Security in Space The Next Generation - UNIDIR

More documents

Recommendations

Info

50 effectively if another state breaks its pledge not to engage in harmful interference. The fi fth section compares the relative merits of legally and politically binding instruments as tools for building a norm against harmful interference with space objects. HARMFUL INTERFERENCE PRECEDENTS A provision limiting harmful interference would not be without precedent. The agreement most directly comparable to a ban on harmful interference with space objects is the 1975 Incidents at Sea Agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. The agreement provided for the implementation of a wide variety of specifi c procedures so as to avoid dangerous close-quarters incidents at sea. That both navies retained the ability to respond forcefully when attacked actually enhanced the strength of the agreement. It also ensured that both had incentives to ensure strict adherence to the procedures by stressing the consequences of a failure to abide by the terms laid out by the agreement. This diplomatic agreement enhanced international security by limiting freedom of military action in a way that reduced the chances of unintentional escalation to a general nuclear war. In the years before the agreement was negotiated there were a number of incidents which posed a risk of unintentional escalation. They forced the realization that without some diplomatic limitations on military operations, the risk of escalation was dangerously high. A ban on harmful interference with space objects would be perfectly analogous to avoiding incidents at sea if, in addition to creating political crises, incidents at sea made the oceans themselves more dangerous to traverse. Though there is no perfect analogy to be made between a ban on harmful interference with space objects and other threat reduction agreements, the precursors of an international norm against harmful interference with space objects can be identifi ed, as this provision is embedded in international treaties and agreements as well as, by extension, customary international law. These precedents include specifi c provisions that ban harmful interference with space objects, provide for notifi cation or consultations in the event of harmful interference, and list some of the specifi c actions that might constitute harmful interference. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty,
and the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty all contained measures that ban interference with “national technical means of verifi cation”, a euphemism that was commonly understood to refer to the satellites essential to monitoring treaty compliance. Similarly, the 1971 Agreement on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War contained a provision requiring that the United States and the Soviet Union notify each other “in the event of signs of interference with these systems or with related communications facilities”. The Constitution of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) created another powerful precedent for non-interference with space objects. Article 45 of the ITU constitution states that, “All stations, whatever their purpose, must be established and operated in such a manner as not to cause harmful interference to the radio services or communications of other Member States …”. Importantly, the next item in the constitution states that members are required to ensure that non-governmental providers and users of radio services or communications adhere to the non-interference clause as well. This document is particularly important because it established what might be the only legal precedent that specifi cally addresses harmful interference with satellites mounted by non-military and extra-governmental organizations. The cornerstone of the existing international legal regime that governs activities in outer space, the Outer Space Treaty, also lays the basis for a ban on harmful interference with satellites. Article IX of the treaty links harmful interference with consultation measures: If a State Party to the Treaty has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities of other States Parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, it shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with any such activity or experiment. A State Party to the Treaty which has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by another State Party in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, may request consultation concerning the activity or experiment. 51
Page 1 and 2:
THE SIMONS FOUNDATION SECURE WORLD
Page 3 and 4:
About the cover Cover photograph co
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS Foreword .................
Page 7 and 8:
FOREWORD Outer space is an essentia
Page 9 and 10:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS UNIDIR would like
Page 11 and 12:
xii on the editorial board of The B
Page 13 and 14:
xiv Victor VASILIEV Victor Vasiliev
Page 15 and 16:
CONFERENCE SUMMARY The conference
Page 17 and 18:
Another threat that we need to addr
Page 19 and 20:
humanitarian workers to reach the e
