Upload
hoangkhue
View
222
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Topic A: Mining in Space
Topic B: Militarization of Space
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
2
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
EXECUTIVE LETTER
Dear Delegates,
Welcome to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space! Along with my staff, it is my pleasure to
welcome you to MUNUC 30!
Just a little about me: I am a third year at the University of Chicago, majoring in Economics and Political
Science. I was born in Mumbai, grew up in Qatar and am thrilled to currently call Chicago home. Some of my
interests include political economy, energy geopolitics and international law.
This will be my second time chairing at MUNUC and I cannot overstate my excitement. Last year I was
involved with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and we collectively explored
the ageing and Arctic questions. Similar to the latter topic, my focus this year is on a remote area, with
enormous potential, that is increasingly entering the spotlight. Of course, Outer Space is on a much greater
scale and with the Space Race, has previously been an arena of political tension. Looking forward, our two
topics reflect on what the nature and role of Outer Space might be in the 21st century and beyond. Mining
and militarization initiatives showcase the immense promise and peril that space presents, but may seem
unorthodox for a MUN committee agenda. As “far-fetched” as our topics may appear, in writing this guide
I found myself increasingly immersed in legal documents and economic analysis rather than sci-fi novels
(although I did re-watch “The Martian” during the research process).
In the space realm, 2017 has been a year of anniversaries. It has been 60 years since Sputnik launched,
50 years since the Outer Space Treaty was enacted, and 40 years since Star Wars was released. This year
MUNUC also celebrates 30 years of excellence. In continuing this pedagogical mission, I ask you all to prepare
yourselves pre-conference, fully engage with the committee during conference, and leave conference
with greater insight and skill. Should you have any comments, concerns or questions in the countdown to
conference, please feel free to email me at the address listed below. I hoped to end this note with a space
pun (and even created a list of contenders) but I’ll save it for conference – and hope you too will bring your
best to the Palmer Hilton!
Live long and prosper,
Nikita Coutinho
3
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
History of the Committee
The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) was created in 1959, two years after the
launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik.1 The Committee was initially assembled in 1958 on an ad-hoc basis, but
assumed a more permanent status the year after.2 It was formed with the intention of upholding the peace,
primarily by promoting research into outer space and assessing the legality of space activities.3 These twin
purposes are reflected in the structure of the Committee, which has two Subcommittees. The Scientific and
Technical Subcommittee addresses, as its name implies, the scientific and technical areas of space activities.
Some of its work has been in Near-Earth Objects, navigation systems and disaster management.4 The Legal
Subcommittee tackles the legality of activities in space, by monitoring states’ adherence to the treaties on
space and clarifying legal terms.5 The Committee as a whole reports its findings to the UN General Assembly.
Over the years the Committee has spearheaded numerous initiatives to promote the peaceful uses of
space. It facilitated the crafting of the five Treaties and five sets of Principles that are the basis for space law,
including the Outer Space Treaty, the Rescue Agreement and the Benefits Declaration.6 It has also held three
Conferences since 1968, with UNISPACE+50, a commemoration of fifty years since the first Conference,
to be held in 2018.7 The Committee’s Secretariat, the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, is a
proponent of the 2006 United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and
Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER).8 UN-SPIDER aids developing countries in utilising space technology to
improve their capability before and after disasters.9 The latest COPUOS session, held in June 2017, focused
on enhancing the sustainability of space activities.10
1 “United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.” COPUOS History. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/history.html.
2 Ibid3 Ibid4 “United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.” COPUOS: Committee and Subcommittees. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.
unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/comm-subcomms.html.5 Ibid6 “United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.” Space Law Treaties and Principles. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.unoosa.org/
oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html.7 “United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.” The United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
(1968 - 2018): UNISPACE 50. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/unispaceplus50/index.html.8 “United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.” UN-SPIDER. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/un-
spider/index.html.9 Ibid10 Christopher D. Johnson and Victoria Samson. “A summer update on the COPUOS long-term sustainability guidelines.” The Space Review:
A summer update on the COPUOS long-term sustainability guidelines. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3291/1.
4
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
The initial ad-hoc COPUOS was comprised of 18 members, with 24 members joining the fully-fledged
Committee in 1959.11 This membership has gradually increased over the decades, with the addition of
New Zealand in 2016 bringing total membership to 84 nations.12 This is supplemented with the presence
of Observer Organizations, including the European Space Agency and the International Air Transport
Association.13
11 “United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.” COPUOS History. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/history.html.
12 Christopher D. Johnson and Victoria Samson. “A summer update on the COPUOS long-term sustainability guidelines.” The Space Review: A summer update on the COPUOS long-term sustainability guidelines. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3291/1.
13 Ibid
5
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
TOPIC A: MINING IN SPACE
Statement of the Problem
In the last century, mankind initiated its ascension into space. This movement into the vast expanses of the
Universe conjures images of extreme conditions, planetary bodies and alien encounters. More symbolically,
the perilous undertaking into space presents a range of newfound threats and opportunities. These new
avenues continue to open up and evolve, decades after the first (artificial) satellite launch and moonwalk.
The question of space governance was first addressed by the United Nations in the 1960s, but as space
activity becomes more complex and is conducted by a greater variety of players,14 it appears that “vague”
current legislation may need to be amended or added to.15 The question of legality is not isolated but is
closely tied to political, economic and environmental considerations.16
Space mining, the “exploitation of natural resources from celestial bodies”, 17 is a prime example of a “new
space”18 endeavour. It may appear to be a far-fetched possibility, and in reality, is not currently being
practiced. However, with a number of private and government entities devoting expertise and resources
into its development, the rise of space mining is anticipated. In this light, there is significant pressure for
the terms that dictate space activity, which were crafted in an era before space mining was a possibility,
to be reconsidered or made more detailed before commercial activity can commence.19 Indeed, the vast
scope and promise of space mining, and the possibilities it could lead to, have stakes for the entirety of the
international community.
Desire for resources
There are high costs, legal barriers and technical difficulties associated with mining in space. With this
consideration, the question of the viability of space mining arises. Why look to the skies when “mining” can
occur on Earth? In broad terms, it stems from man’s desire for a greater quantity of resources than available
14 Ricky J Lee, Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (Springer International Publishing, 2012), 5.15 Philip R Harris. “Space Law and Space Resources.” National Space Society. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.nss.org/settlement/
nasa/spaceresvol4/spacelaw.html.16 Ricky J Lee, Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (Springer International Publishing, 2012), 3.17 Ibid, 7.18 Ram S. Jakhu, Joseph N. Pelton and Yaw O. M. Nyampong Space Mining and its Regulation (Switzerland: Springer International Publishing,
2017), 2.19 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/
commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty
6
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
on Earth.20 With a rising world population, which currently stands at 7.5 billion but is projected to reach 9.7
billion by 2050,21 and a theoretically limited supply of resources on Earth, there is an increasing demand
for resources that are not multiplying at the same rate.22 In order to match this demand, the supply of
resources must increase. In this way, the acquisition and harvesting of resources from space offers a means
of increasingly our supply of resources.
Availability and utility of resources in space
In light of this quest for resources, the premise of space mining emerges as certain space bodies contain
desirable materials such as nickel (Ni), iron (Fe), platinum (Pt) and gold (Au).23 These elements hold immense
potential. For example, the latter two are profitable, with the current price for a kilogram of gold and
platinum valued at approximately $30,00024 and $20,00025 respectively. In comparison, elements like nickel
and iron, along with water, appear less profitable because of their relative abundance on Earth. However,
in the context of space, they are considered valuable. This is because the cost of carrying these materials
from Earth to space is high: NASA states that a single gallon of water (which can be used to make rocket fuel)
weighs a little over eight pounds with the cost of transporting a pound of material into space is $10,000—thus
transporting a gallon of water into space can cost upwards of $80,000.26 To supporters of space mining, this
makes the option of extracting and using resources within space itself desirable. For example, the availability
and use of water could allow for re-fuelling stations within space, and even promote the construction of
space bases. This would be part of a broader movement towards space supply chains, and a greater space
economy, which is currently limited due to the high costs of sending objects into orbit.
Having said this, resources from space mining are likely to be utilised on Earth too, particularly as the price of
space voyages begins to decrease. There appears to be a consensus regarding the projected monetary value
of asteroid mining, with Goldman Sachs seeing vast potential in these commercial space ventures.27 A 2017
20 William Steigerwald, “New NASA Mission to Help Us Learn How to Mine Asteroids.” NASA. March 02, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-mission-to-help-us-learn-how-to-mine-asteroids.
21 “World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 | UN DESA Department of Economic and Social Affairs.” United Nations. July 29, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html.
22 Ricky J Lee, Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (Springer International Publishing, 2012), 6.23 William Steigerwald, “New NASA Mission to Help Us Learn How to Mine Asteroids.” NASA. March 02, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-mission-to-help-us-learn-how-to-mine-asteroids.24 “Gold Prices Today | Price of Gold Per Ounce | Gold Spot Price Chart.” APMEX. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.apmex.com/
spotprices/gold-price.25 “Platinum Price | Platinum Price Chart History | Price of Platinum Today.” APMEX. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.apmex.com/
spotprices/platinum-price.26 Brian Dunbar, “In-Line Water Filtration: Better Hygeine, Less Expense.” NASA. September 29, 2009. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://
www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/pure_water.html.27 Jim Edwards, “Goldman Sachs: space-mining for platinum is ‘more realistic than perceived’.” Business Insider. April 06, 2017. Accessed
August 24, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-space-mining-asteroid-platinum-2017-4?IR=T.
7
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
report published by the firm served to legitimise space mining and quoted a Planetary Resources interview
in explaining that a single asteroid could contain up to $50 billion worth of platinum.28
Possible site of mining
A question that arises is where the proposed mining may occur. As we continue to explore outer space and
encounter more celestial bodies, it becomes clear that not all celestial bodies would be feasible for mining
activities and that some would be more lucrative than others.29 Though there is leeway in the formal definition
of a “celestial body”,30 mining projects assess potential sites on the following criteria: a body of “over 100m
in diameter”, in “approachable orbits” that “can be reached in under a year” and with a “high percentage of
valuable resources”.31 With this in mind, there are usually two categories under consideration: the Moon and
Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs).32
The first manned mission to the Moon was carried out by the United States in 1969, with the most recent
moonwalk occurring in 1972.33 The Moon, which orbits the Earth, is optimal in terms of distance.34 However,
the “gravity” of the Moon, and other planetary bodies as well, make them economically unfeasible mining
zones – but do not rule out their ability to act as space “bases”.35 In essence, as a base, the Moon could act as an
area from which secondary space missions could be embarked upon36; this is something some governments
have desired. In April 2017, the China National Space Administration (CNSA) and the European Space
Agency (ESA) announced they were collectively working towards a “Moon Village”, which would act as a
“human outpost on the Moon”.37 There are also a number of private entities, such as Moon Express,38 that
have proposed lunar mining initiatives to harvest the water, helium-3 isotopes and other resources available.
28 Ibid29 William Steigerwald,. “New NASA Mission to Help Us Learn How to Mine Asteroids.” NASA. March 02, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-mission-to-help-us-learn-how-to-mine-asteroids.30 Ram S. Jakhu, Joseph N. Pelton and Yaw O. M. Nyampong Space Mining and its Regulation (Switzerland: Springer International Publishing,
2017), 23.31 Ibid, 26.32 Ibid, 23.33 Lee Mohon, “First Flight of Space Shuttle Endeavour Launches -- May 7, 1992.” NASA. May 10, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://
www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/history/this-week-in-nasa-history-first-flight-of-space-shuttle-endeavour-launches-may-7-1992.html.34 Ricky J Lee, Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (Springer International Publishing, 2012), 8.35 Ricky J Lee, Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (Springer International Publishing, 2012), 8.36 Ibid37 Andrew Griffin, “China and Europe to build a base on the moon and launch other projects into space.” The Independent. April 26, 2017.
Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/moon-base-outpost-china-europe-chinese-space-agency-collaboration-together-a7702936.html.
