AwaitingLaunch_1397728623369

The UN has made two guidelines for the mitigation of space debris, since
the space debris problem first loomed large in the 1990s. The first is a
“Technical Report on Space Debris” (A/AC.105/720) adopted by the
Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the UN COPUOS in 1999. Space
debris mitigation measures were recommended cautiously in this report for
the first time to the international society. The second is the “Space Debris
Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space”, incorporated in the report A/62/20 of UN COPUOS in 2007. This
report clearly recommended seven guidelines, particularly to “avoid
intentional destruction and other harmful activities” which was absent in the
1999 report. All of these guidelines have no legally binding force, which
means that no country has the legal obligation to follow them, but can on a
voluntary basis. This embarrassing situation indicates that there is no
consensus among the international community.
The Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space
and the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT), was
drafted and proposed mainly by China and Russia in order to provide a
legally binding regime for space activity. Unfortunately, the U.S. refused it for
lack of verification and other reasons. The attempt to make a legally binding
rule restricting space weapons has been in deadlock in the CD, though it has
been referred to many times in the United National General Assembly
(UNGA) resolutions.
There are not enough legal tools for regulating space weapons and space
debris. Under such circumstances, the situation has only deteriorated.
In this backdrop, the ICoC was initiated by the EU as a formal document to
be accepted. The advantages of it exist in two aspects: firstly, it covers a
bigger scope than the two UN guideline documents, not limited to mitigation
of space debris, which means some concerns in PPWT as a framework
regulating outer space activities are not excluded; secondly, it provides a
regime for information exchange and confidence building, which means this
option is not totally based on self-restraint without monitoring. Basically, it is
a system of rules without legally binding force, but with a transparency
mechanism of external political pressure.
The rules were modified and polished to accommodate different concerns
after a series of consultations. For example, the first edition in 2008 has
referred a little to the right of self-defence, a fundamental right for a state
40 | Awaiting Launch: Perspectives on the Draft ICoC for Outer Space Activities