Legal Ramifications of Damage by Space Debris and the Adequacy of the Liability Regime in the 21st Century.

July 28, 2021, 2:56 a.m.   SamarthLuthra  
Pens of Law students    

Profile of the Author - Aishwarya Gairola is a third-year law student at Lloyd Law College.


The news of Long March 5B’s debris falling in the Indian Ocean with no recorded injury came as a sigh of relief for the international community that had been closely monitoring the trajectory of the Chinese rocket for days. There were large apprehensions and speculations in the international community, which were fuelled by the mishap caused by the spacecraft’s predecessor in May 2020 damaging several buildings.  

The remnants of space objects, such as rockets and satellites, plummeting back to Earth is not a new phenomenon. With the number of debris objects estimated to be over 128 million, the probability of space debris entering into the earth’s atmosphere and causing damage is particularly high. This raises the following questions- Do space debris pose a serious threat to the advanced civilization of the 21st Century and who will be liable in the event of space crashing in a developed and heavily populated region causing immense damage?


Space Debris, known as space junk or space waste, is defined as non-functional, human-made objects like fragments and elements of Rockets or Satellites in the Earth’s orbit.[1] The 60 years of space activity since the launch of the first man-made satellite, Sputnik, has borne witness to as many as 6000-plus launches that have placed around 10,000 satellites into space and an estimated number of about 28600 debris objects are regularly tracked by the Space Surveillance Networks with approximately 34000 debris object capable of dealing harm to the objects in space.[2] The already alarming statistic doesn’t even come close to the actual number of unregulated debris objects floating around space.  If NASA space debris experts are to be believed, the total amount of space debris will keep on increasing resulting from the perpetual collisions in space. The collision will eventually produce impenetrable debris that will encase the Earth, with even the smallest of debris causing substantial harm.[3]

The space debris, orbiting the earth, not only pose threat to the objects in space but larger debris, reentering the Earth’s atmosphere after surviving the exposure heat resulting from the energy conversion of air drags, can cause potential damage to both persons and property on Earth. The fragments of the Soviet Union’s reconnaissance satellite, Kosmos 954 powered through a nuclear reactor, crashed in Canada. Though the trajectory and the site of the crash were calculated well in advance and timely warnings were issued, the odds in favour of radioactive debris going rogue upon reentry were substantially high. The possibilities of unmanned, unregulated man-made debris wreaking havoc upon uncontrolled reentry, causing damage to life and property alike, has resulted in the establishment of rules and procedures for ascertainment of liability for the damage caused by these falling objects.


The launch of the first artificial earth satellite has revolutionised the discourse surrounding the legal regulation of space activities. Space activities and outer space operations, apart from the prospect of exploration, also entail the possibility of inflicting harm, both in outer space and on earth. The initial absence of any formal rule and procedure regulating the outer space activities in the midst of various new excursions undertaken by different countries led to the formulation of the first major treaty governing the use of space, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.[4] Basic rules of the “Outer Space Treaty” connected with international responsibility and liability were even enlarged upon in the Liability Convention.[5] The 1972 International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, known as the Liability Convention, ascertains the liability for the damage caused by the space objects and ensures equitable measures for compensation to the victims.


Liability imposes a legitimate duty on states to demonstrate their lawful commitment towards one another. Under the 1972 Liability Convention, Liability alludes to a situation or incident where a State, having caused damage to the people or property of another state, commits compensation proportionately to the damages. In the event space debris falls on Earth, causing damage to life and property, the launching State [6] shall be absolutely liable to compensate for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to any aircraft amid flight.[7] A launching State is any State that “launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space”, and any State “from whose territory or facility an object is launched.”[8] The amount ascertained for compensation is restricted and proportional to the damage caused directly by the space objects. When two or more States jointly launch a space object, the states become jointly and severally liable for damage caused.[9] The country whose territory is used to launch the satellite also falls within the category of joint launching. For damages caused elsewhere than on the surface of the earth to a space object of one launching space or to any person or property on board, liability on the launching state will arise only for the damage caused by the fault of the object or fault of the people for whom the launching state is responsible. 


