relevant arbitral and purchase of satellites (5 disputes, or 14.7% of
decisions. As there exists no universally-accepted satellite-related disputes); and lease of spectrum rights
definition of “space-related disputes,” the corpus used to and orbital slots (4 disputes, or 11.7% of satellite-related
elicit relevant hits may not have adequately captured all disputes).
relevant space-related disputes. The scope of the
adopted working definition affected the total number of
B. Disputants Employing International
relevant disputes ultimately analyzed. Moreover, the
Arbitration
two comprehensive international arbitration databases
employed had certain coverage limitations (e.g., Of the 38 total disputes, disputes between two purely
Westlaw’s coverage for ICC administered disputes commercial parties formed the largest category of
spanned the period 1975-2004 only). Going forward, disputants (19 disputes, or 50% of total). Disputes
and where possible, these limitations may be overcome between commercial and state (or state-related) parties
by generating additional words and terms, which may formed the next largest category of disputes (13
be searched on other international arbitration databases, disputes, or 34.2% of total). Within these 13 disputes
particularly those belonging to arbitral institutions. involving a commercial and state (or state-related)
Third, the relevance of results generated was a party, 8 disputes were commercial arbitration cases, and
subjective inquiry, which may have led to a number of 5 disputes were investor-state arbitration cases. Taking
results being improperly excluded. This was into consideration privatization of intergovernmental
particularly the case given the overlapping scope of organizations, disputes between former
telecommunications law and space law, and attempts to intergovernmental organizations and commercial
differentiate between space operations and space entities, and former intergovernmental organizations
applications. Going forward, development of an and states (or state-related) parties comprised 3 (7.8%)
inclusion/exclusion criteria and/or assistance from a and 2 (5.6%) out of the total 38 disputes, respectively.
second reviewer may be useful in confirming the Finally, only 1 dispute concerned an existing
relevance of results generated. intergovernmental organization and commercial entity
(2.6% of total). Notably, there were no instances of
intra-state disputes, or intra-intergovernmental
A. Type and Subject-matter of Dispute
organization disputes.
Of the 38 total disputes, 32 were commercial
disputes (84.2%), and six were investor-state disputes
(15.7%). Research results yielded no disputes arising C. Applicable laws
from cooperation and project-based agreements, or
A wide variety of laws were applied to the space-
institutional regimes and operating agreements.
related disputes studied. Although data was unavailable
for a majority of disputes (19 disputes, or 50% of total),
Further, out of the 38 total disputes, 34 disputes
were reported as satellite-related disputes (89.4% of English law, Indian law, Spanish law, Swedish law, and
total). Out of the two disputes that were not satellite United Arab Emirates law were all applied to
substantive claims in commercial cases. Other
related disputes (5.2% of total), one related to seizure of
applicable laws included California law, New York law,
assets arising from space-related transactions, and the
and Ontario law. International law applied to investor-
other related to a space-craft launch service partnership
state claims, particularly as negotiated under investment
agreement. The subject-matter of two disputes was
unknown (5.2% of total). treaties and free-trade agreements. This variable did not
apply to two disputes which were discontinued at an
early stage of the proceedings.
Moreover, most satellite-related disputes triggered
multiple subject-areas or topics. Out of the 34 satellite-
related disputes, a majority of disputes related to launch D. Preferred Seats of Arbitration
and delivery of satellites into orbit (10 disputes, or
29.4% of satellite-related disputes); regulatory measures A wide variety of seats were chosen for the space-
and policies (9 disputes, or 26.4%); and lease of satellite related arbitrations studied. Although data was
capacity (8 disputes or 23.5% of satellite-related unavailable for a significant number of disputes (12
disputes). Insurance disputes and disputes relating to disputes, or 31.5% of total), Paris (5 disputes, or 13.1%

IAC-20-E7.1.4 Page 5 of 8
 71st International Astronautical Congress (IAC) – The CyberSpace Edition, 12-14 October 2020.
Copyright 2020 Dadwal & Macdonald. Published by Eleven International Publishing, with permission.