38 Dan Tynan, “Galactic gold rush: the tech companies aiming to make space mining a reality.” The Guardian. December 06, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/06/space-mining-moon-asteroids-tech-companies
8
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
These projects are driven by financial incentive: the mineral assets of the Moon have been valued in the
range of $150-500 quadrillion.39
The more promising and widely discussed option is NEAs. According to NASA, in late 2016 there were over
15,000 known NEAs, with “30 new discoveries added each week”.40 As with the Moon, NEAs could act as
“space bases” or be used for their resources, including the precious metals described above. These asteroids
are not uniform, and scientists describe asteroids as “S-type”, “C-type” or “M-type” type.41 This categorisation
is based on the reflectivity and composition of the asteroids.42 “C-type” are “dark” and are rich in water and
organic material, “S-type” have less water but more metal, and “M” type contain even more metal.43
Legality of space mining
Though mining in space is currently a hypothetical, the possibility that it could occur has sparked numerous
legal questions. This concern arises as current space law, conceived in the last century, does not directly
addressing the multi-dimensional questions that space mining poses. Specifically, the large-scale treaties
that are the basis of space law, were drafted and signed when the main players of the space race were
nations (and private players were not involved), and when the prospects for space activities were much
more restricted.44
Navigating the legality of space mining invariably draws upon the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), which
is, to date, the most comprehensive piece of space legislation.45 Over 50 years old, the agreement declares
unequivocally that space is a “province for all mankind”,46 or a common area where territorial claims cannot
be made. Space, including the “Moon and other celestial bodies”, cannot be the sovereign (exclusive) area
of any nation, and all “use” of it must be “for the benefit and in the interests of all countries”.47 This wording
raises a number of questions:
39 Ibid40 Tony Greicius, “Catalog of Known Near-Earth Asteroids Tops 15,000.” NASA. October 26, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.
nasa.gov/feature/jpl/catalog-of-known-near-earth-asteroids-tops-15000.41 William Steigerwald, “New NASA Mission to Help Us Learn How to Mine Asteroids.” NASA. March 02, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-mission-to-help-us-learn-how-to-mine-asteroids.42 Ibid43 Ibid44 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/
commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty45 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/
commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty46 United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space.Publication. 2002. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/
publications/STSPACE11E.pdf.47 Ibid
9
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
• Does a nation need to have sovereign rights to an asteroid before utilising its resources?
• If that is the case, will any nation ever be able to mine in space?
• If sovereign rights are not required to mine in space, what is the procedure when competing entities
are attempting to mine in the same area?
• If property rights, in the form of sovereignty, are not assigned, how will potential disputes be managed
– or will the absence of territorial gains serve to curb the new space race?
• If nations cannot lay sovereign claims in space, can they claim the by-products of, or materials
contained within, celestial bodies in space?
The uncertainty stemming from a lack of property rights, and the potential knock-on effects of implementing
some form of national rights within space, are some of the greatest legal challenges posed by space mining.
The notion of space existing as a “global commons” has further implications:
• What does it mean for its “exploration and use” to be in the best interests of all nations?
• Would the spoils from space have to be distributed amongst all nations and if so, how will this
allocation be determined? For example, would the largest share of a shipment from space go to the
nation that is least developed, the nation that is willing to pay the most for those resources or the
nation that was the greatest financer of the mission?
• Would an additional body or multilateral organisation have to be created to oversee these operations?
Or would an all-encompassing treaty, which would serve as a successor to the Outer Space Treaty,
be required?
A fear that has been expressed is that a lack of legal clarification may lead to a “tragedy of the commons” – a
scenario in which a something shared between multiple parties experiences a decline in quality as parties do
not treat it as well as they would something in their name alone.
10
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Governmental and Private Space Mining
In the context of an international space race, the introduction of private companies could further complicate
the question of space mining. Private firms are currently pioneering the quest for space resources and the
relationship between competing firms, between firms and their respective governments and between firms
and the wider public may come under increased scrutiny as time passes. A concern is that that these firms
may not uphold the principles of space law as stringently as a national space program, that is funded by a
government that is a signatory of the space treaties and in turn answerable to the international community.
To some extent, the Outer Space Treaty addresses this issue, with Article 6 laying responsibility on home
governments for ensuring that even home-originating “non-governmental entities” are held to the terms of
the Treaty.48 However, with some private firms more technologically advanced and invested in space mining
than their governmental counterparts, the question of the capability and even willingness of governments
to regulate the space activities of their home firms persists. The broader question of how the international
community can monitor and regulate private firms, without the intermediary of a national government
also remains. The United States’ CLSCA and Luxembourg’s space-related bill (passed July 2017) are recent
examples of the legal intersection of a national government, international space law and private firms, and
are explored later. They show how the domestic politics and legislation can foster an environment of space
mining regardless of the prevailing international law.
Possible side-effects of space mining
Economically, space mining could open up revolutionary new markets and greatly enhance existing ones.49
However, the introduction of these materials also has the potential to distort the Earthly market. For example,
vast imports of a certain mineral from space could saturate a market and decrease the price of the mineral50
– which could strain an economy that may be dependent upon exports of said mineral. Although this has yet
to occur, it does highlight the role a new space economy may play, and the need for regulation. This regulation
does not solely have to be at the international level, especially with the entry of non-governmental players
into the space race.
48 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
49 Jim Edwards, “Goldman Sachs: space-mining for platinum is ‘more realistic than perceived’.” Business Insider. April 06, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-space-mining-asteroid-platinum-2017-4?IR=T.
50 Ibid
11
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Regulation is also cited in discussing the potential environmental effects of space mining. According to a
World Economic Forum (WEF) article, though space mining may decrease in situ Earth mining, the dust
released by space mining processes could also pose an environmental risk both in space and on Earth.51 This
phenomenon can be described as an externality, as it is an unintended consequence resulting from the main
act of space mining that the firms or governments are not necessarily affected by. With an emerging field like
space mining, side effects may not be fully realised at the onset but may only be discovered later. Thus, the
knowledge of this particular negative externality should be taken into account in making future decisions.
In particular, they should form the basis of future regulation. The role of externalities is closely associated to
the legal questions and roles of stakeholders described above.
The question of space mining
In looking at the emerging “problem” that space mining presents, this section has stressed legal, economic,
political and environmental issues. At conference, these issues can be addressed in a number of ways. What
is crucial is that they are all sufficiently addressed. That may mean that more so than general suggestions of
how national space programs can be enhanced, an encompassing resolution that has recommendations on
the international, national and private company level, may be more appropriate.
51 Arwen Armbrecht, “Asteroid mining: is this the next space race?” World Economic Forum. February 5, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/asteroid-mining-next-space-race/.
12
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
History of the Problem
Humans first travelled into space six decades ago and since that time, the fields of science and technology
have vastly expanded. A 2015 Goldman Sachs publication reported that from 2010-2015, the cost of space
launches and satellites dropped 11 and 100 times respectively52 and claimed this “affordable access is a
game changer”.53 This atmosphere of progress has led to the emergence of a number of “new space” ventures.
“New Space” ventures such as space mining, which some predict will cause a “gold rush”, were not on
government agendas at the time of the original space race, but are now considered to be at the at the
forefront. Considering that space mining is still in the future, analyzing its origins would involve recounting
the history of increased human presence in space and the efforts by the international community to both
facilitate and set boundaries upon this activity.
Asteroids were discovered in 1801,54 and
the concept of them as beacons of resources
to be utilized by humans was first described
in 1898 in a science fiction novel by Garrett
Serviss.55 Comparable to the economic
potential that modern-day investors see in
space mining, Serviss describes travelers
being in awe of an asteroid, a “little metallic
planet”.56 Transitioning from fiction to fact,
Russian Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was the first
scientist to actively envision space mining.57 In the late 19th century and early 20th century, he conceived of
rockets as vehicles to enter space and saw asteroid mining as an integral step towards the human colonization
of space.58
52 What If I Told You... Report. December 2, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/macroeconomic-insights-folder/what-if-i-told-you/report.pdf.6-8
53 Ibid.54 Issue Overview: Space Mining. Report. July 10, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://vanclasses.weebly.com/
uploads/3/7/7/1/37718445/solar_use.pdf.55 Matt Novak, “Asteroid mining’s peculiar past.” BBC. November 18, 2014. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/future/
story/20130129-asteroid-minings-peculiar-past.56 Ibid57 “Kaluga Period.” Russian Space Web. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tsiolkovsky_kaluga.html.58 Ibid
13
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
The prospect of space mining entered the political realm with the onset of the Cold War, a period of
deteriorated relations between the United States and the Soviet Union during the 20th century. The Space
Race was the competition between the two national powers to surpass each other in space achievements as
a sign of dominance. Lyndon Johnson, the US Vice-President under John F Kennedy and later US President,
was an early and key supporter of US space involvement in light of the 1957 Russian launch of Sputnik, a
satellite.59 Along with directing Congressional focus and investment towards space affairs and instituting
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), he also made statements regarding space mining.60
Notably, at the 1962 World’s Fair he projected that “Someday we will be able to bring an asteroid containing
billions of dollars’ worth of critically needed metals close to Earth to provide a vast source of mineral wealth
to our factories”.61 Regardless of how sincerely Johnson believed his statement, it does highlight how space
resources was a topic at the highest levels of government and that it was a serious concept in the public domain.
In terms of the “gold rush” for mining in space, there has been a shift in the composition of key players.62 With
private companies devoted to space mining increasingly coming to dominate headlines, the race is likely to
be led by firms rather than government-funded national space programs, at least within the domain of space
mining.63 The rise of these private firms, including the prominent “Planetary Resources” and “Deep Space
Industries” has been significant, but they are not currently publicly traded.64 Instead, these ventures have
high profile investors, such as Larry Page (Google), James Cameron (Academy Award winning director),
Charles Simonyi (Microsoft), Ross Perot Jr. (Perot Group) as well the technical support of long-standing NASA
astronauts and engineers.65 The backing of these individuals and the respected brands they represent add
credibility to these private firms and their missions. Planetary Resources’ vision is to “expand the economy
into outer space”,66 while Deep Space Industries’ aspires to “develop the technologies to find, harvest, and
supply the asteroid resources that will transform the space economy”.67 In 2014 NASA announced that it
59 Alan Wasser. “LBJ’s Space Race: what we didn’t know then (part 1).” The Space Review. June 20, 2005. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/396/1.
60 Ibid.61 Matt Novak, “Asteroid mining’s peculiar past.” BBC. November 18, 2014. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/future/
story/20130129-asteroid-minings-peculiar-past.62 Dan Tynan, “Galactic gold rush: the tech companies aiming to make space mining a reality.” The Guardian. December 06, 2016. Accessed
August 24, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/06/space-mining-moon-asteroids-tech-companies.63 Ibid64 Paul B Farrell, “Asteroid mining 2022 a $1 trillion bet for Earth.” MarketWatch. January 08, 2013. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.
marketwatch.com/story/asteroid-mining-2022-a-1-trillion-bet-for-earth-2013-01-0865 Ibid66 “Our Vision is to Expand the Economy into Space.,” Planetary Resources, accessed September 10, 2017, http://www.planetaryresources.
com/#home-asteroids.67 “Space Resources for an Unlimited Future,” Deep Space Industries, accessed September 10, 2017, http://deepspaceindustries.com/.
14
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
would contract with these two companies in mining asteroids68 – an example of how governmental and non-
governmental entities can collaborate.
68 Brooks Hays, “NASA contracts two firms to work on asteroid mining,” UPI, November 24, 2014, accessed September 10, 2017, https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/11/24/NASA-contracts-two-firms-to-work-on-asteroid-mining/5301416856690/.
15
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Past Actions
In the spirit of maintaining peaceful relations within space, the UN has, over the years, facilitated a number
of international treaties and declarations specific to space.
The Legal Principles Declaration (1963)
Following the launch of Sputnik in 1959 and successful space orbit of Yuri Gagarin two years later, it became
clear that space was a fast opening avenue. The passing of this Declaration by the UN General Assembly in
1963 reflects the international consensus that guiding principles needed to be established within this wider
arena. The nine clauses use terminology and concepts that would feature prominently in future international
space law treaties.69 Some of the concepts embraced by the clauses include the “use” of space “for the benefit
and in the interests of all mankind”, the “free exploration” of space, the non-sovereignty and enforcement of
international law in space and the responsibility and liability of nations in space, amongst others.70 This set
of Principles formed the basis for the Outer Space Treaty, which came into being four years later and has
greater legal grounding than the Principles.
The Outer Space Treaty (1967)
The first multilateral space treaty was the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), which remains the most
instrumental document pertaining to space activities and relations.71 Signed during the space race, the
Treaty was formed from the collective efforts of the United States and the Soviet Union, each of whom
submitted ideas and suggested varying scales of jurisdiction.72 The mutual desire for peace in space helped
forge the second international “nonarmament” treaty73 and allowed for the creation of a “framework on
international space law.”74 Intended to regulate the “exploration and use” of space, the full form of the title
of the Treaty specifies inclusion of “the Moon and other celestial bodies” – a clear reference to the main
subjects of space mining.