The launching states shall be absolutely liable to compensate for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft flights. However, the scope of the damage is limited by the definition clause and includes loss of life, personal injury or other impairment of health; or loss of or damage to property of States or of persons, natural or judicial, or property of the international intergovernmental organisation.[10] The claimant state may initiate the procedure to claim compensation for damage caused by space debris through the diplomatic channels in the launching state. Where no diplomatic relations exist between the countries, the claimant state may ask another state to represent its claim or can represent its claim through the Secretary-General for member nations of the United Nations.[11]

The claim for compensation for damages has to be presented to the launching state within a period of one year from the date of occurrence of the damage or from the identification of the launching state.[12] If the claimant state was oblivious to the damage, the state can still claim for damage within one year following the date on which it discovered the said damage.[13] The prerequisite of exhausting local remedies does not restrict the claimant state from taking the recourse of the Liability Convention to claim for damages.[14]


The liability regime adequately plays out in a vacuum; the lack of damage dealt by the remnants of China’s biggest rocket, Long March 5B that landed in the Indian Ocean required no apparent claim for compensation. However, in the event of damages caused by the falling space debris in heavily populated or industrially developed areas, the successful imposition of a liability regime yielding desirable effects remains largely debatable. The splashdown of the remnants of Long March 5B with certainty about the details of the launching state and the proper identification of the space refuse could have aided in establishing liability, even in the event of the remnants crashing in a densely populated region, but the hypothetical landing of the March 5B and the presumption of ease in ascertaining liability is not a testimonial to the adequacy of the existing liability regime under the 1972 Liability Convention. Of the three crucial factors pertinent to create a well-rounded claim for compensation: the identification launching state, proximate damage and the fault-based liability; all fall short to keep pace with the advancement of nations in the race-to-space. 


The concept of ‘launching space’ was developed to facilitate the proper identification of space objects to strengthen the claim of the claimant state. However, the simple mechanism to aid in the identification fails to take into account the major hurdles like unidentifiable debris fragments, lack of monitoring the international establishment and the indistinguishable component part, each with a launch history of its own.

The increasing operation of overseas acquisitions to stay relevant in the international space market has ridden the identification mechanism of the identification of the launching state under the 1972 Liability Convention with ambiguity. The acquisition of the German-owned ‘Rapid Eyes Satellite’ by the Canadian Company, ‘Blackbridge’, creates a gap in establishing the claim for damage caused by the Rapid Eyes Satellite, with Germany as the launching state having no effective control over the satellite. Another infestation of fault in the concept of the launching state lies in the unaccounted, ever-increasing statistic of the debris. Despite the mandatory registration of the space objects with the United Nations, regulated by the Convention of Registration,[15] drafted with the aim to provide for attribution of nationality and identification, the high speed orbiting speed of the space debris (as much as 10 km per second) makes them untraceable with no apparent signs or marks of identification, rendering the mechanism redundant in a time when human activity pervades all spaces.

The growing commercialisation of space activity makes exploration particularly vulnerable to the misuse of technology. Technology shatters the traditional norms of human limitations and the outreach of technology has contributed to the growth of cyberwarfare. The manipulation of innocuous satellites commanded to obliterate or deorbit another satellite by a bad estate agent, with no inquiry into the incident, could land the launching state in extreme trouble. The increasing use of cyber warfare does not qualify to be a uniform concept that could have easily crossed the mind of the drafters of the Conventions, yet the weaponization of technology poses a serious threat not only to the launching states but to the very concept.


The cardinal rule of estimation of compensation to be proportional to the damage under the Liability Convention fails to establish the argument for the adequacy of the existing liability regime. The term “damage” means, for the purpose of the Liability Convention itself, “loss of life, personal injury or other impairment of health; or loss of or damage to property of States or of persons, natural or juridical, or property of international intergovernmental organisations.”[16] This general definition leaves an open-ended discussion on the types of damages covered by the regime set by the Liability Convention. Liability for damage caused by space objects is now becoming of greater practical relevance due to the growing use of outer space technologies and the related increased risk of incidents involving space objects. Because damage awards under the Liability Convention are, in theory, unlimited, it is all the more necessary to determine exactly what kinds of claims can be brought. The absence of an internationally established standard for monitoring or assessment of the kind of damage and the absence of a mechanism for inquiry into the underlying cause of the accident, weaken the claim of both the claimant state and the launching state. The attribution of state liability with the owner and not with the causation of the damage with no system of inquiry into the cause of the damage creates a suspension of foul play with no redressal mechanism. Additionally, the ‘damage’ under the Liability Convention only covers the damage resulting from collision and dismisses the damage caused by the interference of radio transmission and interfering. In other words, if an earth-bound, deorbited debris disrupts the transmission of another satellite, substantially harming the operation of the satellite, the launching state of such space object or debris goes scout-free.[17]

