If the majority is met, Member States should take all necessary measures to ensure that the IGO concerned declares that it complies with the registration agreement. If it does not declare its adoption, the IGO Member States would be presumed to be in breach of its obligations under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Convention on Registration. Even if an IGO makes such a declaration, it does not mean that the IGO actually signs and ratifies the Convention, nor does it have the right to propose or withdraw amendments. This right is reserved for contracting states. However, the extension of the applicability to IGOs of obligations under the Convention is another important contribution of this Convention to greater transparency in space activities (Bohlmann, 2013). Since the end of the 20th century, four IGOs have agreed to the registration agreement: the European Space Agency (ESA) in 1983, the European Organisation for the Use of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) in 1998, the European Telecommunications Satellite Organisation (EUTELSAT IGO) and inter-putnic in 2014. (A/AC.105/C.2/2019/CRP.3). These IGOs are therefore required to set up their internal registers and to inform the UN SG of the space objects they have launched. By committing to its obligations and international space law, the ASS has gone even further to ensure up-to-date centralized information on all its space objects at all times and to create a “space object recording model” (A/AC.105/C.2/2015/CRP.18, p.
2). In particular, ESA has developed its space registration policy. In accordance with this directive: (1) All ESA objects must be registered in an internal ESA register for legal issues (this register responds to the request of the “national register” in accordance with Article II of the registration agreement); 2. All related information is provided for this purpose by the program manager/project/mission concerned, in a structured process; 3. The ASE will continue to inform the UN Secretary-General of the ESA`s space objects, in line with its international obligations; and (4) This notification is forwarded to the United Nations within a reasonable time after the launch or change of status of an ESA space object, no later than one month after the launch or change of status. (Soucek, 2015, see 5) The overriding objective of the registration agreement is to clarify “case law and control” as a comprehensive approach referred to in Article VIII OST. In addition to its overall purpose, the Registration Convention also contributes to the promotion and exploration and use of space for peaceful purposes. The creation and maintenance of a public registry reduces the possibility of unidentified space objects, thereby reducing the risk of, for example, putting weapons of mass destruction into orbit.
Despite these important objectives, the history of the Convention`s negotiations and its number of fewer ratifications than the previous three space treaties reflect the many challenges associated with registration. Mandatory marking of space objects was one of the most lively points of discussion between Member States when the Convention was drawn up in the 1970s. Member States have had conflicting views depending on whether they have launched states or potential victims of start-up errors. In addition, the question of whether there should be one or more central registers and whether the type of information to be recorded should be mandatory or optional was also decisive in the debate. It took five years of negotiations for Member States to reach compromises and adopt the 12-article registration convention. The articles deal with issues ranging from the registration procedure and the various registers to the amendments and exit of the Convention.