The report notes the criteria selected by the surveyed countries and by the EU for implementing a number of operational requirements. Such criteria often include the weight and/or type of use of drones. It also addresses specific topics such as registration and labeling of drones, flight authorization information, and requirements for drone operator qualifications.
The Library of Congress invites you to review this report along with the many other multinational and single country reports available on the Law Library’s website<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/legal-reports.php?loclr=bloglaw>. We also invite you to read two previous In Custodia Legis posts that are relevant to the discussion of the use of drones. The first addresses legal aspects of unmanned systems for civilian uses<http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2015/08/legal-aspects-of-unmanned-systems-part-1-civilian-uses/?loclr=bloglaw>; the second analyzes legal aspects that apply to lethal autonomous weapons<http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2015/11/legal-aspects-of-unmanned-systems-part-2-lethal-autonomous-weapons-2/?loclr=bloglaw>.
http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2016/08/new-report-details-the-regulation-of-drones-in-foreign-countries/
A Law Library of Congress<http://www.loc.gov/law/?loclr=bloglaw> report titled Regulation of Drones<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/?loclr=bloglaw> surveys the rules that apply to the operation of civilian drones in twelve countries, as well as the European Union<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/european-union.php?loclr=bloglaw>. The report includes individual country studies on Australia<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/australia.php?loclr=bloglaw>, Canada<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/canada.php?loclr=bloglaw>, China<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/china.php?loclr=bloglaw>, France<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/france.php?loclr=bloglaw>, Germany<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/germany.php?loclr=bloglaw>, Israel<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/israel.php?loclr=bloglaw>, Japan<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/japan.php?loclr=bloglaw>, New Zealand<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/new-zealand.php?loclr=bloglaw>, Poland<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/poland.php?loclr=bloglaw>, South Africa<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/south-africa.php?loclr=bloglaw>, Sweden<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/sweden.php?loclr=bloglaw>, Ukraine<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/ukraine.php?loclr=bloglaw>, and the United Kingdom<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/united-kingdom.php?loclr=bloglaw>. It also contains a comparative summary<http://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/comparative.php?loclr=bloglaw> that provides information about the International Civil Aviation Organization’s<http://www.icao.int/Meetings/UAS/Pages/default.aspx> 2011 circular titled Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)<http://www.icao.int/Meetings/UAS/Documents/Circular%20328_en.pdf> (CIR328).