69 General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration of the Legal Principles Governing the Activites of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space,” 13 December, 1962, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/legal-principles.html
70 Ibid71 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/
commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty72 “Outer Space Treaty.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm.73 Ibid.74 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use
of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
16
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
With seventeen Articles in total, the key provisions of the OST can be divided into roughly four categories:
universality, peaceful relations, national responsibility and environmental sustainability. In terms of
universality, Article I declares space to be the “province of all mankind”, an area free for “use and exploration
by all States” and in “the benefit and interests of all countries”.75 This would allow for any nation to conduct
space activities, so long as those activities do not harm, but are beneficial to all other countries. Article II
further notes that “national sovereignty” does not apply in space – no matter if an area is occupied or used
by a nation.76 As a result, countries cannot own or enforce their national ruling on any area in outer space.
Peaceful relations are stressed in Articles IV and V, with the former banning nuclear or other weapons of
mass destruction (WMDs) in space, and the latter committing states to aiding fellow astronauts, regardless
of nationality, should they be in danger or “distress”.77 Interestingly, exceptions to Article IV include “the
use of military personnel” or “any equipment or facility
necessary” as long as they are used for “scientific
research” or other “peaceful purposes”.78 Article IX
also notes that space activities must be based on “the
principle of co-operation and mutual assistance.”79
National responsibility when operating in outer space
is embodied particularly in Articles VI to VIII. Article
VI places “responsibility” on member states for any
activities they carry out in space, whether pursued
by “governmental agencies or non-governmental
entities.”80 This means that nations can also be held at fault for the activities of private actors originating from
their country. It further states that these “entities” must be “authorized” and face “continuing supervision”
by their home governments. 81 Article VII dictates that nations are “internationally liable” should the efforts
of their space programs cause “damage” whether in Earth or space, and Article VIII affirms that national
property rights over “objects launched into outer space” are maintained regardless of location.82
75 Ibid76 Ibid77 Ibid78 Ibid79 Ibid80 Ibid81 Ibid82 Ibid
17
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Finally, the notion of environmental sustainability, both in space and on Earth, as a result of activities in space,
is emphasized in Article IX. The Article aspires to avert the “harmful contamination” of space or “adverse
changes in the environment of the Earth” as a result a foreign substance or organism being introduced. In
terms of space mining, this could include technology from Earth accumulating into space debris over time,
and a harvested sources from space being brought to Earth to the detriment of any person or nation. The
Article also grants countries that suspect another nation of planning or executing any space activity that is
unsustainable as described above, the ability to seek further information and “consultation” on the specific
initiative.83
This year, 2017, the Outer Space Treaty commemorates fifty years of space regulation. While it has fielded
recent criticism, the OST has remained unchanged in its nature since its creation.84 To a degree, some of this
criticism comes from the fact that the OST has not been amended, the rationale being that it was written
when space possibilities were not as great.85 Other criticism levied at the OST includes its lack of scientific
standards and terminology and its failure to ban, or even mention, conventional weaponry.86 In addressing
the US Congress in 2017, Texan Senator Ted Cruz stressed to the body the need “…to properly determine
our actual international obligations, to decide if specific articles in the treaty are self-executing or not…”, 87
hinting at the vagueness and gravity of the OST.
The Liability Convention
Signed in 1971 and enforced the following year, the Liability Convention can be viewed as one of the first
attempts to clarify existing space law.88 Its specific aim was to expand upon Article VII of the OST,89 which
stated that nations were “internationally liable” should their space programs or objects result in “damage” to
another party.90 Pertinently, it clarifies the wide-ranging definitions of “damage” (“loss of life, personal injury
or other impairment of health; or loss of or damage to property of States or of persons, natural or juridical,
83 Ibid84 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/
commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty85 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/
commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty86 Lalit K Jha, “US lawmakers seek review of Outer Space Treaty amid competition from India, China.” Livemint. May 26, 2017. Accessed
August 24, 2017. http://www.livemint.com/Science/6uxgbhcNcRfBtbWyq63wTO/US-lawmakers-seek-review-of-Outer-Space-Treaty-amid-competit.html.
87 Ibid88 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on International Liability for damage Caused by Space Objects,” 1971, http://
www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf89 Ibid90 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use
of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
18
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
or property of international intergovernmental organizations”) and “space object” (it “includes component
parts of a space object as well as its launch vehicle and parts thereof”) with respect to international space
law.91 While Article II describes nations as being “absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused
by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight”, Article III describes damage that may
occur to objects or people in outer space by another nations’ space object, and puts the burden of liability on
the offending nation only if they, or one of their citizens, caused the event.92 The notion of claiming damage
is also addressed Article VII, which states that the terms of the Convention itself cannot be applied to
“nationals” or “foreign nationals” of “launching States.”93 In effect, an individual or group cannot hold another
nation accountable, or vice versa. Rather, only nations themselves can claim or be liable for damages under
this Convention, which is crucial when considering the rise of private companies in space.
The Moon Agreement (The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies)
The Moon Agreement was drafted by COPUOS during the 1970s, passed the UN General Assembly in
1979, and came into force five years later.94 This process occurred following the US moon landing in 1969.
The treaty, composed of 21 articles, was drafted to provide greater clarity on the Moon (note that the
principles of the OST do, and have always, applied to the Moon) but, as per its full name, is also relevant to
other “celestial bodies”.95 In this light, there are striking similarities to the OST, with mention of “international
law” to be upheld (Article II), “peaceful use” of the Moon (Article III), “exploration and use” of the Moon to
be “for the benefit and in the interests of all countries” and “guided by the principle of co-operation and
mutual assistance” (Article IV), “freedom of scientific investigation” (Article VI), environmental sustainability
(Article VII), national responsibility (Article XIV, XV) and non-sovereignty (Article XI).96
However, there are some distinct clauses, which are interesting when considering how they could pertain to
space mining. In particular, Article XI describes the implementation of an “international regime” to “govern
the exploitation of the natural resources of the moon.”97 This would involve promoting “orderly and safe
91 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on International Liability for damage Caused by Space Objects,” 1971, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf
92 Ibid93 Ibid94 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,”
1979, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html95 Ibid96 General Assembly, United Nations, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1979, http://
www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_34_68E.pdf, Annex97 Ibid
19
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
development of natural resources on the moon”, “rational management of those resources”, “expansion in
the opportunities of those resources” and “equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived
from those resources.”98 Essentially, it provides some principles that could form the backbone of a potential
framework on using and sharing the Moon’s resources.
A significant set-back to the Moon Agreement has been its lack of consensus amongst nations. Its five-year
delay in being enforced stemmed from a lack of ratifying nations. 99 This does not appear to have improved
as some of the most advanced space nations, including the US, Russia and China, have yet to sign or ratify the
Treaty, limiting its enforcement scope.100 France and India, both signatories to the Treaty, are not party to it
either.101 This is a major indication that the Moon Agreement, the contents of which is largely similar to the
OST, is viewed unfavorably by nations, as its stipulations are not in line with national space agendas.
The Benefits Declaration
In keeping with the sentiment that space “use” and “exploration” is “for the benefit and in the interests of all
countries”, this 1996 Declaration aimed to spell out and strengthen international space cooperation.102 It is
important to note that the full form of the title of the Declaration includes the phrase “taking into particular
account the needs of developing countries.”103 The clauses discuss adherence to international law, possible
forms of space collaboration such “governmental and non-governmental; commercial and non-commercial;
global, multilateral, regional or bilateral”, and suggests means by which developed and developing nations
can cooperate in space “technology”, “capability” and “expertise.”104
US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act
Having passed through the US House and Senate, the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act
became law in November 2015.105 Its primary purpose is to “to facilitate a pro-growth environment for the
98 Ibid99 Michael Listner. “The Moon Treaty: failed international law or waiting in the shadows?” The Space Review. October 24, 2011. Accessed
August 24, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1954/1.100 Ibid101 Ibid102 General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit
and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/space-benefits-declaration.html
103 Ibid104 Ibid105 Congress, United States Government, “H.R. 2262 – US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act,” 2014-2015, https://www.
congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262
20
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
developing commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment and creating more stable
and predictable regulatory conditions.”106 The most significant segment of the Act, in terms of space mining,
was featured at its end. Section 51303 reads: “A United States citizen engaged in commercial recovery of
an asteroid resource or a space resource under this chapter shall be entitled to any asteroid resource or
space resource obtained, including to possess, own, transport, use, and sell the asteroid resource or space
resource obtained in accordance with applicable law, including the international obligations of the United
States.”107 Although a stride forward for space mining, this statement appears to be at odds with the notions
of “non-sovereignty” and “interests of all mankind” enshrined in international space legislation. The clause
is followed by a disclaimer that the US “does not thereby assert sovereignty or sovereign or exclusive rights
or jurisdiction over, or the ownership of, any celestial body.”108 However, the Act prompted international
queries over its legality:109 does the US have the right to grant its citizens property rights of space objects?
Can a nation grant property rights without holding, or having the ability to hold, sovereignty? Is use of a
space resource by a US citizen in the “interests of all mankind”?
Luxembourg Commercial Space Law
Following in the footsteps of the US, Luxembourg, a state in central Europe, passed a law similar to the US
CLSCA.110 The July 2017 law allows private entities that operate within the nation (whether or not they
are originally Luxembourgian) the right to own space resources.111 The national space website affirms that
Luxembourg is the “first European nation” with such regulation and that it was permitted under the notion
that “space resources are capable of being owned”, the opening article of the law.112
106 Ibid107 Ibid108 Ibid109 Peter B. de Selding. “U.S. Commercial Space Act’s Treaty Compliance May Depend on Implementation.” Space News. December 09, 2015.
Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacenews.com/u-s-commercial-space-acts-treaty-compliance-may-depend-on-implementation/.110 Jeff Foust. “Luxembourg adopts space resources law.” Space News. July 17, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacenews.com/
luxembourg-adopts-space-resources-law/.111 Ibid112 “Space resources in Luxembourg.” Space Resources // Luxembourg. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/en/
space-resources-luxembourg.html.
21
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Possible Solutions
Resolutions should be sensitive to the unique nature of space and the issue of space mining. In crafting
clauses, it may be helpful to think thematically so that all of the relevant issues receive coverage. In this light,
the rest of this section is divided into subsections that each broach leads for potential solutions. Bear in
mind that what follows is by no means exhaustive or “correct” but is merely illustrative of possible avenues
of exploration.
Legality
Any resolution must explore the legal grounds of exploring and exploiting space. While there exist legal
instruments, none have been written following the increased movement towards space mining. As a result,
there appear to be two distinct possibilities: either amending existing legislation or drafting entirely new
treaties or principles. Regardless, it is crucial that greater clarity on the legality of space mining is reached.
This would entail spelling out how space mining would fit within a peaceful order in space, so that international
and national space law could adjust accordingly. Addressing this point would require answering, or providing
guidelines to the questions raised throughout the background guide: can property rights exist in space? Can
governments or private entities own objects or bodies from outer space? Does one need to own a space body
or object to use or profit from it? Who will regulate governmental and private space activity, especially as
the latter begins to surpass the former? On the last point in particular, it is worth noting the limited influence
of the Moon Agreement and its inclusion of an “international regime” – why was that unpopular then and
would increased multilateral space governance still be shunned or welcomed?
In scholarly discussion and assessments on space law, there are two international treaties that are often cited,
or likened to space law. Although space is on a different scale and nature to regions that these documents
govern, it may be helpful to consider the rationale and eventual policies adopted in each of these cases.
Case study: The Antarctic Treaty
The first non-armament treaty, the Antarctic Treaty laid the foundation for legislation such as the Outer
Space Treaty.113 As the location of multiple territorial claims and exploratory operations in the 1950s, it
was clear that a multilateral solution to the Antarctica issue was required, particularly with the possibilities
113 “Antarctic Treaty.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/193967.htm.
22
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
of economic exploitation or militarization.114 The drafting of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty involved relevant
national stakeholders who collectively agreed to its 14 Articles.115 The crucial clauses allow the continent
“to be used for peaceful purposes only”, promote “freedom of scientific investigation” with results to
be “exchanged and made freely available”, deny “territorial sovereignty” and permit “inspection”.116 The
Treaty does not allow for the economic exploitation of Antarctica by any nation, and so does not discuss
how potential gains would be distributed. The strength of this Treaty lies in its commitment to protecting
Antarctica from human influence – adapting it to space would be tantamount to heavily restricting human
activities in space.
