Security in Space The Next Generation - UNIDIR

52
Finally, it is important to note that the provisions banning interference with
satellites have existed for almost as long as satellites themselves. The earliest
references to “national technical means” in international law are found in
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty I
interim agreement of 1972, while the reference to harmful interference in
the Outer Space Treaty was enshrined in international law fi ve years earlier.
A mere 10 years after the space age began, states were already beginning to
insist that satellites and other objects traversing outer space were not to be
interfered with. This sentiment has only grown stronger over time.
THE INDISPENSABILITY OF THE
NO-HARMFUL-INTERFERENCE PROVISION
It is the tension between the existence of myriad ways to interfere with
satellites and the crucial role that satellites play that has placed this topic
on the agenda. Recognizing that the United States’ use of outer space is
crucial to its national and economic security, domestic commentators have
proposed policies that seek to resolve this tension satisfactorily. I cite these
commentators and discuss the case of the United States only because it
is that with which I am most familiar—but the arguments I make apply to
other spacefaring nations as well. Most American commentators gravitate
towards one of two options: military dominance or legal restraint. There
is also a third option which does not constrain the ability to interfere or
seek a treaty banning space weapons. It relies on a code of conduct built
around the principle of non-interference with space objects. In fact, this
principle would be an indispensable component of any of the three options:
protection through freedom of military action, a space weapons treaty or a
code of conduct.
Attempts to dominate outer space by any state, and certainly by the United
States, will inevitably run afoul of the security dilemma. At its core, the
security dilemma is the paradox often used to explain the motivation behind
arms races. A state may decide to build up its military with the goal of
improving its capabilities relative to those of its neighbours. Its leaders may
see such a build-up as being a viable way of improving the state’s security.
However, when its neighbours see the state upgrading its military, they
realize that their own capabilities are growing relatively less capable. Thus,
when one state builds up its forces, it implicitly threatens its neighbours,
leading them to build up their own militaries. This is a fear for space-based