Space Security Index

on questions and issues put before them by the GA and Member States. ere are currently
69 Member States of COPUOS, which works by consensus. As well, a few intergovernmental
and nongovernmental organizations have permanent observer status in COPUOS and its
subcommittees. Debate on revisiting the mandate of COPUOS to include all issues aecting
the peaceful uses of outer space — namely those pertaining to militarization — has not
reached consensus. e U.S., in particular, has maintained that COPUOS should exclusively
address issues related to peaceful uses of outer space. 85
e CD is the primary multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. First established in 1962
as the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee, it went through several name changes as
its membership grew, receiving its present name in 1979. e CD, with 65 current Member
States plus observers, works by consensus under the chair of a rotating Presidency. e
CD has repeatedly attempted to address the issue of the weaponization of space, driven by
perceived gaps in the OST, such as its lack of verication or enforcement provisions and its
failure to expressly prohibit conventional weapons in outer space or ground-based ASATs.
In 1982, the Mongolian People’s Republic put forward a proposal to create a committee to
negotiate a treaty to address these shortcomings. 86 After three years of deliberation, the CD
Committee on PAROS was created and given a mandate “to examine, as a rst step… the
prevention of an arms race in outer space.” 87 From 1985 to 1994, the PAROS committee
met, despite wide disparity among the views of key states, and in that time made several
recommendations for space-related condence-building measures. 88
Eorts to extend the PAROS committee mandate faltered in 1995 over an agenda dispute
that linked PAROS with other items discussed at the CD — in particular, a Fissile Material
Cut-o Treaty (FMCT). CD agenda negotiations were stalled between 1996 and 2009, a
period during which the CD remained without a formal program of work. In 2000, then CD
President Ambassador Amorim of Brazil unsuccessfully attempted to break the deadlock by
proposing the creation of four subcommittees, two of which would deal with, respectively,
PAROS and an FMCT. Similarly, in 2004, several states called for the establishment of a
CD expert group to discuss the broader technical questions surrounding space weapons, but
there was still no consensus on a program of work. Finally, in May 2009, the CD adopted
its rst program of work in over a decade, as discussed below. However, this development
was short-lived as the CD reverted to a deadlock following objections from Pakistan over
FMCT discussions. To date, there is still no consensus on negotiation of a PAROS treaty.
2010 Development
The CD could not agree on a Program of Work, reverting to its pre-2009 deadlock
e CD, which operates through consensus, agreed on a Program of Work in May 2009.
Despite initial optimism that this agreement would end the longstanding deadlock, the CD
failed to adopt a framework to implement the Program of Work by the end of 2009; this was
mainly a result of Pakistani opposition to negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-o Treaty
(FMCT). 89 In 2010, the CD reverted to its pre-2009 position and once again was unable
to adopt a program of work for its session. At its rst session on 19 January 2010, Pakistan
again opposed the proposed agenda, calling for it to cover more issues. 90 By March 2010,
a draft program was tabled and debated. Consultations during the second part of the CD
produced a draft agenda, which Pakistan again rejected, seeing it as undermining Pakistan’s
security interests. 91
According to an inventory complied by the Nuclear reat Initiative, “the principal problems
[of the CD] included diculties in the current relations between key players, disagreements
Laws, Policies, and Doctrines
67