Page 21 and 22:
The question was raised as to wheth
Page 23 and 24:
For this reasons, TCBMs and a treat
Page 25 and 26: cases actors should engage in consu
Page 27 and 28: Following the presentations by the
Page 29 and 30: Could stated national policies, if
Page 31 and 32: the contrary. Rules in space became
Page 33 and 34: effects of space weather, and of co
Page 35 and 36: 2 space activities, it has become c
Page 37 and 38: 4 in Outer Space, the Threat or Use
Page 39 and 40: SPACE GENERATION ADVISORY COUNCIL A
Page 41 and 42: The fi rst issue is space debris. S
Page 43 and 44: avoid confl ict by prohibiting weap
Page 45 and 46: 14 For its devastating power, the d
Page 47 and 48: 16 papers elaborating our views on
Page 49 and 50: DOWN TO EARTH: A SOLUTION TO A GLOB
Page 51 and 52: for life on Mars could have a numbe
Page 53 and 54: Combining their expertise in mass s
Page 55 and 56: 26 Perhaps the most widespread civi
Page 57 and 58: 28 strengthen disaster preparedness
Page 59 and 60: 30 solutions for human security, pe
Page 61 and 62: 32 and other small particles. There
Page 63 and 64: NEXT GENERATION SPACE SECURITY CHAL
Page 65 and 66: This is a summary of all objects in
Page 67 and 68: Table 2. Worldwide space situationa
Page 69 and 70: was on par with one another at roug
Page 71 and 72: challenge to the international comm
Page 73 and 74: Notes 1 This research has been made
Page 75: NO HARMFUL INTERFERENCE WITH SPACE
Page 79 and 80: as well as terrestrial capabilities
Page 81 and 82: The Henry L. Stimson Center, in col
Page 83 and 84: The critics are right to recall tha
Page 85 and 86: forums. It could be negotiated by a
Page 87 and 88: precedent for non-interference with
Page 89 and 90: TRANSPARENCY AND CONFIDENCE-BUILDIN
Page 91 and 92: IADC’s terms of reference also pr
Page 93 and 94: actions. As these groups develop co
Page 95 and 96: TRANSPARENCY AND CONFIDENCE-BUILDIN
Page 97 and 98: In addition, strict compliance with
Page 99 and 100: in considering eventual confi dence
Page 101 and 102: The above-mentioned measures are no
Page 103 and 104: Notes 1 General Assembly, Special R
Page 105 and 106: SAFEGUARDING OUTER SPACE: ON THE RO
Page 107 and 108: mechanisms under permanent review,
Page 109 and 110: thereby and which may run counter t
Page 111 and 112: the discretion of that state—henc
Page 113 and 114: condition of “common agreement”
Page 115 and 116: Foundation, and Rebecca Johnson, di
Page 117 and 118: ANNEX Buenos Aires International In
Page 119 and 120: Refusal to hold consultations, or t
Page 121 and 122: confi rmation thirty days after the
Page 123 and 124: States Parties to the Treaty shall
Page 125 and 126: space law, UN document A/AC.105/C.2
Page 127 and 128:
104 a potential direct threat to ma
Page 129 and 130:
106 SPACE LAW: MANY PRINCIPLES, NO
Page 131 and 132:
108 of government and corporate sta
Page 133 and 134:
110 growth will be badly hurt if th
Page 135 and 136:
112 and samples of residual materia
Page 137 and 138:
114 outer space beyond the geostati
Page 139 and 140:
116 Virgin Galactic had to obtain t
Page 141 and 142:
118 air and space traffi c in the i
Page 143 and 144:
120 aviation and space weather comm
Page 145 and 146:
122 could play a role in lowering o
Page 147 and 148:
124 In other word, space security i
Page 149 and 150:
126 a second meeting of the informa
Page 151 and 152:
128 ANNEX SPACE DEBRIS MITIGATION G
Page 153 and 154:
130 Guideline 1: Limit debris relea
Page 155 and 156:
132 that survives to reach the surf
Page 157 and 158:
FROM SPACE DOMINANCE TO EQUITABLE R
Page 159 and 160:
The United States has never conduct
Page 161 and 162:
space for any purposes that the Uni
Page 163 and 164:
provide adequate reassurance that n
Page 165 and 166:
SESSION IV TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS:
Page 167 and 168:
146 such weapons, if deployed in ou
Page 169 and 170:
148 DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE OF A PPWT
Page 171 and 172:
150 preamble—aims of a new treaty
Page 173 and 174:
RUSSIAN-CHINESE SPACE-WEAPONS-BAN P
Page 175 and 176:
this issue would ensure that a trea
Page 177 and 178:
outer space is fundamentally import
Page 179 and 180:
160 it is formed, what power it has
Page 181 and 182:
162 ought to be illegal (or, ought
Page 183 and 184:
164 two specifi c ASAT activities:
Page 185 and 186:
166 CIL has always been an importan
Page 187 and 188:
168 neutral space assets, even if t
Page 189 and 190:
170 Despite that fi stful of treati
Page 191 and 192:
172 in combat. Outer space is, of c
Page 193 and 194:
SESSION V NEXT GENERATION, NEXT STE
Page 195 and 196:
178 the ability to secure borders,
Page 197 and 198:
180 and the Chinese in 2007 have le
Page 199 and 200:
182 LIMITING ORBITAL DEBRIS FORMATI
Page 201 and 202:
184 nations, an essential ingredien
Page 203 and 204:
SPACE SECURITY AND SATELLITE APPLIC
Page 205 and 206:
ROLE OF UNOSAT The initial idea of
Page 207 and 208:
CANADA’S PERSPECTIVE ON SPACE SEC
Page 209 and 210:
The draft treaty on the Prevention
Page 211:
ACRONYMS ASAT anti-satellite weapon
show all

Security in Space The Next Generation - UNIDIR

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?