THE LEGAL AMBIGUITY BETWEEN FAULT-BASED LIABILITY AND STRICT LIABILITY, ESPECIALLY FOR ACCIDENTS IN OUTER SPACE
AUTHOR – AVIJITH A V* & DR. K. JAMEELA**
* RESEARCH SCHOLAR, SCHOOL OF LAW, HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, CHENNAI.
** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SENIOR GRADE, SCHOOL OF LAW, HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, CHENNAI.
BEST CITATION – AVIJITH A V & DR. K. JAMEELA, THE LEGAL AMBIGUITY BETWEEN FAULT-BASED LIABILITY AND STRICT LIABILITY, ESPECIALLY FOR ACCIDENTS IN OUTER SPACE, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPACE LAW AND POLICY (IJSLP), 3 (1) OF 2025, PG. 46-50, APIS – 3920 – 0014 & ISSN – 2584-1955
ABSTRACT
Liability for accidents in outer space is governed primarily by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects. These instruments establish a dual liability regime: strict liability for damage caused on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in flight, and fault-based liability for damage caused in outer space.[1] While this distinction appears straightforward, in practice it has produced deep ambiguities. The treaties do not define “fault,” fail to specify standards of care for space operations, and provide little guidance on apportioning liability when multiple actors are involved.
With the proliferation of private operators, mega-constellations, and orbital debris, the limitations of this framework are increasingly evident. Determining fault in a high-velocity orbital collision is technically and legally complex. Similarly, applying strict liability to surface damage but not to orbital accidents fails to reflect the cascading risks posed by collisions in outer space. The problem is compounded by procedural weaknesses: claims under the Liability Convention must be pursued through diplomatic channels, leaving injured private parties without direct recourse. This article examines the ambiguities in the current liability regime. It begins with the drafting history of the Liability Convention, then analyzes its provisions in light of modern developments. It compares space liability with aviation and maritime collision law, which provide more detailed negligence standards. Finally, it argues for a hybrid model: a clarified negligence standard in orbit, presumptive joint liability for multi-party accidents, and compulsory arbitration for dispute settlement. Such reforms would reduce uncertainty, enhance accountability, and align liability rules with the realities of contemporary space activities.
[1] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty), Jan. 27, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410, 610 U.N.T.S. 205.