The Liability Convention also fails to compensate the Launching State for any damage dealt by such state, in its territories or to its people,[18] by the components of the launching state’s space objects, that were later launched by other states.[19] If a single satellite is launched by a state, A, then State A would be entirely outside the reach of the liability regime, even if the object or refuse that caused the damage was launched by another state. Likewise, if any part of the International Space Station were to fall back into the territory of the United States of America, the harm caused to the property or the people, would not be covered under the liability regime, despite the fact that the parts causing harm were launched states other than the USA.


While the concept of launching state and damage are the most relevant factors contributing to the assessment of the compensation and claim for damages, identification of the launching state and the assessment of damage largely become operational only after the mishap. The fault-based liability establishes a standard of proof for the launching state in the absence of any customary law or emerging principle establishing and governing state practice in this regard. However, fault liability, like its other counterpart, falls prey to uncertainty and ambiguity. The United Nations treaties on Outer space or any other treaty governing the space operation of state-sponsored and private entities do not provide the definition of ‘fault’. Although the treaty directs the state to produce proof of fault for the damage, the treaty fails to define even the ‘standard of care’ for establishing fault, only interpreting potential fault, which is the closest any state will come to establishing fault-based liability in space against any other state.[20] The absence of indication in the Liability Convention as to the standard of care for outer space activities, the establishment of the fault-based liability, that could potentially aid in identifying the origin of the debris and keeping the states from launching faulty objects in space is rendered ineffective. 


The new age of technology has borne witness to the perforation of human activities in all spaces, but the laws governing the activities have failed to keep up with the new developments. With a record number of 6000-plus launch operations placing as many as 10000 satellites in space in the last six decades, while setting new milestones in the study of the universe, also raises serious concerns in the light of countless accidents resulting in substantial damage caused by space objects retracting to Earth. The Liability Convention was capable of resolving the issues pertaining to space exploration for the better part of the last century, but the existing liability regime under the Liability Convention is as good as non-existent in the absence of any positive addition and modification in the definitions and the rules governing space exploration.

The international regime pertinent to compensate the claimant state for damage on Earth caused by state objects, pacing ahead with sloth speed, has lost sight of the launch programs that are taking mammoth steps every day. The blind spot in the liability regime left by the limited foresight of the drafters and the constrained interest to initiate modification has facilitated the poor functionality of the Liability Convection in the 21st Century. The restricted scope of identification of launching states, the lack of assessment of damaged and the underlying cause of the incident, the reliance on fault-based liability to govern and regulate the objects in the state with no treaty or convention clearing defining the meaning of ‘fault’ and the blatant disregard to the serious criminal manipulation of technology successfully establish the fact of the inadequacy of the present liability regime.

The redundancy of the Liability Regime with no assessment for determining the underlying cause of the accident and ambiguous terms regulating the standard of care with respect to launches provides the state and non-state actors ominous liberty. With no mechanism to remove bigger debris from space in order to cure the problem at its origin, the modification of the liability regime is the only way forward. The changes in the Liability Conventions are necessary to actualize the purpose with which the Convention was conceived. Trade-offs in liability regimes are inevitable, but despite those, the scope of liability should be determined by the principle that in the events of retraction or crashing of debris resulting in damage on earth, the assurance that the liability, instead of taking the role of a classic textbook example of legal recourse, will compensate for the damage to the extent that justice and equity demand it.

