THE “LIABILITY CONVENTION” IN A CLASH WITH PRACTICE – EXAMPLE OF THE “KOSMOS 954” SATELLITE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the settlement of international claims and disputes arising from faulty nuclear-powered satellites which fall on another state’s territory. The author analyzes diplomatic relations between the USSR and Canada and the content and legal settlement of the international dispute resulting from the Soviet Cosmos-954 satellite disintegrating on Canadian territory. The author concludes that the 1971 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects was adopted within the appropriate time- frame, and that it forms a reliable foundation for the settlement of conflicts between the States in this area. However, the 1981 bilateral agreement “Settlement of the Claim between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for Damage Caused by “Cosmos 954”” showed that it has never been utilized. This contravenes the international treaty regulating international liability for damage caused by space objects. Therefore, the biggest question of all materializes here: did the international community need space law? Even though it is the newest branch of public international law, it is almost 60 years old. This period of time (more than half a century) has only seen it in academic discussions on how states should abide by it. The lack of relevant case law is a good and bad thing at the same time. Bad – because we still do not know how international courts and tribunals will apply norms of space law. Good – because up until now we have not experienced an international conflict that states have not been able to solve by diplomatic measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".