Search

This article traces the imperial roots of the contemporary asylum–welfare nexus. It explores how English colonial governance exported Poor Law legislation firstly to colonial America (USA) and secondly to British North America (Canada). It argues that these three countries are an Anglophone shared moral space of law and governance, revealing the common unresolved contradictions underpinning contemporary debates about who 'deserves' entry, under what conditions, and why. Historical perspectives unsettle assumptions about the primacy of national geopolitical borders and the exceptionalism of contemporary migration. This article uses historical sociology to trace why and how national sovereignty took primacy over municipalities in controlling the mobility of people and the concomitant moral underpinnings. It then draws on new empirical research in three pioneering 'sanctuary cities' to explore how cities contest the entwining of welfare and migration governance. However, the article explores how these initiatives often reproduce justifications based on 'deservingness' and 'contribution'. Through tracing the common threads that led to these forms of governance, we can understand they are not self-evident. A historical perspective allows us to ask different questions and open realms of alternative possibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over recent times there has been a rise in the number of objects placed into Earth orbit. With various countries licensing a number of large constellations, the orbital population is set to increase dramatically. A significant number of technical advances have facilitated this and, in the UK and elsewhere, this has been matched by the updating of legislation and an increased policy focus on the need for increased space surveillance and tracking. The rise of large constellations coupled with an increasing number of experimental techniques such as active debris removal or on-orbit servicing procedures means that establishing fault will be crucial if litigation is to be successful. In doing this, any legal proceedings will look at both norms of behaviour, deviation from which will point towards fault and the types and standard of evidence that will be required. This paper will outline these problems in detail. It will be proposed that what is required to map out the contours of liability are both codification of the norms for satellite operations and clarity on protocols for evidence gathering in cases where fault may be contested in orbital operations. This discussion will identify that a way in which this could be achieved is by the use of "space law games". These are simulations, similar to military war games, in which fictional scenarios could highlight some of the key legal issues that might need to be dealt with. The paper will outline some of the ways in which the law games might work and pose questions as to what data and other considerations will be needed to make such simulations meaningful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within the next decade it is likely that the space tourism industry will grow and the number of humans travelling into space via commercial entities such as Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin, will increase significantly. Current space tourism ventures focus on short duration sub-orbital flights and visits to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). In the next few decades, a journey into space could become as normal as a transatlantic flight. During these new commercial ventures, the effects of cosmic radiation exposure, especially during sudden changes in space weather, such as ground level enhancement (GLE) or solar particle events (SPEs), could have significant health implications for crew and passengers. Such changes in space weather could expose space tourists to radiation doses in excess of the recommended maximum 1 mSv yearly effective dose uptake for a member of the public and 20 mSv yearly effective dose limit for those working with radiation (ICRP Publication 103, 2007 [1]). Domestic legislation and regulation focussing on potential radiation exposure for space tourists is limited and largely untested; there is heavy focus on conventional risk and wider safety, with guidance stemming from regulation of commercial high-level flights, which are significantly different to space tourism enterprises. In this paper we consider the current domestic legislation and regulations adopted by the USA and the UK, as two examples of launch nations with legislation and regulation relating to space tourism activities. We acknowledge and consider feedback we have received from the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on current regulations and topics outlined in this paper. We discuss whether current legislation and regulation offers sufficient protection for space flight participants (space tourists), and whether risk is balanced appropriately between the operators who provide space tourism services and those taking part. Finally, we discuss the routes to acceptance of the radiation risks and make recommendations for legislators, regulators and operators to support them in ensuring that the risks are managed appropriately while also supporting the development of the industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This technical note summarizes and discusses briefly the extent to which some of the issues raised by space debris are dealt with in the current international, European, US, and UK legal framework. It continues by analysing some difficulties inherent in the legal regulation of space debris and comments briefly on measures now being considered to mitigate the problem more directly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the provisions in the Civil Aviation Bill and the Aerospace Bill in Great Britain. The Administration's decision to legislate on British Aerospace and British Airways is clearly important as it marks the first ebb since the early fifties in the tide of expansion of the public sector. Doctrinally, the conversion of the corporations into companies is not significant so long as sufficient shares are sold to put the State in the position of a distinctly minor investor in which case the companies would almost certainly become private enterprises or sufficient shares are retained to make the State the dominant shareholder, in which case, almost certainly, they would remain public enterprises.