References -  

[1] What is space debris, FAQ' (European Space Agency, April 2021) [accessed on 2 July 2021]

[2] ESA Space Debris Office ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany, 'Space debris by the numbers' (European Space Agency, 20 May 2021) [accessed on 2 July 2021]

[3] Jennifer M. Seymour, Containing a Cosmic Crisis: A Proposal for Curbing the Perils of Space Debris, 10 GEO. INT’L ENVTL. L. REV. 891, 914 (1998)

[4] The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, of 27 January 1967 18 U.S.T. 2410, T.I.A.S. No. 6437 

[5] Joseph A Burke, 'Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects: Definition and Determination of Damages After the Cosmos 954 Incident' [1984] 8(2) Fordham International Law Journal [accessed on  2 July 2021]

[6] Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Article.

[7] The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, Article 1.

[8] Jessica, 'What is a 'Launching' State ' (European Space Agency Clean Space Blog, 13th June) [ accessed on 2 July 2021]

[9] Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects Article 5.

[10]Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Art. 1, cl. (a).

[11] Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Article 9.

[12] Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Article 10(1).

[13] Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Article 10(2).

[14] Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Article 11(1).

[15]Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space,  Resolution 1721B (XVI) [accessed on 2 July 2021]

[16] Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Article I(a).

[17] Elena Carpanelli and Cohen Brendan, 'Interpreting “Damage Caused by Space Objects” under the 1972 Liability Convention' [2019] Issue (6) International Institute of Space Law [accessed on July 2nd, 2021]

[18] Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects Article 7.

[19]Piotr Manikowski, 'Examples of space damages in the light of international space law' [2006] 6(1) Economics and Business Review [accessed 2 July 2021].

[20] James P. Lampertius, 'The Need for an Effective Liability Regime for Damage Caused by Debris in Outer Space' [1992] 13(2) Michigan Journal of International Law  [accessed on 2 July 2021]

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

Liked the article ?
Share this:


