Out of Scope
Act
 
From: 
s 9(2)(a)
 
Sent: Wednesday, 30 March 2016 10:01 a.m.
To: Kirsty Hutchison
Subject: FW: High altitude: flight level 999 
 
[UNCLASSIFIED]
 
From: Chris Roblett 
s 9(2)(a)
 
Sent: Thursday, 24 March 2016 5:12 p.m.
To: 
s 9(2)(a)
Cc: 
s 9(2)(a)
Subject: RE: High altitude: flight level 999
 
Information 
Hi s 9(2)(a) ,
 
s 9(2)(f)(iv)
Official 
s 9(2)(h)
the 
 
For what it is worth, the question of the vertical extent of national jurisdiction appears to
 be an open question internationally. We know that at the point we reach “outer space”
 (however defined) this has a status equivalent to the “high seas” on the earth. It is not
 subject to national appropriation, is “the province of all mankind”, and operations are to
 be conducted with regard to the interests of other parties. States of registration have
 jurisdiction and control over  objects on their registry.
 
The 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention
Under 
) is
 different. It:
·         Aims to promote the development of international civil aviation in a ‘safe and
 orderly manner’ and that international air transport services may be developed
 (preamble)
·         Recognises that the contracting States recognize that every State has complete
 and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory (Article1)
·         Permits aircraft of contracting States engaged in scheduled international air
 services to make flights above the territory of other contracting states (Article 5)
 
The Chicago convention does not define “airspace”.
s 9(2)(h)
 
Released 

---

s 9(2)(h)
s 9(2)(f)(iv)
For the sake of clarity, I am not suggesting that the Space Activities régime below outer
 space would be limited to aircraft – it should also capture any ‘low altitude’ rockets or
 other projectiles that may attain maximum altitude in ‘near space’, although there would
 be a different rationale for capturing these.
s 9(2)(f)(iv), s 9(2)(h)
Hope this helps and not hinders. I am conscious that there are considerations operating
 here that I am not aware of.
I am back in the office on Wednesday. Have a good break (if you can).
Regards,
Chris
Chris Roblett
Principal Solicitor 
Ministry of Transport – Te Manatu Waka
s 9(2)(a)
| www.transport.govt.nz
Under the Official Information Act
From: 
s 9(2)(a)
Sent: Thursday, 24 March 2016 12:21 p.m.
To: 'Kirsty Hutchison'; 'Val Sim'; Chris Roblett; 
s 9(2)(a)
'Nelson Curry'
Cc: 
s 9(2)(a)
Subject: High altitude: flight level 999
Importance: High
Released 

---

 
Hi everyone,
Act
 
s 9(2)(f)(iv)
 
 
s 6(a), s 9(2)(f)(iv)
 
 
DPMC will need to consult security partners on this point and revert.  This is a crucial decision
 and we will need a few days to consider it. Given that most are away at Easter, we will revert on
 this point next week,
 
 
Regards,
 
Information 
s 9(2)(a)
The information contained in this email message is for the attention of the intended recipient only and is not
 necessarily the official view or communication of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If you are not
 the intended recipient you must not disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have
 received this message in error, please destroy the email and notify the sender immediately.
 
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
Official 
Wellington (Head Office) | 89 The Terrace | PO Box 3175 | Wellington 6140 | NEW ZEALAND | Tel:
 +64 4 439 9000 | Fax: +64 4 439 9001
Auckland | NZ Government Auckland Policy Office | 45 Queen Street | PO Box 106238 | Auckland
 City | Auckland 1143 | NEW ZEALAND | Tel: +64 9 9854827 | Fax: +64 9 9854849
Disclaimer: This email is only intended to be read by the named recipient. It may contain information
the 
 which is confidential, proprietary or the subject of legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient
 you must delete this email and may not use any information contained in it. Legal privilege is not
 waived because you have read this email.
Please consider the environment before printing this email
Under 
Released 

---