The author examines the jurisdictional dilemma of determining the appropriate approach to be applied to a crime that could potentially be committed during a space flight with tourists on board by assessing the place of commission of the crime. In addition, the study is based on comparisons under such sources of international law as the Outer Space Treaty (OST) and the Antarctic Treaty (AT). Based on the analysis of certain articles of these documents, the authors propose to regulate commercial space flights by the example of distinguishing the “tourist element”. This approach is based on the fact that Article 8 of the Antarctic Treaty specifically refers to the tourist as a subject of liability and that a person with tourist purposes is protected by national law. Therefore, for the proper international regulation of space tourism and improvement of the Outer Space Treaty, it is recommended to legitimise tourist purposes and to distinguish the status of non-astronaut tourists in order to establish liability for certain criminal acts. To support these initiatives, two cases are cited as examples: that of astronaut Ann McClain and Dr. Rodney David Marks. Thus, the first case emphasises the restricted applicability of criminal jurisdiction on the international space station, which is usually decided by the law of the country of a person’s nationality. The second case demonstrates that although the Antarctic Treaty can serve as an example for regulating space tourism, the jurisdictional battles between states on the territory of the site of an incident with a criminal element have undermined its effectiveness. Consequently, the authors conclude that it is necessary to introduce specific international rules to regulate commercial space flights, where the aspect of jurisdiction in the investigation of a crime committed by a non-astronaut tourist should be of paramount importance. It is specified that each partner of a space flight, both the state (in the case of public i 91, Kryvyi Rih (Ukraine); https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6463-5228, e-mail: krotona24@gmail.com THE APPRECIATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF CRIMES COMMITTED DURING COMMERCIAL SPACE FLIGHTS The author examines the jurisdictional dilemma of determining the appropriate approach to be applied to a crime that could potentially be committed during a space flight with touri sts on board by assessing the place of commission of the crime. In addition, the study is based on comparisons under such sources of international law as the Outer Space Treaty (OST) and the Antarctic Treaty (AT). Consequently, the authors conclude that it is necessary to introduce specific international rules to regulate commercial space flights, where the aspect of jurisdiction in the investigation of a crime committed by a non- astronaut tourist should be of paramount importance. It is specified that each partner of a space flight, both the state (in the case of public interests) and/or certain flight authorities operating under the auspices of a particular country, and a space company and/or a provider of relevant services (in the case of private interests), must register a commercial space flight and its structural objects as flight elements. The purpose of the article is to re- solve the next problem question: How the appre- ciation of the jurisdictional approach is addressed when a private individual (space tourist, non- astronaut) commits a criminal offense during a human-manned spaceflight (commercial space flight, space tourism)? Regardless, t he research target is to explore the raised two approaches (for contrast) in relation to the determination of the jurisdiction based on the (1) scene (location) of the committed crime, and (2) the jurisdictional claim by the state. T he authors’ discussion is based on the proposal of a space crime scheme with further analysis of the legal framework governing jurisdiction and pre- sent the results of how it would apply in a particu- lar case. The article applies a comprehensive ap- proach to international legal sources including the Outer Space Treaty (OST) and Antarctic Trea- ty (AT) system. Throughout the main body , the authors cite the case of astronaut An n McClain to support an opinion about the hypothetical analog- ical scenario of crime during commercial space flight and the limited appreciation of criminal ju- risdiction at the ISS. 2023. № 2 (89) 232 treaty does not establish international coopera- tion on jurisdictio n and prosecution increasing the likelihood of jurisdiction and prosecution is- sues in the event of a criminal incident. Therefore, the AT could not be a good example forward to regulate crimes committed in outer space during space tourism activity. To supp ort this point of view, the authors In this regard, the authors offer jurisdictional ap- preciation relevantly to the potential situation when a private individual commits a crime during a human-manned spaceflight. Under the research, the justice for crimes committed in outer space still should be based on the general principles of criminal jurisdiction, including territoriality, and nationality immunity including criteria of citizen- ship and residency. Therefore, it is visible to solve a legal matter based on the location (scene) of the committed crime: the International Space Station and spacecraft. Nevertheless, the perspec- tive jurisdiction of space tourism crimes is fore- casted for the appreciation in accordance with one of three ca tegories: (i) complete freedom for both private and public activities, (ii) no private or public activities allowed but occupa tion is permissible, or (iii) no private or public flights with societal flights for the benefit of the nation but without appreciation. REFERENCES 1. Baker, M. (2019, August 23). NASA Astronaut Anne McClain Accused by Spouse of Crime in Space. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/us/astronaut-space-investigation.html. 2. Bittencourt Neto, O. de O. (2015).