BNSC
Apstar 1
We have considered the alternatives set out in your letter to Mr McMillan of 12 August. It is our view that the invocation of section 3(2)(b) of the Act is not appropriate in this case. It appears that APT, which is a Hong Kong company, will procure the launch and operate the satellite. Both these activities are clearly licensable under the Act, the purpose of which is both to cover HMG's liability to third parties and also to fulfil our obligation to authorise and exercise continuing supervision, both duties deriving from international agreements. It appears it would be difficult to secure an indemnity from the Peoples' Republic of China to cover our liability. Also, the supervision of a Hong Kong company by China would on the face of it be highly unusual.
We therefore conclude that a licence is necessary, not only to ensure that HMG's liability is adequately covered, but also for the purpose of continuing supervision. We note that the proposed launch is in June 1994 and we will make every effort to work with you to ensure a licence application is dealt with as quickly as possible.
You mention the registration of Apstar with the UN, under the 1975 Convention on the Registration of Objects launched into Outer Space. We note that APT have stated their intention to register through China. The question of registration is one for the relevant Governments to determine between themselves, in accordance with the Convention, and not for APT. This is a matter that should be discussed inter-governmentally with China, in due course.
I look forward to working with you on these issues.
Your sincerely
Patrick Drin
PATRICK ROBINSON