Case study: The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
An article written to commemorate half a century since the OST became law, noted that the OST was “just
seventeen short articles in length”, but that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) “spans
hundreds of articles in length.”117 Although the oceans are vast, the expanse of space is greater still, making
the discrepancy between the two legal documents almost comical. UNCLOS is used to regulate large bodies
of water and it declares that nations “have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment”
(Article 192) but that is also “the sovereign right of States to exploit their natural resources” (Article 193).118
This duality is also reflected in one of the key creations of the Convention, the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ)—which allows nations 200 nautical miles of sovereignty past their coast, where they are able to conduct
“economic activities and “exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection”
while other nations may also enjoy “freedom of navigation” and be permitted to lay certain infrastructure in
this zone.119 There are considerations for “landlocked or geographically disadvantaged States” (which can be
likened to nations with limited to no space programs) and a dispute resolution mechanism, the International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, should any disagreements over the Convention arise.120 As an example, this
Tribunal provided a ruling in mid-2016 on the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines,
although tensions in the region persist. Many of these concepts could be applied to space, such as a
multilateral commitment to protect the expanse, an EEZ for nations and a tribunal to preside over disputes.
114 Ibid115 Ibid116 “The Antarctic Treaty.” Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm.117 Loren Grush, “How an international treaty signed 50 years ago became the backbone for space law.” The Verge. January 27, 2017.
Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/27/14398492/outer-space-treaty-50-anniversary-exploration-guidelines.118 Hans Chr. Bugge, “UN Law of the Sea Convention: Main concepts and principles of environmental protection”, Faculty of Law, University
of Oslo, https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/JUS5520/h11/undervisningsmateriale/jus5520Powerpoint%20UNCLOS.pdf119 “Overview - Convention & Related Agreements.” United Nations. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_
agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm.120 Ibid
23
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
The interaction between governments and private firms
The Outer Space Treaty appears forward thinking in that it mentions “non-government entities” and
accordingly addresses them.121 As per the OST, nations must “authorize” and be “monitoring” the non-
government entities from the nation, with the latter ultimately bearing “responsibility” for the former.122 This
dynamic could become increasingly strained as private companies may feel they are being spied and reported
upon. A possible solution to this could include increased government support of these private ventures,
such as through funding, technological collaboration or passage of favorable national space legislation. An
alternative would be to amend the stipulation entirely, and make the private companies directly accountable.
This could entail making them register with an international regulating organization, making them sign and
be party to space legislation, or having a neutral third party engage in monitoring activities.
The side effects of mining
The scale of negative economic and environmental effects, as a result of space mining, is unknown. However,
since they are anticipated, it would be prudent to take action to minimize their impacts with regulation being
a possible choice. The approach to minimizing the damaging effects should be two-fold: it should both be
prevented and effectively managed should a catastrophe occur. With environmental effects, a possibility
would be increased specifications on which celestial bodies are to be mined (e.g. distance from Earth) and
how they are to be mined, with contingency plans, possibly in the form of a task-force, should there be a
crisis.
In terms of economic impacts, such as oversupply or underground market activities, quotas and greater
oversight of items leaving and entering space may be required. Thought should also be given to how any gains
from space mining (either brought back to Earth, or within space) are going to be utilized and distributed,
especially keeping in mind the Benefits Declaration. With the involvement of private companies, schemes
to redistribute these gains may be more difficult and may serve to dissuade investment. While it is up to
individual nations to advocate for their preferred solution, redistribution of these gains could be done in
many ways. For example, it could be on a need-basis (e.g. countries with the lowest development, countries
which lack a particular resource), or a fair-share basis (wherein all countries get some share of the gains). In
121 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
122 Ibid
24
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
describing these models, be aware that this redistribution does not have to be free, and can be sold at one
or differing prices.
25
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Bloc Positions
Despite not yet being practiced, there are differing levels of activity amongst space-mining players. At the
international level, there appears to be a split between nations that are taking steps to foster an environment
conducive to space mining or have vocalized desires to do so, and those that are not taking any such steps.
Whether or not this changes in the future, it currently provides a framework for considering how countries
may interact with each other on the topic. Furthermore, a discussion on the players of space mining would
be incomplete without considering the role of private firms but as none are currently members of COPUOS,
they will not be focused on below.
Countries at the legal forefront of space mining (The United States and Luxembourg)
With passage of the 2015 CLSCA the United States emerged as a leader in the movement towards space
mining.123 Legal scholars began weighing in on how it fit within international law as it was the first national
123 Peter B. de Selding. “U.S. Commercial Space Act’s Treaty Compliance May Depend on Implementation.” Space News. December 09, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacenews.com/u-s-commercial-space-acts-treaty-compliance-may-depend-on-implementation/.
26
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
law in the domain of space mining.124 As a precursor to asteroid mining, in September 2016, NASA’s OSIRIS-
Rex mission set off towards the NEA Bennu with the intention of studying the body, collecting samples and
returning in 2018.125 Two further missions, Lucy and Psyche, are due to explore asteroids within our Solar
System in the early 2020s.126
The role of the United States is further bolstered by the number of private companies, dedicated to space
exploration and mining, that it hosts. Indeed, the CLCSA can be considered a tool to incentivize these
companies and foster a culture of national space endeavor. The US commitment to space activity was
emphasized in the July 2017 Senate sanctions against Russia, as the exceptions of Section 237127 showed
that it was “not intended to prevent commercial launch service providers from using Russian engines on
rockets that launch NASA or commercial payloads”.128
The nation of Luxembourg is the other COPUOS member to have enacted national legislation to promote
space mining. The passage of the July 2017 law was drafted in the hope of allowing the nation to “play a
leading role” and to “ensure that space resources explored under its jurisdiction serve a peaceful purpose,
are gathered and used in a sustainable manner compatible with international law and for the benefit of
humankind.”129 Other Luxembourgian initiatives include collaborations with private space companies such
as Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, and offers of funding for space mining initiatives.130
In June 2017 the Luxembourg government announced their intention to create a national space program
“whose only focus is on the commercial use of space resources.”131
124 Ibid125 Rob. “OSIRIS-REx.” NASA. February 20, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/osiris-rex.126 Karen Northon, “NASA Selects Two Missions to Explore the Early Solar System.” NASA. January 04, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-two-missions-to-explore-the-early-solar-system.127 Congress, United States Government, “S.722 – Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activites Act of 2017,” 2017-2018, https://www.congress.
gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/722/text#toc-id5d0ad711357841bc8c6ed7fd1b885090128 Marcia Smith. “Senate-Passed Sanctions Bill Includes Exception for NASA, Commercial Space Launches.” July 27, 2017. Accessed August
24, 2017. http://spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-passed-sanctions-bill-includes-exception-for-nasa-commercial-space-launches-2/.129 “Space resources.” SpaceResources // Luxembourg. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/en.html.130 “ Press releases” SpaceResources // Luxembourg. Accessed August 24, 2017 http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/en/press/press-
release.html131 Jeff Foust, “Luxembourg adopts space resources law.” Space News. July 17, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacenews.com/
luxembourg-adopts-space-resources-law/.
27
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Asian nations that have not yet enacted legislation explicitly promoting space mining (e.g. China, India, Japan, UAE)
Between them, Asian nations are developing increasingly advanced space programs, a phenomena termed
the “Asian space race.”132 In May 2017 the government-backed China National Space Administration (CNSA)
detailed their plans for mining NEAs from the 2020s. The blueprint includes “landing” and “capturing” an
asteroid by diverting and placing it within the same orbit of our Moon, with the hope that the short distance
would allow for ease of access in mining and even inhabiting the asteroids.133 Since 2007 the CNSA has also
periodically sent missions to the Moon under the “Chang’e” program to learn more about lunar conditions.134
The Indian Space Research Organization, which propelled its first lunar mission in 2008,135 dismissed
statements that it was intending to mine the Moon for helium-3 isotopes.136 The Japanese Space Exploration
Agency (JAXA) expects the return of its second asteroid probe, Hayabusa-2, in 2020.137 In December 2016 it
also announced that it would cooperate with a local private company specifically to develop space mining.138
The Asian space race may see further competition from the Western part of the continent. In July 2014 the
United Arab Emirates launched its national space program, becoming the first Arab nation to achieve the
feat.139 While a long-term goal of the agency is to have communities on Mars by 2117, in the short term it is
also fielding advice from space lawyers over developing policy on matters such as space mining.140
132 Quintana, Elizabeth. “The Asian space race.” Observer Research Foundation. February 21, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.orfonline.org/expert-speaks/the-asian-space-race/.
133 Griffin, Andrew. “China to send people to live on asteroids and mine them, authorities announce.” The Independent. May 12, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/china-nasa-asteroid-space-agency-beijing-a7732306.html.
134 ‘Namrata. “China’s Unique Space Ambitions.” The Diplomat. August 03, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/chinas-unique-space-ambitions/.
135 Kate Greene, “Why India Is Investing in Space in a Big Way.” Slate Magazine. March 17, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/why_india_is_investing_in_space.html.
136 Vasudevan.Mukunth, “ISRO Is Not Going to Mine the Moon for Helium-3.” The Wire. April 25, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://thewire.in/126926/isro-helium3-fake-news/.
137 Forster, Katie. “Japan Is Launching An Asteroid Mining Space Program.” Business Insider. September 02, 2014. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-is-launching-an-asteroid-mining-space-program-2014-9?IR=T.
138 Messier, Doug. “JAXA Takes Step Toward Lunar Mining.” Parabolic Arc. December 17, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/12/17/jaxa-takes-step-lunar-mining/.
139 Greene, Kate. “Why the United Arab Emirates Is Building a Space Program From Scratch.” Slate Magazine. March 30, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/why_the_united_arab_emirates_is_building_a_space_program.html.
140 Ibid
28
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
European nations that have not yet enacted legislation explicitly promoting space mining (e.g. Russia, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.)
As the counterpart to the United States in the Cold War space race, Russia has a long history of space
activity. It was not in favor of the recent law passed by Luxembourg,141 which is comparable to the December
2015 CSLCA Act of the United States. The European Space Agency (ESA) is a union between 22 nations of
the continent,142 including Luxembourg (although, as noted above, Luxembourg has plans to establish its
own space agency).143 The ESA, along with the CNSA, also plan to jointly establish a “Moon Village” which
amongst other things could promote space mining by acting as a space base.144 In June 2017, the ESA and
Luxembourg affirmed their “cooperation on asteroid missions, related technology and space resources
exploration and utilization”.145
141 Mark Kaufman on August 1, 2017. “Luxembourg’s Asteroid Mining is Legal, Says Space Law Expert.” Inverse. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.inverse.com/article/34935-luxembourg-s-asteroid-mining-is-legal-says-space-law-expert.
142 “Welcome to ESA.” European Space Agency. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://m.esa.int/About_Us/Welcome_to_ESA.143 Jeff Foust, “Luxembourg adopts space resources law.” Space News. July 17, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacenews.com/
luxembourg-adopts-space-resources-law/.144 Andrew Griffin, “China and Europe to build a base on the moon and launch other projects into space.” The Independent. April 26, 2017.
Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/moon-base-outpost-china-europe-chinese-space-agency-collaboration-together-a7702936.html.
145 Space Resources, The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, “Luxembourg and the European Space Agency enhance cooperation on asteroid missions, related technology and space resources exploration and utilization,” 20 June, 2017, http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/content/dam/spaceresources/press-release/2017/2017_06_21%20Press%20Release%20ESA%20LeBourget.pdf
29
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Glossary
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs): Weapons that can cause large-scale destruction, sub-categories
include nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
New Space Race: Although it makes reference to the original Space Race in its name, the New Space Race
describes the competition for space achievement between private companies rather than countries.
Asteroid: A type of celestial body, which is also a principal site for mining. The different sub-categories (with
variations in color and composition) are described in greater detail in the Statement of the Problem.
CSLCA (US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act): This is a piece of US legislation, passed in
2015, that allows a citizen of the Unites States the right to own by-products of space mining.
30
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Bibliography
Lee, Ricky J Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (Springer International Publishing, 2012).
Harris, Philip R, “Space Law and Space Resources.” National Space Society. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.nss.
org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/spacelaw.html.
Ram S. Jakhu, Joseph N. Pelton and Yaw O. M. Nyampong Space Mining and its Regulation (Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing, 2017).
Costa, Dan. “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.
com/commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty
Steigerwald, William. “New NASA Mission to Help Us Learn How to Mine Asteroids.” NASA. March 02, 2015. Accessed
August 24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-mission-to-help-us-learn-how-to-mine-
asteroids.
“World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 | UN DESA Department of Economic and Social Affairs.”
United Nations. July 29, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/
population/2015-report.html.
“Gold Prices Today | Price of Gold Per Ounce | Gold Spot Price Chart.” APMEX. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://
www.apmex.com/spotprices/gold-price.
