Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/33

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

the Legal Division to the general counsel of the Air Force. One Air Staff official recommended that an Air Force staff judge advocate be designated as an alternate member to the Legal Division, noting that “Air Force membership on the Legal Division should emanate from the Air Staff.”[1] After some discussion, the Air Staff concluded that members of the judge advocate general (JAG) corps should not have to wait for the initiation of coordination. Instead they should take an active approach and “force” consideration of their concerns on the Air Force general counsel representative to the Legal Division.

During the years following the 1944 Chicago Convention, Professor Cooper continued to work and publish on issues associated with sovereignty of airspace and outer space. His works often became the focal points of discussion particularly within the ACC Legal Division. Cooper sought to establish a direct relationship with the Air Coordinating Committee. He wrote Delbert W. Rentzel, chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board, and an ACC member, to inquire whether any ACC attorneys might desire to work under Cooper at the Institute of Air and Space Law opened in September 1952-at McGill University.[2] By 1955 Professor Cooper had concluded that an international convention similar to the Chicago Convention for airspace was needed for outer space. He supported the principle of freedom of passage in and opposed the assertion of national sovereignty over outer space. Undoubtedly, he would have included such in any convention he proposed; however, there is no assurance that the ICAO would have agreed with Cooper or with his definition as to where outer space began.

Although Cooper and President Dwight D. Eisenhower agreed as to the goal to be achieved, it is unclear to what extent Eisenhower and others in the United States agreed with the point of delimitation that Cooper proposed. The primary divergence between Cooper’s proposal and the position of Eisenhower was over how the principle would be established. Whereas Cooper proposed that it be by convention; Eisenhower and the Air Force preferred that the law be derived by custom and practice. Eisenhower’s goal had apparently not been shared with or been digested by many military officials in the Air Force. Thus, certain Air Force officers periodically made statements contrary to the freedom of passage principle.

  1. Helen Cross (AFOPD-PY-CA) to Colonels Bridges and Cage, memorandum, subject: Air Staff Representation on the Legal Division, ACC, 7 May 1952.
  2. John C. Cooper to Delbert W. Rentzel, chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board, 16 April 1952.