india ads fairnesscreams tv ads ban proposal anti ageing creams government 2006 micro small review big India Juvenile Justice rights Women justice Jurisdiction Constitution caa secularism amendment sedition Arbitration consumer complaint filing international laws wildlife protection animal laws USA china women empowerment pornography legal prostitution sex trafficking laws legalising Economy Measures RBI Coronavirus Reserve Bank of India stability coronavirus impact liquidity shantikanta das monetary policy repo rate moratorium disinformation fake news state of frenzy social media anger hate issue EpidemicDiseaseAct uniformcivilcode equality secular illegalimmigrants immigration assisteddying euthanasia police brutality custodial violence police efforts jail separation divorce hindu marriage family laws economic slowdown unemployment percapitaincome inflation GDP growth aggregate demand commercial surrogacy bill armed forces equal rights landmark judgement indian army transgender living conditions third gender Disability rights rape law Criminal law IPC Internship Program regulatory sandbox IRDA framework IRDA guidelines live environment RBI regulations pollution womeninmates punishment sexualassault wrongfulconvictions IPR EnvironmentLaws JudicialActivism Jurisprudence Internship singleparent adoption niti manthan prison reforms Niti manthan e-fradus cyber crimes It Laws Medico legal aid Media technology and democracy legal literacy Body Offences Housing infrastructure indian law global laws right to health fundamental right article 21 Indian penal code criminal law crimes against women rapecases IntellectualPropertyRights Trademark NuclearSecurity Cyberlaws judiciary petitions mercy petition review petition curative petition zero draft human rights business United nations ADR Law mediation negotiation conciliation Mahatama Gandhi economics technology technological unemployment network online consumption production working remotely law of sedition article 19 right to freedom and expression moblynching violence offence animalrights gayparenting pronouns fundamental duties Indian law Constitution of India covid19 criminal justice system constitutional administrative litigation Courts order commission report speedy trial Corrections legal aid legislature Police Successionlaw casestudy SARFAESI e-debate maritalrape 498A IPC Misuse nirbhaya rape case death penalty deterent theory covid-19 force majuere events Force Majeure Clauses coronavirus outbreak doctorine of frustration clauses contract UAPA 2019 Review indigenous people LabourLaws Familylaw dowry death white collar crimes plea bargaining menstruation myths defamation forgery events Results Phase 2 trespass mental health intellectual property rights Patent rights crimes lockdown child abuse traditional crime crime rate phishing ransomware cybercrime malware domestic violence doctoring lis pendens applicability conditions insensitive media coverage media Death murder News channel ayodhya judgement Group Discussion Exceprts naturaljustice legalprincipals Supremecourt crpc Bail Legalethics legal guidelines telemedicine legal issues Laws Section 269 Section 270 cholera privacy concern Divorce Muslim Women retention of property yemen conflict competition law enforcement 10 years administrativelaw PiracyLaw juvenile justice EIA Draft 2020 30th June 2020 Environmental Impact Assessment Climate Change Laws Dissent Research Group juvenile crimes Administration environment conservation Sustainable Oceans Énvironment Service laws Compassionate Appointments policy legislation webinar scientist climatologist report policy change TPA property patent law section 144 principles of natural justice justice delayed instant justice work from home InformationTechnology persons with disabilities discrimination health girls disease community duties individual contemporary world common interests duality MRTP Act Indian economy competition commission of india Competition Act appraisal singaporean court section 377 Navtej singh judgement IHL war crimes humanitarian law ipc beyond india extra territorial jurisdiction wife maintenance desertion marriage #digital strike #cyber security chinese apps #chinese apps #ad-hoc arbitration #institutional arbitration #environmental law #environment #human rights #strict liability Lok Adalats US-India Abortion laws Live-in-relationships Indian Judiciary Universal Healthcare Rules Based World Order. YL3 victim dying declaration wish last wish truth balanced cooperative bank sarfaesi act Internet Ban Censorship Website Ban #DPSP #state #covid #IP black money racism Skin colour Political system Unrest accountability Jammu and Kashmir Article 370 Abrogation Kidnapping and Abduction Indo-Nepal brutality dk basu guidelines Conflict Changing dynamics democracy international disputes prostitution in India extradition laws and treaties Surrogacy laws case study Law and Order society Legal Implications regulatory framework Betting Gambling Seventh Schedule Central Government Betting Laws Rights of a Man cyber delinquency Juvenile Justice Act Doctrine Part Performance Section 53-A CERC sustainable development Grid Code electricity laws electricity control Mental HealthCare Act WHO National Trust Act Disaster Mangement Indian legal Framework Female Criminality social structure Corporate Laws Corporate Veil Company Election Laws Electoral Reforms Law Commission of India Article 324 Election Commission contempt of court rule of law supreme court principle of natural justice judges criticism high court Fertility Assisted Reproductive Technology Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill Legal Evolution Literature growth goods and services Predatory Pricing Market legal remedies cryptocurrency virtual currency santhanam committee ethical behavior border military LAC Aksai Chin revenge porn FIR SC/ ST Reservation artificialintelligence Privacy privacy specialmarriageact constitutional constitutionality Article 139A Education National Education Policy HRDMinistry feminism Gender Inequality Sex god juristic personality PIL earth nature ecosystem