“Platinum Price | Platinum Price Chart History | Price of Platinum Today.” APMEX. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://
www.apmex.com/spotprices/platinum-price.
Dunbar, Brian. “In-Line Water Filtration: Better Hygeine, Less Expense.” NASA. September 29, 2009. Accessed August
24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/pure_water.html.
Edwards, Jim. “Goldman Sachs: space-mining for platinum is ‘more realistic than perceived’.” Business Insider. April 06,
2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-space-mining-asteroid-
platinum-2017-4?IR=T.
Mohon, Lee. “First Flight of Space Shuttle Endeavour Launches -- May 7, 1992.” NASA. May 10, 2017. Accessed August
24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/history/this-week-in-nasa-history-first-flight-of-space-
shuttle-endeavour-launches-may-7-1992.html.
Griffin, Andrew. “China and Europe to build a base on the moon and launch other projects into space.” The Independent.
April 26, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/moon-base-
outpost-china-europe-chinese-space-agency-collaboration-together-a7702936.html.
Tynan, Dan. “Galactic gold rush: the tech companies aiming to make space mining a reality.” The Guardian. December
06, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/06/space-mining-
moon-asteroids-tech-companies
Greicius, Tony. “Catalog of Known Near-Earth Asteroids Tops 15,000.” NASA. October 26, 2016. Accessed August 24,
2017. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/catalog-of-known-near-earth-asteroids-tops-15000.
United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space. Publication. 2002. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.unoosa.
org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf.
31
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.
unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
Armbrecht, Arwen. “Asteroid mining: is this the next space race?” World Economic Forum. February 5, 2016. Accessed
August 24, 2017. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/asteroid-mining-next-space-race/.
What If I Told You... Report. December 2, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-
thinking/pages/macroeconomic-insights-folder/what-if-i-told-you/report.pdf.
Issue Overview: Space Mining. Report. July 10, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://vanclasses.weebly.com/
uploads/3/7/7/1/37718445/solar_use.pdf.
Novak, Matt. “Asteroid mining’s peculiar past.” BBC. November 18, 2014. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.bbc.
com/future/story/20130129-asteroid-minings-peculiar-past.
“Kaluga Period.” Russian Space Web. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tsiolkovsky_
kaluga.html.
Wasser, Alan. “LBJ’s Space Race: what we didn’t know then (part 1).” The Space Review. June 20, 2005. Accessed
August 24, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/396/1.
Farrell, Paul B. “Asteroid mining 2022 a $1 trillion bet for Earth.” MarketWatch. January 08, 2013. Accessed August
24, 2017. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/asteroid-mining-2022-a-1-trillion-bet-for-earth-2013-01-08
“Our Vision is to Expand the Economy into Space.,” Planetary Resources, accessed September 10, 2017, http://www.
planetaryresources.com/#home-asteroids.
“Space Resources for an Unlimited Future,” Deep Space Industries, accessed September 10, 2017, http://
deepspaceindustries.com/.
Hays, Brooks. “NASA contracts two firms to work on asteroid mining,” UPI, November 24, 2014, accessed September
10, 2017, https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/11/24/NASA-contracts-two-firms-to-work-on-
asteroid-mining/5301416856690/.
General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration of the Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space,” 13 December, 1962, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/
spacelaw/principles/legal-principles.html
“Outer Space Treaty.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm.
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.
unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
Jha, Lalit K. “US lawmakers seek review of Outer Space Treaty amid competition from India, China.” Livemint. May
26, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.livemint.com/Science/6uxgbhcNcRfBtbWyq63wTO/US-
lawmakers-seek-review-of-Outer-Space-Treaty-amid-competit.html.
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on International Liability for damage Caused by Space
Objects,” 1971, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf
32
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.
unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
General Assembly, United Nations, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial
Bodies,” 1979, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_34_68E.pdf, Annex
Listner, Michael. “The Moon Treaty: failed international law or waiting in the shadows?” The Space Review. October
24, 2011. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1954/1.
General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer
Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing
Countries,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/space-benefits-
declaration.html
Congress, United States Government, “H.R. 2262 – US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act,” 2014-2015,
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262
de Selding, Peter B. “U.S. Commercial Space Act’s Treaty Compliance May Depend on Implementation.” Space News.
December 09, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacenews.com/u-s-commercial-space-acts-treaty-
compliance-may-depend-on-implementation/.
Foust, Jeff. “Luxembourg adopts space resources law.” Space News. July 17, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://
spacenews.com/luxembourg-adopts-space-resources-law/.
“Space resources in Luxembourg.” Space Resources // Luxembourg. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.
spaceresources.public.lu/en/space-resources-luxembourg.html.
“Antarctic Treaty.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/193967.
htm.
“The Antarctic Treaty.” Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm.
Grush, Loren. “How an international treaty signed 50 years ago became the backbone for space law.” The Verge.
January 27, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/27/14398492/outer-space-
treaty-50-anniversary-exploration-guidelines.
Bugge, Hans Chr. “UN Law of the Sea Convention: Main concepts and principles of environmental protection”, Faculty
of Law, University of Oslo, https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/JUS5520/h11/undervisningsmateriale/
jus5520Powerpoint%20UNCLOS.pdf
“Overview - Convention & Related Agreements.” United Nations. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.un.org/
depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm.
Garner, Rob. “OSIRIS-REx.” NASA. February 20, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/osiris-rex.
Northon, Karen. “NASA Selects Two Missions to Explore the Early Solar System.” NASA. January 04, 2017. Accessed
August 24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-two-missions-to-explore-the-early-
solar-system.
Congress, United States Government, “S.722 – Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activites Act of 2017,” 2017-2018,
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/722/text#toc-id5d0ad711357841bc8c6ed7fd
1b885090
33
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Marcia Smith. “Senate-Passed Sanctions Bill Includes Exception for NASA, Commercial Space Launches.” July 27,
2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-passed-sanctions-bill-includes-
exception-for-nasa-commercial-space-launches-2/.
“Space resources.” SpaceResources // Luxembourg. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/
en.html.
“ Press releases” SpaceResources // Luxembourg. Accessed August 24, 2017 http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/
en/press/press-release.html
Quintana, Elizabeth. “The Asian space race.” Observer Research Foundation. February 21, 2017. Accessed August 24,
2017. http://www.orfonline.org/expert-speaks/the-asian-space-race/.
Griffin, Andrew. “China to send people to live on asteroids and mine them, authorities announce.” The Independent.
May 12, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/china-nasa-
asteroid-space-agency-beijing-a7732306.html.
Goswami, Namrata. “China’s Unique Space Ambitions.” The Diplomat. August 03, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/chinas-unique-space-ambitions/.
Greene, Kate. “Why India Is Investing in Space in a Big Way.” Slate Magazine. March 17, 2017. Accessed August 24,
2017. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/why_india_is_investing_in_space.
html.
Mukunth, Vasudevan. “ISRO Is Not Going to Mine the Moon for Helium-3.” The Wire. April 25, 2017. Accessed August
24, 2017. https://thewire.in/126926/isro-helium3-fake-news/.
Forster, Katie. “Japan Is Launching An Asteroid Mining Space Program.” Business Insider. September 02, 2014.
Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-is-launching-an-asteroid-mining-space-
program-2014-9?IR=T.
Messier, Doug. “JAXA Takes Step Toward Lunar Mining.” Parabolic Arc. December 17, 2016. Accessed August 24,
2017. http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/12/17/jaxa-takes-step-lunar-mining/.
Greene, Kate. “Why the United Arab Emirates Is Building a Space Program From Scratch.” Slate Magazine. March
30, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/why_
the_united_arab_emirates_is_building_a_space_program.html.
Kaufman, Mark on August 1, 2017. “Luxembourg’s Asteroid Mining is Legal, Says Space Law Expert.” Inverse. Accessed
August 24, 2017. https://www.inverse.com/article/34935-luxembourg-s-asteroid-mining-is-legal-says-
space-law-expert.
“Welcome to ESA.” European Space Agency. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://m.esa.int/About_Us/Welcome_to_ESA.
Space Resources, The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, “Luxembourg and the European Space
Agency enhance cooperation on asteroid missions, related technology and space resources exploration
and utilization,” 20 June, 2017, http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/content/dam/spaceresources/press-
release/2017/2017_06_21%20Press%20Release%20ESA%20LeBourget.pdf
34
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
TOPIC B: MILITARIZATION OF SPACE
Statement of the Problem
Following human entrance in the past century, space has captured our imagination and allowed for
unprecedented possibilities. As our interest in space increases, and space infrastructure and technology
advance, the returns from our activities have greater magnitude. However, these initiatives have the
potential to be either helpful or harmful to humanity. Of particular concern is the increasing use of space
for military means – with space being used as a means to improve earth-based warfare and, potentially, as a
site of warfare itself. Although the Cold War may be over, increased military capability over the past decade
have stoked fears that we may be entering an era in which the waging of war can be coordinated via, and
possibly even fought within, space.
In addressing the militarization of space, it is imperative to note that space has technically been “militarized”
since we began exploring it.146 Although this may seem shocking, it is because space militarization is broadly
defined as the “use of space in support of ground, sea and air-based military operations.”147 This wide-
ranging definition has allowed for the characterization of a “militarized” space to be modeled as a spectrum,
with varying degrees of severity.148 Contained within the upper realms of this scale is the “weaponization”
of space, the “placement in orbit of space-based devices that have destructive capacity.”149 At the time of
writing, space has not been weaponized, despite being militarized.150 As a result, we currently exist on the
cusp between space militarization and weaponization.151 Though there is a distinction between the concepts
of space militarization and weaponization, some scholars consider the latter to be a part of the former,152 a
view this guide follows.
146 Wilson S. Wong and James Gordon Fergusson, Military space power: a guide to the issues (Santa Barbara (Calif.): Praeger, 2010), 4.147 P. N. Tripathi, “Weaponisation and Militarisation of Space,” Centre for Land Warfare Studies Journal, Winter 2013, 193, accessed September
1, 2017, http://www.claws.in/images/journals_doc/464050849_PNTripathi.pdf.148 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 30, accessed September 1, 2017.149 P. N. Tripathi, “Weaponisation and Militarisation of Space,” Centre for Land Warfare Studies Journal, Winter 2013, 193, accessed September
1, 2017, http://www.claws.in/images/journals_doc/464050849_PNTripathi.pdf.150 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 31, accessed September 1, 2017.151 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 30, accessed September 1, 2017.152 P. N. Tripathi, “Weaponisation and Militarisation of Space,” Centre for Land Warfare Studies Journal, Winter 2013, 194, accessed September
1, 2017, http://www.claws.in/images/journals_doc/464050849_PNTripathi.pdf.
35
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Why would nations militarize space?
Considering the high investment costs, a viable concern is why nations would choose to militarize space in
the first place. The obvious reason may be the desire for increased military prowess, which in realist terms,
is decisive to the continued existence of a nation.153 Realism, a concept in political science, stresses the
importance of a nation’s relative power, or its power in comparison to other nations. In terms of space, this
could be the aspiration for “space control” or the “ability to ensure one’s own access to satellite capabilities
while denying space-based services to adversaries,”154 which would grant an advantage to the nation
pursuing it. With this in mind, nations may feel compelled to out-do one another in order to stay on top and
ensure security. This concept of an “arms race” is a key concern as space becomes increasingly militarised.
Within the same context of international relations, there may be additional incentives, which can be related
to the above reasoning. The first of these is national prestige155 – or the “perception other countries have of
a nation’s worth or value.”156 To that end, countries would venture into and militarize space as a display of
military, economic and scientific strength to the international community. Although this was a dominating
factor during the Space Race (a feature of the Cold War, discussed in History), some analysts suggest that it
may play less of a role today.157 Another factor may be considered inherent in human nature, that is, man’s
desire to master new environments by militarizing them.158 Citing historical precedent, the argument goes
that because man originally fought on land, then on the oceans, and most recently in the skies – as technology
improved and access arose – the militarization of space will naturally follow.159
What kinds of military activities or weapons are involved?
Despite the ominous sentiment of the previous paragraph, space-based technology has been leveraged to
improve lives. This is to the extent that some of the key features of 21st century life, such as television, GPS and
weather forecasting, would not be possible without the exploitation of outer space.160 Governments can also
153 Anne-Marie Slaughter, “International Relations, Principal Theories,” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2011).
154 Space 2030: Tackling Society’s Challenges (OECD, 2005), 20.155 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 35, accessed September 1, 2017.156 Bruce Thornton, “Prestige As A Tool Of Foreign Policy,” Hoover Institution, June 12, 2017, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.
hoover.org/research/prestige-tool-foreign-policy.157 “Space: Still an important Matter of National Prestige?” European Business Review, March 15, 2017, accessed September 01, 2017, http://
www.europeanbusinessreview.eu/page.asp?pid=1820.158 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 39, accessed September 1, 2017.159 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 39, accessed September 1, 2017.160 Frank Slijper, From Venus to Mars: the European Union’s steps towards the militarisation of space (Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2008),
9.
