Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/45

 the Soviet bloc had yet to agree on issues impacting airspace, Howard maintained that there was no need to do for outer space what had yet to be done for airspace. Nonetheless, he argued that the ICAO could not held at bay indefinitely. He argued that from a negotiating standpoint, it was stronger to take a firm negative position rather than open the door slightly to discussions, which when once begun, likely could not be contained. David indicated agreement with the Air Force position but noted that the arguments given by the Air Force had not persuaded other ICAO council members. Finally, Howard argued that President Eisenhower’s pronouncement that the UN and not the ICAO should consider the issues surrounding the use of outer space could serve to delay ICAO action on the issue. David agreed that if the issue could be more firmly planted at the UN, the ICAO could be easily dissuaded, and he acknowledged that he understood that the ACC Legal Division essentially sided with the Air Force position. The Legal Division then directed that the State Department, with assistance from the Air Force, prepare a new set of instructions. The instructions would be used by embassies in ICAO Council countries to support the US position of avoiding ICAO discussion of outer space law. Even though the Air Force had succeeded in keeping outer space law questions off the ICAO agenda and in general had effectively stalled any resolution of outer space law issues, by mid-1958 “the magnitude and variety of these [space law] studies moved several well-known American jurists to remark that the law of space, instead of lagging behind the astronauts as some lawyers fear, is threatening to outfly the attraction of the earth’s gravity.” State Department officials realized that some guidance was needed for its delegation at the UN. At this time, State Department legal adviser Loftus Becker proposed a presidential proclamation recognizing that reconnaissance satellites were in accord with international law so long as they did not interfere with terrestrial activity. Hancock expressed his concerns about this wording directly to Becker. Hancock indicated no problem with “snoopniks,” but he did question whether the breadth of the proclamation might preclude US objections to future satellites interfering with communication transmissions or weather operations. Hancock asked that Becker confine the proposed proclamation to projects that were part of the IGY. Hancock reasoned that, by following his advice, the US could still contribute to establishing the thrust of the proclamation as a principle of international