public trust Section 420 ASCI Advertisements Covid-19 Online Dispute Resolution dispute JusticeOnTime Cyber Space Security election Cloning Senior citizens Human Rights arrest CrPC procedural laws curative legislation Ration card Judicial Review Writ Jurisdiction Internet Covid19 indian passport foreigners-act extradition law laws in India Inheritance Laws Section 6 Domicile CLAT NLU belgium extradition treaty vicarious liability law of torts common law International Commercial Arbitration Private Defence Legal Right energy consumption national solar mission international law economic sanction tax structure Reforms NDPS Act Section64A genocide research projects internships summer school Virtual Courts Digital India NDHM Press Regulation italian-marines fishermen kerala international waters arbitration womenrights witchhunting janaushadischeme healthcare laws medical national health policy healthcare national digital health mission world health organisation legal jurisprudente draft health data management 2020 concerns drawbacks ministry of health and family affair sting operations media trial press rights right to privacy Twitter Prashant Bhushan period leave probate essentials for will will Technical biometrics Laws for women settlement mandalcommission 30 years gandhi principles Indianlegalsystem nitimanthan CELRA Climate Change Phase 3 sakshiaggarwal communication skills youcanskilldevelopment client counselling soumikghoshal sbi protest farm acts agriculture farmers anti-farmers men Executive power constitutional law Article 73 finance transparency political parties bonds Sexual Harassment Ministry of Human Resource Development Educational Reforms sabarimala case untouchability cruelty misuse by women gender biased 488A ban of apps section 69A tiktok app compensation section 357A state s bankruptcy Insolvency_law_committee ibc insolvency_bankruptcy_act insolvency nclt students accessibility internet #righttoeducation nuclear weapon treaty legality advisory opinion international restorative justice punishment theory copyright law distance education virtual teaching Fundamental Rights Rape SC/ST Forest Rights Act Forest Conservation bitcoin child vaccination ibc suspension financial creditors ministry of corporate affairs substantial acquisition takeover public announcement control out of court settlement history banking law sebi stressed assets banking regulation dispute resolution professionalism private sector fund sourcing banks publication copyright infringement publishing house penguin environmental jurisprudence 2020 indian legal system acquisition section 62 convertible investees companies act ABUSE ONLINE IPC CRIME WOMEN INDIA ONLINE ABUSE WOMEN CRIME CRIMINAL LAW registrations open competition sushruta apply extempore centre for medical and health law ethic studies medical and health law sex workers prevention religion extra-territorial technological advancement cerestrial environment_protection infrastructure goa doctrineofpleasure crown Arrest code of civil procedure offender access to justice concilation remedy presidentialelections developing nations tiktok universal health coverage comedians freedom of speech and expression OTT Platforms Content Regulation Section 375 forced marriages Precautionary measures Guidelines covid crisis women assault section 353 cops andhra pradesh chief minister dream 11 economic impact online gambling salary income tax rti spam troll misinformation data protection methods civil law section 118 kerala police act section 66a animal rights slaughter customs act CAROTAR FTA TARRIF rules of origin hardship of importer separation of power rights of animals need for amendement meagre punishment legitimacy constitutionalism liability right to healthy environment degrading environment social responsibility restructuring mergers amalgamation traffacking turkey challenge accepted outrage unity child rights rte right to education non-access conclusive proof marital relationships matrimony arbitral award thorium atomic energy act nuclear energy nuclear power atomic energy swadhar home widows vrindavan infringement comparative advertisement trademarks act income tax act non resident indians FEMA MONARCHY SIKKIM namgyal dynasty partner state ONUS guilty Burden of proof legal burden parties self defense legal right prostitutes Winter school International Criminal Law Ministry of Finance Welfare Digital Budget Finance Budget 2021 Democracy Coups Myanmar Voter Fraud Corruption corrupt governments voter fraud unrecognized ineffective Dictators projects development jungle capital assets funds partership water riparian basin collaboration advocate amit mazumdar soft skills advocacy terrorism massacres gun ICC ivorycoast LaurentGbagbo Space Policy Treaties Space Outer space Foreign award public policy ZERO FIR LAW INDIA PROPERTY RIGHTS DAUGHTER WOMEN RIGHTS AMENDEMENTS HINDU SUCCCESSION distributed ledger technology block chains digital age Exception 2 Habeas Corpus Case Adults Care and Protection Juvenile delinquency Medical Negligence Due Care Criminal Liability Civil Liability Stockholm Conference Uniform Civil Code Personal Laws mental disorder mental health care act advance directive bail sentence CEDAW NCRB Sexual abuse International Bill of Rights POCSO Act Comparative analysis Ted Talk Renewable Energy Trend Energy Projection advaadvance directiv,psychiatry Schedule VII of CA 2013 Amendment 2019 Companies Act 2013 CSR Promoting Innovation and Creativity World Intellectual Property Organisation Restructuring Education Global Innovation Index American Bar Association Offshoring Legal Services Legal Process Outsourcing Marital Rape executive Payment and Settlement System Act of 2007 anti-money laundering Fintech Online Education Inclusion of Technology 5+3+3+4 Design law students call for papers authors editors medical students coparcenory partition safety acts healthworker Policy change Housing Rent Model law Projects Tenancy Central Vista Project Parliament of India supreme court of India space debris Earth orbit Deportation International Law exploitation convention