36
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
use this technology in the name of national security – to bolster both offensive and defensive capabilities.161
Revisiting the concept of weaponization, it is interesting to note that in space, it is traditionally thought that
regardless of original purpose, any object can be utilized as a weapon.162 This is a result of the “dual-use”
principle, which allows for multi-purpose space objects, or objects that can change purpose during their
existence.163 An example of this could be a satellite, perhaps used to map Earth’s surface, also having latent
weaponry capability or being used to collide into another object.164 These two states are characterized as
“passive, non-destructive” and “active, destructive” respectively.165
Space militarization, despite its name, is not necessarily limited to space but can include Earth. The three
broad categories of weaponry under the umbrella of space militarization are: Space-to-Space, Earth-to-
Space and Space-to-Earth.166 Space-to-Space weaponry, such as the satellite described in the last paragraph,
use space-based weapons to attack another space-based object.167 Earth-to-Space weaponry, such as Anti-
Satellite technology (ASAT) or Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABM), involves earth-based systems targeting space-
based objects.168 Finally, Space-to-Earth weaponry would originate in space and move towards an earth-
based target.169
How are nations permitted to militarize space?
The name and long-term existence of our body, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space,
suggests that the militarization of space (much less the increasing militarization of space) should not be
occurring. This sentiment is reiterated in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which was written once the Space
Race had commenced and is considered the most important document in space law.170 The Treaty, which
describes space as “the province of all mankind”, stipulates that space bodies must be “used exclusively for
peaceful purposes” and prohibits the deposition of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in space.171 As
airtight as this may seem, this document grants nations significant leeway in pursuing their space ambitions. In
161 Ibid162 David Axe, “When it comes to war in space, U.S. has the edge,” Reuters, August 09, 2015, accessed September 01, 2017, http://blogs.
reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/09/the-u-s-military-is-preparing-for-the-real-star-wars/.163 Ibid164 Ibid165 Irmgard Marboe, Militarization of outer space: present and future challenges from the international legal perspective, PDF.166 Ibid167 Ibid168 Ibid169 Ibid170 Costa, Dan. “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/
commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty171 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use
of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
37
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
particular, the classification of space as a “peaceful” area is somewhat ambiguous.172 This is primarily because
nations can interpret “peaceful” as being the same as “non-aggressive”173 – allowing for rising militarization,
so long as there is no hostile action being enacted. As a result, a space arms race, with nations scrambling
to dominate one another through armaments, would not necessarily be against the letter of international
space law.
Another oft-cited loophole is the clause regarding WMDs. Similarly contentious, it only forbids WMDs,
rather than conventional weaponry.174 In the absence of other legislation outlawing conventional weaponry,
a grey area is created in which countries are permitted conventional weaponry since they have not been
told otherwise. Examples of conventional weaponry include objects like rockets, missiles and bombs – all of
which could constitute a threat. Furthermore, though these WMDs are not permitted to be in orbit or on a
celestial body, there is no legal check against their being transported through space.175
What are some of the impacts of an increasingly militarized space?
The implications of an increasingly militarized space are far-reaching. This sub-section will focus on some of
these effects and try to place them within the context of existing space law.
There are environmental consequences associated with increased
space militarization. Of particular concern is space debris – a
mixture of natural and man-made particles in space that travel
at an immense speed and can damage space infrastructure.176
Comprised of the non-functional objects launched into space,
space debris can be of varying sizes.177 As the number of satellites
(which may not necessarily be used for military purposes)
deployed into space increases, space debris looks set to increase.
Indeed, events like China’s 2007 ASAT test and the 2009 Russia-
US satellite collision (discussed in History) both contributed to the
172 Hans-Joachim Heintze, “Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and International Law,” Space4Peace, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.space4peace.org/ethics/puosil.htm.
173 Ibid174 “International Legal Agreements Relevant to Space Weapons.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed September 01, 2017. http://
www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/space-weapons/international-legal-agreements#.WanGS9MjExc.175 Ibid176 Mark Garcia, “Space Debris and Human Spacecraft,” NASA, April 13, 2015, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.nasa.gov/
mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html.177 Ibid
38
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
debris issue.178 In this scenario, the addition of further objects of militarization (which may not necessarily be
satellites) would be a further detriment to the space environment.
In analyzing militarization there are a number of countries (and their respective space programs) that
dominate the space arena. These countries, including the United States and China, typically have either
strong or rising economies and may view space, amongst other things, as a means of further bolstering their
armed forces. A common justification is that the use of space-based technology allows for military strikes
to be better focused. By being able to pinpoint specific targets through mapping, the hope is that civilian
deaths could be avoided. An implication of this technology is that it could go against space law. Considering
the stipulation that space be used for “peaceful purposes”, it may be problematic that space is enabling these
strikes.
Another concern is the feasibility of deterrence that space militarization may offer. Rather than serving to
prevent conflict, or even reduce deaths (e.g. through targeting), some scholars suggest space weaponization
specifically could increase global and regional conflict.179 This is because only a few countries have
the capacity to utilize it, which could be seen as wildly threatening to the nations that have less space
technology and infrastructure.180 This capacity difference should also be considered in the context of The
Benefits Declaration (See Past Actions for further detail). With the technology required to venture into and
militarize space increasingly being held by a selection of countries, many developing nations fear they are
being sidelined.181 Specifically, the sentiment is that the technological difference between developed and
developing nations is further exacerbated through space militarization, making these developed nations
more reliant upon nations with space capability.182
The rising commercialization of space, embodied in tourism or asteroid mining aspirations (see Topic A) should
also be taken into account in considering the militarization of outer space. One on hand, it could make nations
with greater stakes in the commercialization of space less likely to escalate their militarization of space. This
could be because of their fear that other nations may reciprocate, which could threaten commercial ventures,
a source of revenue to nations that host these companies. On the other hand, the commercialization of space
may be correlated with the militarization of space.183 This may be because existing space law does not allow
178 Ibid179 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 44, accessed September 1, 2017.180 Ibid181 Outer Space in Society, Politics and Law, vol. 8, Studies in Space Policy (Springer, 2011), 729.182 Ibid183 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 32, accessed September 1, 2017.
39
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
nations to claim sovereignty over bodies in space (although countries are responsible for objects, such as
satellites, that they place into space, regardless of whether they originate from governmental or private
ventures) and so nations may feel the need to “protect” commodities of value to them, which they otherwise
cannot exercise control over.
40
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
History of the Problem
Militarization of Space: The Cold War era
Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, was launched by the Soviet Union in 1957. Its ascendance into space was
the beginning of the Space Race and in turn, the start of the “militarization” of outer space.184 The Space
Race was the competition between the Cold
War rivals to outperform one another in space
feats – it was an aspect of the broader Cold
War, thedecades-long conflict between the
United States and the Soviet Union during the
twentieth century that never escalated into
a direct war between the two superpowers.
Sputnik acted as a turning point, particularly for
the United States, to boost its space investment
and technology. The creation of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
by the US government occurred in the next
year.185
The priority for the United States government was to use space to conduct reconnaissance missions to gain
greater information about the Soviet Union.186 Satellites placed in orbit would conduct these information-
gathering exercises. This did not entail weaponization plans, as President Eisenhower was an early supporter
of the peaceful use of space.187 Nevertheless, both nations continued to develop their respective arsenals,
and in the domain of space this was directed towards anti-satellite technology.188 Within this charged
international atmosphere, the United Nations established the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space in 1958, first on an ad-hoc basis and later as a permanent fixture.189
184 Wilson S. Wong and James Gordon Fergusson, Military space power: a guide to the issues (Santa Barbara (Calif.): Praeger, 2010), 4.185 Matthew Mowthorpe, Militarization and Weaponization of Space, 14.186 Ibid187 Ibid188 Pericles Gasparini Alves, Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space: A Guide to the Discussions in the Conference on Disarmament (Geneva:
United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research ), 1:1.189 Ibid, 1:2
41
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
The 1960s saw the struggle for space one-upmanship continue, and at the end of the decade, NASA launched
a manned mission to the Moon. Concurrently, both nations continued to develop their offensive capabilities
in space, with technology including ballistic missiles and satellite interceptors.190 Both superpowers, along
with the international community, began to realize the need for legal restrictions to weaponizing space.191
These concerns paved the way for the drafting and signing of the Test Ban Treaty.192 In turn, this treaty aided
in the formation and eventual signing of the Outer Space Treaty (OST) in 1967 – with one of its key provisions
banning the use of WMDs in space.193 Following this, and with an apparent thaw in relations between the
superpowers, further legislation was drafted to limit space militarization. Bilateral effort saw the signing
of both the SALT I (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks I) and ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) agreements in the
early 1970s —although these were focused solely on preventing the weaponization and not the broader
militarization of space.194 It was only in 1982, a decade later, that the topic of PAROS (Prevention of an Arms
Race in Outer Space) first entered the international fray.195
In 1983, President Ronald Reagan of the United States announced the creation of a Strategic Defense
Initiative (SDI), known colloquially as “Star Wars”.196 Its goal was to defend the US from attack by Soviet
ICBMs (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) by preventing the missiles from completing their flight.197 When
made public, the long-term project alarmed the Soviets, but ultimately never came to fruition.198 The end of
the Cold War came in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, although the final ASAT of the period was
deployed in 1985.199
Militarization of Space: The Post-Cold War period
Following 1991, the world shifted towards unipolarity as the United States was the sole superpower after the
collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite this dominance, the US took a number of steps in the following years to
further militarize space. In the same year, the US fought what has been described as the first “space war”.200
190 Ibid191 Ibid, 1:3192 Ibid193 Ibid194 Ibid, 1:4195 Ibid196 “Cold War: A Brief History,” Reagans Star Wars | Cold War: A Brief History | History of the Atomic Age, accessed September 01, 2017,
http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page20.shtml.197 Ibid198 Ibid 199 “Arms Control Today,” Weapons in Space? | Arms Control Association, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.armscontrol.org/
act/2004_11/Krepon.200 Larry Greenemeier, “GPS and the World’s First “Space War”,” Scientific American, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.
scientificamerican.com/article/gps-and-the-world-s-first-space-war/.
42
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Despite not having a “full constellation” of Global Positing System (GPS), the United States used the system
in their intervention in the Gulf War.201 In 1997, the US Space Command released their “Vision 2020”.202 This
had two central aims – “dominating the space medium” and “integrating space power throughout military
operations”.203 In 2001, President George W. Bush announced American intention to withdraw from the
1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, citing national defense concerns.204 This came a year after a Congressional
committee claimed the US was “an attractive candidate for a space Pearl Harbor.”205
On the global stage, more nations were beginning to enter the space arena and develop infrastructure
therein. Two notable events in the past decade served to remind the international community of the
dangers of unchecked space militarization. The first was a Chinese Anti-Satellite Weapon (ASAT) attack
that was targeted at an older Chinese weather satellite. The exercise, to test out missile technology, was
successful but created a cloud of debris.206 This cloud began to form over the area around the attack but over
time dispersed across Earth’s orbit.207 The majority of this debris will remain within Earth’s orbit a century
after the attack.208 The second event was a collision between US and Russian communication satellites.209
Although unintentional, the incident created debris and served as a reminder of how “crowded” outer space
was becoming.210
201 Ibid202 Jonathan Granoff and Craig Eisendrath, “United States—Masters of Space? The US Space Command’s “Vision for 2020” ,” December
2005, accessed September 1, 2017, https://gsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/s3/assets/docs/Vision2020_Analysis.pdf.203 Ibid204 Terence Neilan, “Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty; Putin Calls Move a Mistake,” The New York Times, December 13, 2001, accessed
September 01, 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html.
205 James Dao, “Rumsfeld Seeking An Arms Strategy Using Outer Space,” The New York Times, May 07, 2001, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/world/rumsfeld-seeking-an-arms-strategy-using-outer-space.html?mcubz=0.