of total), London (5 disputes, or 13.1% of total), and H. Year Dispute Concluded

New York (4 disputes, or 10.5% of total) led the pack of
Out of the 38 total disputes, information about the
known seats. Other known seats included Geneva,
year a space-related dispute was concluded was
Madrid, Moscow, New Delhi, Stockholm, and The
available for 28 space-related disputes. Out of the
Hague. This variable did not apply to one dispute
known disputes for which information was available,
which was discontinued before seat selection.
the majority were concluded between 2010-2020 (15
disputes, or 39.4% of total), of which commercial
E. Arbitral Institutions Administering the disputes comprised an overwhelming amount (14
Dispute disputes). The remaining disputes were concluded in
2000-2009 (11 disputes, or 28.9% of total), and one
Of the 38 total disputes, data on arbitral institutions
dispute was concluded each in 1990-1999 (3.5% of
was unavailable or inapplicable for 7 disputes (18.4%).
total), and 1980-1989 (3.5% of total). Ten disputes
Out of the remaining disputes for which data was
from the total of 38 were excluded from the analysis
available, a fair number of disputes were resolved at the
since they were either pending, unknown, or
ICC (12 disputes, or 31.5% of total). The ICDR and the
discontinued.
LCIA administered 6 disputes (15.7% of total) and 4
disputes (10.5% of total) respectively. Other notable
administering institutions included the SCC, HKIAC, V. Discussion
ICSID, IUSCT, Moscow-based International
A dispute resolution mechanism broadly comprises
Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC), and the PCA.
three considerations: (1) the types of dispute; (2) the
disputing parties and their substantive obligations; and
F. Claimed Amounts in Dispute (3) the methods adopted to resolve those disputes [11].
The results from the survey point to at least three
Of the 38 total disputes, data on claimed amounts (or
emerging themes of interest in the arbitration of space-
in the alternative, amounts awarded) was unavailable or
related disputes.
inapplicable for 13 commercial and investor-state
disputes (34.2%). Out of the 23 commercial space-
related disputes for which data was available, majority (1) An overwhelming amount of arbitration
of the amounts claimed (or in the alternative, amounts disputes concern the satellite industry
awarded) were in the USD 10-49 million category (9
disputes, or 23.6% of total). Amounts sought in the An overwhelming majority of disputes resolved by
next largest category of commercial cases ranged international arbitration arise from commercial contracts
between USD 200-499 million (6 disputes, or 15.7% of in the satellite industry. Indeed, out of the 38 total
total), and four disputes sought amounts in the range of disputes studied, 34 disputes were reported as satellite-
USD 1-9 million (10.5% of total). A total of three related disputes arising from commercial disagreements
commercial disputes were sought in the range of USD (89.4% of total). Moreover, issues relating to satellite
50-199 million (7.8% of total). Amounts greater than launch and delivery, regulatory measures and policies
USD 10-49 million were claimed in only one dispute affecting satellites, and lease of satellite capacity
(2.6% of total). On the investor-state side, information featured most frequently in international arbitrations.
was available on only two cases: one dispute sought This suggests that commercial satellite-related disputes
amounts less than USD 1 million (2.6% of total), and are likely to continue being resolved through
the other dispute sought amounts in the range of USD international arbitration.
50-99 million (2.6% of total).
Although there is wide variance in the amounts
claimed in dispute, the majority of disputes involved
G. Number of Arbitrators damages requests over the USD 10 million mark. The
absence of other types of disputes is noteworthy in light
Although data was unavailable for a significant of this observation. We observed no space-related
number of disputes (12 disputes, or 31.5 %), a majority disputes stemming from arbitration agreements in
of space-related arbitrations employed a panel of three
cooperation and project-based agreements, or
arbitrators (21 disputes, or 55.2% of total). There were
institutional regimes and operating agreements.
only three known cases with sole arbitrators (7.8% of
Moreover, only a small number of disputes came from
total). This variable did not apply to two disputes (5.2%
investment treaties (15.7% of total). In at least one
of total), where the tribunal was not constituted because instance, a commercial dispute between a private entity
the dispute was discontinued. and state-related actor gave rise to parallel investor-state
arbitration claims (see Devas Multimedia Private

IAC-20-E7.1.4 Page 6 of 8
 71st International Astronautical Congress (IAC) – The CyberSpace Edition, 12-14 October 2020.
Copyright 2020 Dadwal & Macdonald. Published by Eleven International Publishing, with permission.

