Daily Passage Test for CLAT - Nov 1 MCQs & solutions Free

Option (b) is correct because the passage states that the 1972 Liability Convention imposes fault-based liability upon the space actor for damage occurring in outer space. Though the Republic of Virelia is the launching state, it will not be liable for the act happening in the outer space. Further the StarTech would be liable as it was there fault as the facts show that they used inadequate instruments due to which the collision happened. Option (a) is incorrect because the passage does not mention such a restriction. The launch has been done from the Republic of Virelia. Hence it is the launching state. Option (c) is incorrect because liability does not depend on the fact that the activity was registered by the Republic of Virelia under 1975 Treaty. Option (d) is incorrect because the passage does not state about such requirement.

Option (b) is correct as the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972 fixes absolute liability on the “launching State” for harm caused on Earth or to aircraft in the process of launching the aircraft and fault-based liability upon the space actor for damage occurring in outer space. Hence the liability is upon the space actor. Here the Republic of Virelia is only concerned as the launching state and not as the space actor as StaiTech is a private entity of Vidhustan. Therefore the claim of India would be weakened. Option (a) is incorrect as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (Article VI) imposes a duty on States to authorize and continually supervise all national activities in outer space, including those by private actors of that state. Since StaiTech was not an entity of The Republic of Virelia, the concerned Article would not be applicable. Option (c) is incorrect since the passage states that liability for damage in outer space is fault- based, not strict. Option (d) is incorrect as the principle of independent commercial actor liability is not the point of reason as per the passage.

Option (b) is correct because though (COPUOS) Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines 2007 and the Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines 2019, which call on States to design missions that minimise orbital debris and to share information on conjunction warnings are merely advisory in nature but Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty, which is binding in nature provides that it obliges States to avoid harmful contamination of space or celestial environments and to consult other states prior to operation when activity risk interference with other state operations. Hence there is breach on the part of The Republic of Velkara. Option (a) is incorrect because even if it is true that “the COPUOS Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines 2007 and the Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines 2019” are not binding, Velkara is still in violation of the key treaty-level obligation under Article IX which requires states to consult when activities risk interference with other state’s operation. Option (c) is incorrect because the passage does not say that actual damage is required. Instead, Article IX is triggered by “risk of interference”, not actual harm. Option (d) is incorrect because while conjunction risk is not explicitly named in Article IX, it is provided in the guideline. Hence the option is incorrect on factual lines.

Option (b) is correct because though (COPUOS) Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines 2007 and the Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines 2019, which call on States to design missions that minimise orbital debris and to share information on conjunction warnings are merely advisory in nature but Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty, which is binding in nature provides that it obliges States to avoid harmful contamination of space or celestial environments and to consult other states prior to operation when activity risk interference with other state operations. Hence there is breach on the part of The Republic of Velkara. Even though Velkara complied with the non-binding COPUOS Debris Mitigation Guidelines, it still failed to meet the treaty-level obligation of consultation under Article IX. The risk of interference due to placing satellites in a crowded orbit triggers the duty to consult prior to the operation, regardless of whether actual harm occurred. Option (a) is incorrect because although Velkara complied with the Debris Mitigation Guidelines, the passage makes clear that those are non-binding, while Article IX is a binding treaty obligation that requires prior consultation, not just technical design compliance. Option (c) is incorrect because the passage does not require actual harm to trigger Article IX. It explicitly states that prior consultation is required “when activities risk interference with other state’s operations.” Option (d) is incorrect because the guidelines have been fulfilled but there is breach of the Treaty.

Statement 1 is correct: The passage states that the Liability Convention imposes absolute liability on the “launching State” for harm caused on Earth or to aircraft in the process of launching the aircraft and fault-based liability upon the space actor for damage occurring in outer space, indicating a stricter regime for Earth-based incidents.
Statement 2 is correct: The passage notes that rResource utilisation on celestial bodies is addressed, albeit aspirationally, by the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1979. It characterises the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies and their natural resources as the “common heritage of mankind” and anticipates an international regime to govern exploitation, although its limited ratification means that customary law on space resources is still evolving. Thereby creating legal uncertainty. Statement 3 is incorrect. While States are responsible for both governmental and non-governmental space actors of their country, the passage does not state that States are jointly responsible for the space actors of other countries.

Statement 1 cannot be concluded. The passage explicitly states that the Outer Space Treaty "forbids claims of sovereignly or other appropriation (Article II)”—there is no exception for scientific purposes, so the statement cannot be concluded from the passage.
Statement 2 cannot be concluded. The passage notes the Treaty absolutely prohibits use of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit, on celestial bodies, or elsewhere in outer space (Article IV) but there is no prohibition on all forms of military activity in outer space, including the use of military personnel. Statement 3 is a reasonable inference. The passage provides that Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines 2007 and the Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines 2019 are merely advisory in nature.