206 Brian Weeden, 2007 Chinese Anti-Satellite Test Fact Sheet, Secure World Foundation, November 23, 2010.207 Ibid208 Ibid209 William J. Broad, “Debris Spews Into Space After Satellites Collide,” The New York Times, February 11, 2009, accessed September 01,
2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/science/space/12satellite.html?mcubz=0.210 Ibid
43
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Past Actions
The Legal Principles Declaration
Following the launch of Sputnik in 1959 and successful space orbit of Yuri Gagarin two years later, it became
clear that space was a fast opening avenue for human expansion. The passage of the Legal Principles
Declaration by the UN General Assembly in 1963 reflects the international consensus that guiding principles
needed to be established within this wider arena. The nine clauses use terminology and concepts that would
feature prominently in future international space law treaties.211 Some of the concepts embraced by the
clauses include the “use” of space “for the benefit and in the interests of all mankind”, the “free exploration”
of space, the non-sovereignty and enforcement of international law in space and the responsibility and
liability of nations in space, amongst others.212 This set of Principles formed the basis for the Outer Space
Treaty, which came into being four years later and has greater legal grounding than the Principles.
Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (Test Ban Treaty)
The Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1963, following the brinkmanship of the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis. The five
Articles of the Treaty do not address all WMDs, but are specific to nuclear weapons.213 The key provision,
Article I, forbids nations from nuclear weapon activities where “such an explosion causes radioactive debris
to be present outside of the territorial limits” of the nation carrying out the activities, or “in the atmosphere;
beyond its limits, including outer space; or under water, including territorial waters or high seas.”214 The
United States and Soviet Union, adversaries during the Cold War, were both supportive of this legislation.
The Outer Space Treaty
The first multilateral space treaty was the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), which remains the most
instrumental document pertaining to space activities and relations.215 Signed during the space race, the
Treaty was formed from the collective efforts of the United States and the Soviet Union, each of whom
211 General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration of the Legal Principles Governing the Activites of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space,” 13 December, 1962, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/legal-principles.html
212 Ibid213 “Limited Test Ban Treaty,” U.S. Department of State, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.state.gov/t/isn/4797.htm.214 Ibid215 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/
commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty
44
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
submitted ideas and suggested varying scales of jurisdiction.216 The mutual desire for peace in space helped
forge the second international “nonarmament” treaty217 and allowed for the creation of a “framework on
international space law”218. In terms of jurisdiction, the Treaty includes “the Moon and other celestial bodies”.
With seventeen Articles in total, the key provisions of the OST can be divided into roughly four categories:
universality, peaceful relations, national responsibility and environmental sustainability. In terms of
universality, Article I declares space to be the “province of all mankind”, an area free for “use and exploration
by all States” and in “the benefit and interests of all countries”.219 This would allow for any nation to conduct
space activities, so long as those activities do not harm all other countries. Article II further notes that
“national sovereignty” cannot apply in space – no matter if an area is occupied or used by a nation.220 As a
result, countries cannot own or enforce their national ruling on any area in outer space.
Peaceful relations are stressed in Articles IV and V, with the former banning nuclear or other “weapons of
mass destruction” (WMDs) in space, and the latter committing states to aiding fellow astronauts, regardless
of nationality, should they be in danger.221 Interestingly, exceptions to Article IV include “the use of military
personnel” or “any equipment or facility necessary” as long as they are used for “scientific research” or other
“peaceful purposes”.222 This offers leeway for nations that wish to have non-aggressive military presence
and activities. Article IX also notes that space activities must be based on “the principle of co-operation and
mutual assistance.”223
National responsibility is embodied particularly in Articles VI to VIII. Article VI places “responsibility” on
member states for any activities they carry out in space, whether pursued by “governmental agencies or
non-governmental entities”.224 This means that nations can also be held at fault for the activities of private
actors originating from their country. It further states that these entities must be “authorized” and face
“continuing supervision” by their home governments. 225 Article VII dictates that nations are “internationally
liable” should the efforts of their space programs cause “damage” whether in Earth or space, and Article VIII
216 “Outer Space Treaty.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm.217 Ibid.218 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use
of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
219 Ibid220 Ibid221 Ibid222 Ibid223 Ibid224 Ibid225 Ibid
45
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
affirms that national property rights over “objects launched into outer space” are maintained regardless of
location.226
Finally, the notion of environmental sustainability, both in space and on Earth, as a result of activities in space,
is emphasized in Article IX. The Article aspires to avert the “harmful contamination” of space or “adverse
changes in the environment of the Earth” as a result a foreign substance or organism being introduced. In
terms of space militarization, this includes activities (such as China’s 2007 ASAT test) that increase space
debris. The Article also grants countries that suspect another nation of planning or executing any space
activity that is unsustainable as described above, the ability to seek further information and “consultation”
on the specific initiative.227
This year, 2017, the Outer Space Treaty commemorates fifty years of space regulation. While it has fielded
recent criticism, the OST has remained unchanged in its nature since its creation.228 To a degree, some of this
criticism comes from the fact that the OST has not been amended, the rationale being that it was written
when space possibilities were not as great.229 Other criticism levied at the OST includes its lack of scientific
standards and terminology and its failure to ban, or even mention, conventional weaponry.230
Rescue Agreement
The full name of the Agreement, signed in 1968, refers to the “rescue of astronauts, the return of astronauts
and the return of objects launched into Outer space”.231 Article III outlines procedure should people be in a
“place not under the jurisdiction of any State” – to the extent that they can, all states are expected to aid in
these scenarios. Article V explains that “launching nations” can expect to have objects they place into space
returned should they be found in a place beyond their “territorial limit” – but they would have to bear the
costs of any rescue and return operation.232
226 Ibid227 Ibid228 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/
commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty229 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/
commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty230 Lalit K Jha, “US lawmakers seek review of Outer Space Treaty amid competition from India, China.” Livemint. May 26, 2017. Accessed
August 24, 2017. http://www.livemint.com/Science/6uxgbhcNcRfBtbWyq63wTO/US-lawmakers-seek-review-of-Outer-Space-Treaty-amid-competit.html.
231 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects launched into Outer Space,” 1967, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_22_2345E.pdf
232 Ibid
46
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
The Liability Convention
Signed in 1971 and enforced the following year, the Liability Convention can be viewed as one of the first
attempts to clarify existing space law.233 Its specific aim was to expand upon Article VII of the OST,234 which
stated that nations were “internationally liable” should their space programs or objects result in “damage” to
another party.235 Pertinently, it clarifies the wide-ranging definitions of “damage” (“loss of life, personal injury
or other impairment of health; or loss of or damage to property of States or of persons, natural or juridical,
or property of international intergovernmental organizations”) and “space object” (it “includes component
parts of a space object as well as its launch vehicle and parts thereof”) with respect to international space
law.236 While Article II describes nations as being “absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused
by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight”, Article III describes damage that may
occur to objects or people in outer space by another nations’ space object, and puts the burden of liability
on the offending nation only if they, or one of their citizens, caused the event.237 The notion of claiming
damage is also addressed Article VII, which states that the terms of the Convention itself cannot be applied
to “nationals” or “foreign nationals” of “launching States”.238 In effect, an individual or group cannot hold
another nation accountable, or vice versa.
Registration Convention
The 12 Article Convention was signed in 1975.239 It called for governments to maintain records of the objects
it sent into space (Article II), and for the Secretary General of the United Nations to receive this information
and make the records open (Article III, IV) so that nations can identify objects, should there arise a need to
do so (Article VI).240
233 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on International Liability for damage Caused by Space Objects,” 1971, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf
234 Ibid235 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use
of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
236 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on International Liability for damage Caused by Space Objects,” 1971, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf
237 Ibid238 Ibid239 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on Registration of Objects launched into Outer Space,” 1974 ,http://www.
unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_29_3235E.pdf240 Ibid
47
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
The Moon Agreement
The Moon Agreement was drafted by COPUOS during the 1970s, passed the UN General Assembly in 1979,
and came into force five years later.241 This process occurred following the US moon landing in 1969. The
treaty, composed of 21 articles, was drafted to provide greater clarity on the Moon (note that the principles
of the OST do, and have always, applied to the Moon) but, as per its full name, is also relevant to other
“celestial bodies”.242 In this light, there are striking similarities to the OST, with mention of “international
law” to be upheld (Article II), “peaceful use” of the Moon (Article III), “exploration and use” of the Moon to
be “for the benefit and in the interests of all countries” and “guided by the principle of co-operation and
241 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1979, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html
242 Ibid
48
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
mutual assistance” (Article IV), “freedom of scientific investigation” (Article VI), environmental sustainability
(Article VII), national responsibility (Article XIV, XV) and non-sovereignty (Article XI).243
A significant set-back to the Moon Agreement has been its lack of consensus amongst nations. Its five-year
delay in being enforced stemmed from a lack of ratifying nations. 244 This does not appear to have improved
as some of the most advanced space nations, including the US, Russia and China, have yet to sign or ratify the
Treaty, limiting its enforcement scope.245 France and India, both signatories to the Treaty, are not party to it
either.246 This is a major indication that the Moon Agreement, the contents of which is largely similar to the
OST, is viewed unfavorably by many nations, as its stipulations are not in line with national space agendas.
Remote Sensing Principles
The 1968 Principles emphasizes many of the key tenets of the OST. Principle II demands that these activities
are “carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries”, Principle III specifies that they must be
“conducted in accordance with international law” and Principle IV explicitly refers to Article 1 of the OST.247
Other principles call for greater cooperation, data sharing and assistance between states.248 Nations are also
asked to use their technology to “promote the protection of the Earth’s natural environment” and “mankind
from natural disasters”.249 Nations that are “sensed” also have the ability to gain access to information
regarding their assessed territory (Principle XII).250
The Benefits Declaration
In keeping with the sentiment that space “use” and “exploration” is “for the benefit and in the interests of all
countries”, the 1996 Declaration aimed to spell out and strengthen international space cooperation.251 It is
important to note that the full form of the title of the Declaration includes the phrase “taking into particular
243 General Assembly, United Nations, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1979, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_34_68E.pdf, Annex
244 Michael Listner. “The Moon Treaty: failed international law or waiting in the shadows?” The Space Review. October 24, 2011. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1954/1.
245 Ibid246 Ibid247 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space,” 1974 http://www.
unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/remote-sensing-principles.html248 Ibid249 Ibid250 Ibid251 General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit
and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/space-benefits-declaration.html
49
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
account the needs of developing countries”.252 The clauses discuss adherence to international law, possible
forms of space collaboration such “governmental and non-governmental; commercial and non-commercial;
global, multilateral, regional or bilateral”, and suggests means by which developed and developing nations
can cooperate in space “technology”, “capability” and “expertise”. 253 Its hope all nations, regardless of
development level or space activity, may be able to benefit from space.
252 Ibid253 Ibid
50
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Possible Solutions
As the militarization of space began when we first entered space, efforts should be directed towards limiting
its escalation and ameliorating its secondary impacts. There are many ways to approach this vast, long-
standing issue and below is a sampling of approaches; draft resolutions do not have to use all or any of the
following suggestions, creativity is always welcome. It is important to note that an outright ban on satellites
and related objects, conceived with the intention of reducing militarization, would negatively impact the
non-military uses of satellites (such as communication and weather forecasting).
The first option is to revisit existing agreements by either amending or adding to them. This could entail
looking at legislation, such as the Outer Space Treaty, to address loopholes and grey areas. This could mean
more specificity regarding the “peaceful” uses of outer space and consideration of the role of conventional
weaponry (as opposed to just WMDs). It could also address weaponry that is not stationed in space, but
merely transits through: is the use of space as a medium for transporting weaponry within the constraints of
a “peaceful” space? There is also space to improve, and in some cases craft, definitions of terms. For example,
“outer space” is a term that has not been defined, a point previously raised at COPUOS sessions. Clearer
definitions would ensure all Member nations are on the same page.
Thinking long-term, there is also discussion about a new framework for governing space relations. There
appears to be division between nations over whether this should be a stringent, legally binding agreement or
an optional, non-binding Code of Conduct. Consider the advantages and disadvantages of each of these and
why some nations would prefer one to the other. Would a set of principles, which countries do not have to
comply with and may not be sanctioned for trespassing, be sufficient? Is another treaty required, and could
it possibly threaten otherwise peaceful uses of space? This last question touches on the further contentious
issue of whether there should be a distinction made between military and civilian space instruments –
requiring a distinction could pave the way for quotas to be implemented and may require more disclosure
than some governments would be comfortable with.
Quotas, or some other measure of limiting space objects could be implemented as we await scientific
advances to cope with space debris. This solution is unlikely to be popular, particularly amongst the most
advanced space nations that may feel they are being unnecessarily reigned in. This hypothetical solution
would also raise questions about how quotas about space objects would be allocated. Passed over a decade
ago, the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines urge greater caution before, during and following space missions
51
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
52
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
to limit debris but is not legally binding, and so nations cannot be held to it. 254 Again however, it may be
difficult to gain support for a legally binding treaty directly addressing space debris, as countries would be
limited in the number of space launches they could undertake.
