n may arise. First of all， the UN Principles apply only to “natural resources management， land use， and the protection of the environment，”（11） media， meteorological and military applications are supposed not included（12） .Thus it is conceivable that news organizations may disregard the entire Principles if strictly interpreted from a literal standpoint. And also， the Principles do not apply to military reconnaissance or surveillance. Such kind of identification in narrow sense was contributed to those sufficiently broad terms in the context of the Principles， in avoidance of failure to achieve unanimity on a set of other civilian activities. In fact， in utmost circumstances， unanimity plays a role no more than adoption by negative consensus without majority votes（13） . This is just the beauty of a UN resolution with toleration on deliberations permeated through， rather than an international convention， which may not be traced to opposed positions. As mentioned hereinbefore， despite the great influence by developing countries and their combinations such as “Group 77”， the developed countries especially the Western powers‘ endeavor of trying not to conclude a treaty was even more significant. “One championed by the United States and many western nations regarded the freedom of acquiring and imparting information as a fundamental human right whereas developing nations and the Soviet-led socialist countries predicted their case as their inalienable right to dispose of their natural resources and of information concerning such resources.”（14）

　　Hence， the controversial issues are centering on those principles newly introduced under international cooperation， which can but be led by technically developed countries and seemingly benefit the developing nations， paying attention to “and taking into particular consideration the needs of the developing countries”（15） . Simply speaking， the United Sates had long been a proponent of the international availability of remotely sensed data on a nondiscriminatory basis， commonly referred to as the “Open Skies” policy. The UN Principles largely embodied this policy in the way of triple conceptions， which are equitable participation， technical assistance and access to data. Although non-binding， the U.S. commercial remote sensing regulatory regime recognizes them， for the most part， as international obligations and requires those licensed in the U.S. to comply with the data accessibility principle. The reason is that the Principles given birth to in multilateral moves were substantially in virtue of the American previous practices in bilateral approach.

　　To illustrate， those Landsat agreements before the Principles may best be taken as an example， which are agreements concluded between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration （NASA） of U.S. and a number of countries spread over the world： Argentina， Australia， Brazil， Canada， India， Italy， Japan， Sweden etc.（16） “The authority for NASA to enter into such agreements derives from the NASA Act of 195， which provides ‘that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind’， while Section 205 of that Act empowers NASA to ‘engage in a program of international cooperation in work done pursuant to this Act， and in the peaceful application of the results thereof’。”（17） For those countries， the Landsat agreements involved the building of ground stations for acquisition and processing of remote sensing satellite data， at their own expense. In addition to each country paying for its own share in the project， it was also agreed under Landsat arrangements that data obtained from experiments would be made available to the international scientific community. Besides， countries without Landsat facilities but within the overcast range of the ground stations would be served with information（18） bona fide， prevailing the principle of pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt. Such practice was borne the acquiescence in meeting of minds that a sensor state might conduct without consent in advance from sensed state. Besides， advanced technology was not in monopoly by mutual agreements and the data would be in publicity for the world.

　　Hence， imitationally and correspondingly， Principle V says， “States carrying out remote sensing activities shall promote international cooperation in these activities. To this end， they shall make available to other States opportunities for participation therein. Such participation shall be based in each case on equitable and mutually acceptable terms”； and Principle VI， “In order to maximize the availability of benefits from remote sensing activities， States are encouraged， through agreements or other arrangements， to provide for the establishment and operation of data collecting and storage stations and processing and interpretation facilities， in particular within the framework of regional agreements or arrangements wherever feasible.” The mutual agreements are hereby highlighted as a guarantee for feasibility of participation， because without contractual transactions， the term “equitable” may fall into inconsequential extension of its subjects as well as objects， whereof the “opportunities” seem surprising chance rather than rational expectation. In a nutshell， the UN Principles are considered to permit States to freely sense and publicly distribute data from outer space without the consent of the sensed State. Moreover， it is now regarded as well-established customary international law that remote sensing may be conducted without prior consent. For dissemination， such kinds of conclusions are at least drawn directly by some scholars on ground of the absence of specific provisions in the Principles concerning dissemination of data.

　　As for sensing， “[A]lthough it has been argued by some nations that prior consent for remote sensing of a Sta

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]  下一页