Limited v. Antrix Corporation Limited). Since 30 years later: “An attempt to create anything specific
regulatory measures and policies affecting the satellite for this field for the space industry would therefore
industry frequently contribute to space-related disputes, neither seem feasible nor necessary. Indeed, it might be
it remains to be seen whether commercial agreements a step backwards, because a multilateral system of
signed by state-related actors will give rise to more enforcement of arbitration awards is available for
investor-state arbitrations in the future. The suitability international commercial arbitration and has been
of international arbitration to resolve disputes arising in accepted worldwide by industrialized and developing
other space-related industries has not yet been tested countries . . .” [12].[10] That said, while a specialized
and also remains to be seen. legal regime appears unnecessary, there exists an
opportunity for players in the arbitration market,
(2) Space-related arbitration disputants are whether they be arbitral institutions or legal
changing jurisdictions to develop a reputation for comparative
expertise in space-related dispute resolution within the
Our research shows that although commercial
existing international arbitration regime. Luxembourg
entities form the largest category of disputants, states
represents one such notable example [13].
and state-related entities (e.g., state-owned enterprises,
agencies, or instrumentalities) are also quite likely to be
involved in international arbitration of space-related VI. Conclusion
disputes. Specifically, the second largest category of
In conclusion, our study confirms that international
disputes occurred between commercial entities and state
arbitration is indeed used by both state and non-state
(or state-related) parties (13 disputes, or 34.2% of total),
actors in the resolution of publicly-known space-related
which arose from arbitration agreements found in
disputes. This method of dispute resolution is primarily
commercial contracts and investment treaties.
employed in the resolution of commercial disputes,
However, there were no documented instances of intra-
followed by investor-state disputes. To date, there are
state disputes, or intra-intergovernmental organization
no publicly known instances of international arbitration
disputes, which may be a function of the confidentiality
used to resolve public international law inter-state space
of arbitration, and/or may suggest the use of other
related disputes, or disputes arising from cooperation
dispute resolution mechanisms.
and project-based agreements.
Interestingly, at least one former intergovernmental
In addition to the empirical data generated from this
organization, Eutelsat, seems to be a habitual user of
study, three themes have also emerged. First, even as
international arbitration to resolve disputes both with
the space industry grows and evolves, satellite-related
other commercial parties and with states (e.g., Eutelsat
disputes continue to dominate space-related disputes
S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No.
resolved by international arbitration. Second, the
ARB(AF)/17/2)). We only found only one international
changing face of the space industry is reflected in the
arbitration involving an existing intergovernmental
parties to space-related international arbitration. Third,
organization (Intersputnik) and another commercial
despite these changes, the existing international
entity.
arbitration regime appears to meet users’ needs and
further specialization does not seem to be warranted at
(3) Existing international arbitration this time. These trends and analyses may be used by
infrastructure appears adequate scholars, policymakers, and legal practitioners, to assist
While it can be safely assumed that other dispute in the resolution of any future space-related disputes,
resolution methods are being utilized to settle space- and assess the successes and failures of the current
related disputes, the increase in the use of international dispute-resolution infrastructure for resolving space-
arbitration over time suggests that parties are satisfied related disputes.
with the existing international arbitration regime to
resolve space-related disputes. The diversity of Finally, future comparative research will be required
applicable laws, seats, and arbitral institutions revealed to enrich the applicability of this study. For example,
by our study results suggest that disputants are taking most space-related disputes documented concern
advantages of one of international arbitration’s key satellites. We hypothesize this is due to the relative
strengths – the flexibility it allows parties to customize importance of the satellite industry, rather than any
their dispute resolution process. While there is always inappropriateness of international arbitration as a
room for improvement, there is no indication that a mechanism for resolving other types of space-related
centralized institution nor a more specialized legal disputes. However, additional research will be needed
regime is warranted at this time. As such, Böckstiegel’s to confirm this hypothesis. Likewise, further research
1992 pronouncement would appear to hold true nearly into the resolution of all satellite-related disputes may

IAC-20-E7.1.4 Page 7 of 8
 71st International Astronautical Congress (IAC) – The CyberSpace Edition, 12-14 October 2020.
Copyright 2020 Dadwal & Macdonald. Published by Eleven International Publishing, with permission.

reveal the comparative importance of the international Republic of India for the Promotion and Protection
arbitration mechanism, and whether there continues “to of Investments.
be a . . . demand to develop techniques for the [7] Article 23(4) of the Agreement Among the
settlement of disputes” [14], or whether there exist Government of Canada, Governments of Member
particular features of such disputes which make them States of the European Space Agency, the
better suited for one dispute mechanism over another. Government of Japan, the Government of the
Russian Federation, and the Government of the
Appendix United States of America Concerning Cooperation
Dataset of arbitral decisions available upon request. on the Civil International Space Station, done at
Washington January 29, 1998.
References [8] V. Dadwal & E. Tepper, Arbitration in Space-
related Disputes: A Survey of Industry Practices
[1] A Kurlekar, Space – The Final Frontier: Analysing and Future Needs (2019) IAC 2019.
Challenges of Dispute Resolution Relating to Outer [9] 2010 Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional
Space (2016) 33:4 J. Int. Arbitr. 380. Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Outer
[2] Stephen Gorove, Cases on Space Law: Texts, Space Activities, Introduction.
Comments and References, Mississippi: Journal of [10] F. von der Dunk, Space for Dispute Settlement
Space Law, 1996. Mechanisms: Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for
[3] VS Mani, Development of Effective Mechanism(s) Space? (2001) 442 Proc. IISL/ECSL Symposium
for Settlement of Disputes Arising in Relation to 446.
Space Commercialization (2001) 5 J Int’l & Comp [11] Gérardine Meishan Goh, Dispute Settlement in
L. 193. International Space Law: A Multi-Door Courthouse
[4] See e.g., 2011 Permanent Court of Arbitration for Outer Space, ed (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV,
Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating 2007). 83.
to Outer Space Activities [12] K-H Böckstiegel, Developing a System of Dispute
[5] European Space Agency, General Clauses and Settlement Regarding Space Activities (1992) 35
Conditions for ESA Contracts (July 2019), online: Proc. IISL 34.
Highlights of ESA rules and regulations [13] Luxembourg Trade & Invest, Business Sector,
<https://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/LEX- Space, https://www.tradeandinvest.lu/business-
L/Contracts/ESA-REG-002_rev3_EN.pdf>. sector/space/, (accessed 02.10.2020).
[6] See e.g., Article 8 (Settlement of Disputes Between [14] K-H Böckstiegel, Developing a System of Dispute
An Investor and A Contracting Party) under the Settlement Regarding Space Activities (1992) 35
1998 Agreement between the Government of the Proc. IISL 27.
Republic of Mauritius and the Government of the

IAC-20-E7.1.4 Page 8 of 8