In this light, greater cooperation and transparency between nations regarding their space activities should
also be a priority. The International Space Station (ISS) and UN-SPIDER reflect how productive international
collaboration within the space arena can be between nations of similar and differing development.
Considering the question of militarization this cooperation could emerge in a number of ways, such as
greater technology sharing (e.g. best practices for debris limiting infrastructure) and increased data sharing
(particularly between countries in the same region). Advanced space nations should take steps to exhibit
their commitment to the “peaceful” uses of space and for each nation this could mean different things.
Another avenue to consider is a sanctioning system or body. Currently, there is no authority, or tribunal to
manage disputes from space that may emerge from commercial or military activities. Though we aim to limit
militarization as far as possible, contingency steps, such as the creation of an independent body to manage
disputes that may arise may be important. The creation of such a body could act as a deterrent to nations
that may increasingly militarize space that the international community is not accepting of such actions.
Who will comprise the panel, the types of penalties it can dispense, and what activities it would constitute,
as “too far” should all be discussed.
Combining the commercialization of space with the question of its militarization may also prove to be fruitful.
On one hand, it may seem like countries would not prefer an increasingly militarized space as it would
threaten commercial interests. On the other hand, nations may feel compelled to militarize space to protect
those same interests (remember sovereignty cannot be exercised over celestial bodies). As the international
community is increasingly forced to respond to the ambiguity and challenges that the commercialization of
space poses (see Topic A), it would be wise to steer discussion to the former scenario. How can nations, and
private players, be incentivized or forced to not militarize as they increasingly look to commercialize?
254 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space,” 2010, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/st_space_49E.pdf
53
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Bloc Positions
USA/Israel
As one of the earliest space-faring nations, the United States continues to prioritize space activities. Earlier
this year, President Donald Trump emphasized the “tremendous military application in space” to members
of the International Space Station in a televised address.255 This seems consistent with the current bipartisan
effort to create a “Space Corps”.256 Notably, the United States would not supportive of Russian drafted
measures for greater transparency and other legislation produced by the Sino-Russian grouping.257 However,
the US did express support for the European Union produced Code of Conduct.258 With its extent of space
involvement, the stance that the United States adopts is crucial to the question of militarization in space.
Russia/China
Along with the United States, Russia was a contender in the Space Race of the last century. China is a rising
space power and both nations have demonstrated the capability to deploy anti-satellite technology. The duo
has been very active in responding to the militarization of space, producing draft transparency measures
that were viewed upon favorably by most of the international community and, in 2008, a draft PPWT
(Prevention and Placement on Weapons in Outer Space) treaty.259 In 2014 both nations re-submitted this
draft PPWT treaty. The United States appeared to be the chief opponent to these proposals, as it felt the
legislation could have done more, particularly in regulating the development of ASATs.260 Both nations have
affirmed their support of a PAROS treaty.261
255 Eoin O’Carroll and Jason Thomson, “Military space race? Why some say now’s the time for an upgraded treaty.,” The Christian Science Monitor, August 29, 2017, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2017/0829/Military-space-race-Why-some-say-now-s-the-time-for-an-upgraded-treaty.
256 Emily Cochrane, “Forces Align Against a New Military Branch to ‘Win Wars’ in Space,” The New York Times, July 26, 2017, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/congress-budget-space-corps-pentagon-opposition.html?mcubz=3.
257 “Proposed Prevention of an Arms Race in Space (PAROS) Treaty,” Nuclear Threat Initiative - Ten Years of Building a Safer World, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-race-space-paros-treaty/.
258 Ibid259 Ibid260 “U.S. Dismisses Space Weapons Treaty Proposal As.” SpaceNews.com. September 11, 2014. Accessed September 30, 2017. http://
spacenews.com/41842us-dismisses-space-weapons-treaty-proposal-as-fundamentally-flawed/.261 “Proposed Prevention of an Arms Race in Space (PAROS) Treaty,” Nuclear Threat Initiative - Ten Years of Building a Safer World, accessed
September 01, 2017, http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-race-space-paros-treaty/.
54
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
European Space Agency
Significantly, the 22-member Agency proposed an International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities
in response to rising militarization in space. This followed an unsuccessful attempt to commit nations to
its Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, with the majority of the BRIC nations
withholding support.262 The Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities has been amended, but has yet to
receive support from space powers like Russia, China and India.263
Nations with limited or no space program
For nations with developing, limited or no space program, space militarization is nevertheless a concern.
These nations are likely to promote the “peaceful” uses of space in order to ensure their own security (keep in
mind that space technology can be used for offensive and defensive purposes on Earth). This concern would
be supported by the legal notion that space must be used for the benefit of all nations, particularly those of
lesser development. These nations would also be in favor of greater transparency and technology sharing
mechanisms. Bear in mind that these nations have all previously supported measures for the Prevention of
An Arms Race in Space, and would likely continue to do so.
262 “A Code of Conduct for Outer Space,” Council on Foreign Relations, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.cfr.org/report/code-conduct-outer-space.
263 Michael J. Listner, “The International Code of Conduct: Comments on changes in the latest draft and post-mortem thoughts,” The Space Review, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2851/1.
55
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Glossary
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Weapons that can cause large-scale destruction, sub-categories include
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
Space Debris: Man-made objects in space that have outlived their original purpose, but continue remain in
space. These can be of varying sizes and can accumulate over time as more, and newer objects are sent into
space.
Deterrence: Actions that aim to prevent a certain course of action from occurring. With space militarization,
this could mean enforcing harsh penalties on any country that weaponizes space, to discourage nations from
actually weaponizing space.
Arms Race: A contest between one or more nations to have a military advantage through more and better
weaponry. In space this could mean the race between nations for a greater space arsenal.
Dual-Use: Having more than one use. Within the space context, it can refer to satellites having the ability to
be used for both peaceful and non-peaceful purposes.
ASAT: Anti-Satellite technology can be both earth and space-based, and targets satellites.
PAROS (Prevention of An Arms Race in Space): The desire for a peaceful space without a military build-up,
in accordance with the OST.
PPWT (Treaty on the Prevention of Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of
Force Against Outer Space Objects): Draft treaties submitted by China and Russia, in 2008 and 2014, as a
means of preventing the escalation of space militarization.
TCBMs (Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures): Steps to enhance dialogue and trust between
nations as a means of safeguarding outer space.
Satellite: An object, either natural or man-made, that orbits (revolves around) another space-based body.
56
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Space Race: The contest for space-based achievements between the USA and the USSR during the Cold
War, a period of deteriorated relations between the two superpowers during the 20th century.
57
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Bibliography
“A Code of Conduct for Outer Space,” Council on Foreign Relations, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.cfr.
org/report/code-conduct-outer-space.
Alves, Pericles Gasparini Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space: A Guide to the Discussions in the Conference on Disarmament (Geneva: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research)
“Arms Control Today,” Weapons in Space? | Arms Control Association, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.
armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon.
Axe, David “When it comes to war in space, U.S. has the edge,” Reuters, August 09, 2015, accessed September 01, 2017,
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/09/the-u-s-military-is-preparing-for-the-real-star-wars/.
Broad, William J. “Debris Spews Into Space After Satellites Collide,” The New York Times, February 11, 2009, accessed
September 01, 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/science/space/12satellite.html?mcubz=0.
Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 31, accessed September 1,
2017.
Bruce M. “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 30, accessed September 1, 2017.
Cochrane, Emily “Forces Align Against a New Military Branch to ‘Win Wars’ in Space,” The New York Times, July 26,
2017, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/congress-budget-
space-corps-pentagon-opposition.html?mcubz=3.
“Cold War: A Brief History,” Reagans Star Wars | Cold War: A Brief History | History of the Atomic Age, accessed
September 01, 2017, http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page20.shtml.
Costa, Dan. “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.
com/commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty
Deblois, Dao, James “Rumsfeld Seeking An Arms Strategy Using Outer Space,” The New York Times, May 07, 2001,
accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/world/rumsfeld-seeking-an-arms-
strategy-using-outer-space.html?mcubz=0.
Garcia, Mark “Space Debris and Human Spacecraft,” NASA, April 13, 2015, accessed September 01, 2017, https://
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html.
General Assembly, United Nations, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial
Bodies,” 1979, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_34_68E.pdf, Annex
General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer
Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing
Countries,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/space-benefits-
declaration.html
General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration of the Legal Principles Governing the Activites of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space,” 13 December, 1962, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/
spacelaw/principles/legal-principles.html
58
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
Granoff, Jonathan and Eisendrath, Craig “United States—Masters of Space? The US Space Command’s “Vision for
2020” ,” December 2005, accessed September 1, 2017, https://gsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/s3/
assets/docs/Vision2020_Analysis.pdf.
Greenemeier, Larry “GPS and the World’s First “Space War”,” Scientific American, accessed September 01, 2017,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gps-and-the-world-s-first-space-war/.
Heintze ,Hans-Joachim, “Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and International Law,” Space4Peace, accessed September 01,
2017, http://www.space4peace.org/ethics/puosil.htm.
“International Legal Agreements Relevant to Space Weapons.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed September
01, 2017. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/space-weapons/international-legal-agreements#.
WanGS9MjExc.
Jha, Lalit K “US lawmakers seek review of Outer Space Treaty amid competition from India, China.” Livemint. May
26, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.livemint.com/Science/6uxgbhcNcRfBtbWyq63wTO/US-
lawmakers-seek-review-of-Outer-Space-Treaty-amid-competit.html.
“Limited Test Ban Treaty,” U.S. Department of State, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.state.gov/t/isn/4797.
htm.
Listner, Michael J. “The International Code of Conduct: Comments on changes in the latest draft and post-mortem
thoughts,” The Space Review, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2851/1.
Listner, Michael “The Moon Treaty: failed international law or waiting in the shadows?” The Space Review. October 24,
2011. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1954/1.
Marboe,Irmgard, Militarization of outer space: present and future challenges from the international legal perspective, pdf.
Mowthorpe, Matthew Militarization and Weaponization of Space, 14.
Neilan, Terence “Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty; Putin Calls Move a Mistake,” The New York Times, December 13,
2001, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-
abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html.
O’Carroll, Eoin and Thomson, Jason “Military space race? Why some say now’s the time for an upgraded treaty.,” The
Christian Science Monitor, August 29, 2017, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.csmonitor.com/
USA/Military/2017/0829/Military-space-race-Why-some-say-now-s-the-time-for-an-upgraded-treaty.
Outer Space in Society, Politics and Law, vol. 8, Studies in Space Policy (Springer, 2011).
“Outer Space Treaty.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm.
“Proposed Prevention of an Arms Race in Space (PAROS) Treaty,” Nuclear Threat Initiative - Ten Years of Building
a Safer World, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-
prevention-arms-race-space-paros-treaty/.
Slaughter, Anne-Marie “International Relations, Principal Theories,” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2011).
Slijper, Frank From Venus to Mars: the European Union’s steps towards the militarisation of space (Amsterdam: Transnational
Institute, 2008).
Space 2030: Tackling Society’s Challenges (OECD, 2005).
59
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30
“Space: Still an important Matter of National Prestige?” European Business Review, March 15, 2017, accessed
September 01, 2017, http://www.europeanbusinessreview.eu/page.asp?pid=1820.
Thornton, Bruce “Prestige As A Tool Of Foreign Policy,” Hoover Institution, June 12, 2017, accessed September 01,
2017, http://www.hoover.org/research/prestige-tool-foreign-policy.
Tripathi, P. N., “Weaponisation and Militarisation of Space,” Centre for Land Warfare Studies Journal, Winter 2013, 193,
accessed September 1, 2017, http://www.claws.in/images/journals_doc/464050849_PNTripathi.pdf.
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other
Celestial Bodies,” 1979, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.
html
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and
the Return of Objects launched into Outer Space,” 1967, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_22_2345E.
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on International Liability for damage Caused by Space
Objects,” 1971, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on Registration of Objects launched into Outer Space,”
1974, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_29_3235E.pdf
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space,”
1974, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/remote-sensing-principles.html
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of Outer Space,” 2010, “U.S. Dismisses Space Weapons Treaty Proposal As.” SpaceNews.com. September
11, 2014. Accessed September 30, 2017. http://spacenews.com/41842us-dismisses-space-weapons-treaty-
proposal-as-fundamentally-flawed/.
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.
unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
Weeden, Brian 2007 Chinese Anti-Satellite Test Fact Sheet, Secure World Foundation, November 23, 2010.
Wong, Wilson S. and Fergusson, James Gordon, Military space power: a guide to the issues (Santa Barbara (Calif.):
Praeger, 2010).