te should be sought， such protestations have never adversely affected operational progress. Principle XIII of the Resolution mentions prior ‘consultation’ and not ‘prior consent’。 It is formulated as follows： to promote and intensify international cooperation， especially with regard to the needs， of developing countries， a State carrying out remote sensing of the earth from space shall， upon request， enter into consultation with a State whose territory is sensed in order to make available opportunities for participation and enhance the mutual benefits to be derived therefrom. Consensus could not be reached regarding prior consultation， but it is clear， nonetheless， that a state considering that it is likely to be subjected to foreign remote sensing has a right， and without restriction， to request that consultations take place and that the requested State ‘shall’ enter into consultations with a State whose territory is sensed.”（19） Such inference represents some optimistic viewpoints but doesn‘t stand adequate reasons for its feasibility. As Myers pointed out， “[T]he Third World States are faced with serious problems， primarily because they do not possess the technology and means to conduct remote sensing. They must rely on the developed States to provide the data and to assist in the analysis”（20） .

　　In light of the negotiating positions， such principles provided for may make no more sense but for any State in possession of ripe technology， whether it‘s a developed country or a developing country. As exemplified， there has been a bright nova in the outer space undertaking in recent three decades， People’s Republic of China， since the Chinese first recoverable remote sensing was successfully launched and recovered in 1975 and China Remote Sensing Satellite Ground Station （RSGS） began operated functioning in 1986. China has made sufficiently rapid progress in spatial undertaking and become one of the leading countries in remote sensing technology， on the basis of which， China is substantially capable to participate in international cooperation with other foreign satellite management authorities， for example， in 1999， the China-Brazil Earth Resources Satellite 01 （CBERS 1） collectively explored and developed by both countries was successfully launched as the beginning of a satellite series（21） ； in 2003， China RSGS had concluded or continued implementing a series of international or regional agreements， including Landsat-5/7 with America USGS， Spot-1/2/4/5 and Envisat with France comES and Spot Image， Radarsat-1 with Canada CSA and RSI， ERS-2 with ESRIN subsidiary to ESA， Envisat Data Reception with Norways Kongsberg Spacetec， attendance on India IRS Conf. etc. Considering the previous examples of U.S. and China， it‘s obvious that available opportunities for equitable participation must not be lack of the reciprocal technical ability and negotiations.

　　In summary， Principle V and VI are deemed to confirm the unrestricted right to remote sensing without prior consent or notification. Additionally， remote-sensing States are required to enter into consultations with sensed States upon request. In this sense， Principle XIII is attributed much more in return for technical discrepancy situations. Furthermore， States conducting remote sensing are required to provide technical assistance on mutually agreed terms and are encouraged， preferably through regional agreements， to establish data collection， storage， processing and interpretation facilities， by Principle VII（22） . The reason for these provisions is evident inasmuch as the application of the relevant principles in such case is made dependent on “mutually acceptable terms”。 Concretely， such made available “technical assistance” should also apply the previous two principles， as stipulating the needs of developing countries and “whenever feasible” is at hands. Moreover， in return， the state subject to remote sensing has access to the data on a non-discriminatory basis and at a reasonable price. Those states conducting remote sensing activities must make available to all States， at their request and to the greatest extent feasible and practicable， any relevant non-discriminatory access and it was part of the U.S. “Open Skies” policy to begin with and codified by Principle XII（23） . This includes access to available analyzed information in the possession of any State participating in remote sensing on the same basis and terms， and most significantly， sensed States shall have access to primary and processed data concerning the territory under their jurisdiction as soon as it is produced on a nondiscriminatory basis and on reasonable cost terms. Nevertheless， this could not be viewed as a victory when it comes to furthering the development of lesser developed countries in that they should have immediate access to state of the art data and information on reasonable terms， provided the guarantee that they have the means to pay for it.

　　Problems remain， certainly. How will the sensed State know the data or information has been produced？ What is the real meaning of information regarding such activities？ Furthermore， apart from the contractual transmission， is there isocracy in remote sensing legal framework， especially in the case of technical assistance， whereas it is not pure assistance but the assisted states conduct partial arm‘s length deals， inter alia， binding the demanded access to data？ Last but not the least， apart from the method of covenant encouraged， even a little bit broadly interpreting， from the angle of a third party state， are the acquirement and the dissemination of remote sensing data needing the prior approval of operator state or sensed state， or is it ad libitum on sovereignty？ Such problems have kept Gordian knots in the circumstances of great technical， economic and political discrepancy amongst the countries. Not o

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]  下一页