AwaitingLaunch_1397728623369

It can be argued that new regulations in space would have never been needed
unless the first actors in space had not developed their programmes without
due consideration for the long-term sustainability of the space environment.
There has been an inherent suspicion throughout this process, as it is led by a
small group of wealthy countries with already advanced space programmes.
ICoC has been criticised to be a tool to limit new states from developing
their own space programmes and that ICoC is interfering with domestic
110
policy-making of nations, which are already developing outer space policies
on their own initiative. Many of the 'new' space nations are countries which
are facing direct climate change effects in the form of natural disasters and
are, therefore, dependent on satellites and space programmes for their
disasters risk reductions and early warning programmes. As it looks today,
many of these states are relying on buying and receiving weather forecasts
etc. from outside sources, which not only prolongs information gathering but
is also costly.
The ICoC process has fed into many of the above-mentioned “suspicions,”
largely due to the lack of transparency within the process. The EU has, since
the beginning, faced difficulties dealing with transparency as it often works in
secrecy and closed forums where the only publicly-shared information
usually is the already agreed upon final outcome. Some of these traits apply
to the ICoC process. This has been highly visible for many countries, which
111
feel they were not sufficiently consulted in the drafting process.
Furthermore, the EU has, for example, not been clear on what the text of
the code will look like, what aspect of space will be included and what the
overall process will look like. Criticism has also been raised within the EU by
member states of the lack of clarity of the process.
The lack of civil society participation and interest is another challenge for the
ICoC process. Although a few experts from civil space companies and
academia have been included in the regional seminar, a wider mobilisation of
public opinion through civil society has been absent. Non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) are, today, essential parts of successful multilateral
processes. There is no lack of international challenges and problems that
need to be solved today, and civil society plays a crucial part in making
governments pay attention to specific issues and place it higher on the
political agenda. Without civil society pressure, there are very few immediate
consequences for governments failing to act. An engaged and active civil
society will demand results from governments, effectively raising the stakes
122 | Awaiting Launch: Perspectives on the Draft ICoC for Outer Space Activities