of procures that it had raised during the earlier meeting with the State Department. Carroll feared that that term might be interpreted to make the United States liable for damages from launches of missiles purchased from American sources. [1] Subsequently, Colonel Sanders informed State that
the Air Force has expressed some concern, which A1 Rubin and I share, over the ambiguous concept of "procures" as used in the definition of "launching state." While we are willing to accede to Mr. Meeker's and Mr. Sohier's desire for the retention of the loose formulation of this concept, we would have preferred a more precise definition of the term "procures" than is given...Under the proposed explanation of the term, the United States could be held responsible where the launch vehicle was sold or furnished by us under economic aid, scientific assistance, or other programs, but in which we did not have any direct or indirect interest, give any direct assistance, or participate in the actual launch.[2]
The State Department, however, did not adopt the Air Force's proposed change at that time (see below). Typically the Air Force faced short deadlines in the process of reviewing and commenting on State proposals relating to the liability convention.
COPUOS met during the summer of 1966, but dealt almost exclusively with the Outer Space (or Principles) Treaty. [3] Even while actively involved in the COPUOS discussions regarding the Principles Treaty, the United States still continued to refine its position regarding the liability issue. After talks with Great Britain, Belgium, Australia, and Canada, the US outer space delegation suggested revising the draft US convention regarding liability. As the US revision was reported to COPUOS, the United States agreed to join Belgium in introducing a new jointly sponsored draft convention at the next COPUOS session. [4]
Herbert Reis of State's Office of the Legal Advisor and a member of the UN delegation advised DOD regarding the language in anew, draft liability agreement proposed by the US in February 1967. [5] Interestingly and ironically, given the Air Force's earlier opposition to the use of the word procures, the term was deleted from the text of the proposed revised
agreement because Belgium "has consistently opposed" it as placing too broad a liability on "any party which launches or procures a space launching." (Emphasis in the original.) In effect, based on the very same
- ↑ Carroll to Sanders, memorandum, subject: Outer Space Liability Agreement, 14 September 1965.
- ↑ Sanders to Gaither, memorandum, subject: Outer Space Liability Agreement, 16 September 1965.
- ↑ Christol, 70.
- ↑ Herbert K. Reis (L/UNA) to Dwayne Anderson (OSD/ISA) et al., memorandum, subject: Outer Space Liability Convention, 20 February 1967.
- ↑ Ibid.
80
