text: As regards the second point, namely who is the liable party, some members strongly opposed the primary liability of the State of origin, In their view, the operator should be held liable, P proposition that wae compatible with contemporary State practice. It was only in the Convention on International Liability for Damage Cautled by Space Objects that the State of origin was liable for transboundery damage 04 its activities, That Convention wasr however, of a epacial nature and could not be generalfeed. In other conventions, operators were held strictly liable but States were held responsible only to tbe extent that they did not adopt proper domestic legislation for the safe operation of the activities with which the operators should have complied. A few other members disagreed with this view. They felt that the State should be held primarily liable, because it alone had control and authority in ita territory to organise its domestic affairs an8 ’ make certain that activities conduatrd in its territory did not cauee harm to other States. Other members felt that States should bear some liability for activities within their territories with extraterritorial effects. They felt it was unfair to allow State@ to avoid liability by hiding behind the operatora. 510. In summarising the debate, the Special Rapporteur noted that there was a division of viewe in the Commission a8 to how the question of liability should be settled as between the operator and the State of origin. He agreed that international practice regarding liability and compensation undoubtedly pointed to the private party, whether operator, owner, carrier, etc., as the subject of such obligations. States sometimes bore a residual liability for the amounts not covered by the said private party. He felt, in order to formulate articles on liability, that there should be a decision on who should
analysis: The text discusses the concept of liability and compensation in the context of international law, specifically in relation to the activities of operators and States of origin. The debate revolves around the question of who should be held liable for damages caused by such activities, with some members advocating for the operator's primary liability, while others argue for the State's responsibility. The discussion touches on the principles of international practice and the need for a decision on who should bear the liability.