Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space xÈzÈ...

Topic A: Mining in Space

Topic B: Militarization of Space

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

2

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space MUNUC 30

EXECUTIVE LETTER

Dear Delegates,

Welcome to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space! Along with my staff, it is my pleasure to

welcome you to MUNUC 30!

Just a little about me: I am a third year at the University of Chicago, majoring in Economics and Political

Science. I was born in Mumbai, grew up in Qatar and am thrilled to currently call Chicago home. Some of my

interests include political economy, energy geopolitics and international law.

This will be my second time chairing at MUNUC and I cannot overstate my excitement. Last year I was

involved with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and we collectively explored

the ageing and Arctic questions. Similar to the latter topic, my focus this year is on a remote area, with

enormous potential, that is increasingly entering the spotlight. Of course, Outer Space is on a much greater

scale and with the Space Race, has previously been an arena of political tension. Looking forward, our two

topics reflect on what the nature and role of Outer Space might be in the 21st century and beyond. Mining

and militarization initiatives showcase the immense promise and peril that space presents, but may seem

unorthodox for a MUN committee agenda. As “far-fetched” as our topics may appear, in writing this guide

I found myself increasingly immersed in legal documents and economic analysis rather than sci-fi novels

(although I did re-watch “The Martian” during the research process).

In the space realm, 2017 has been a year of anniversaries. It has been 60 years since Sputnik launched,

50 years since the Outer Space Treaty was enacted, and 40 years since Star Wars was released. This year

MUNUC also celebrates 30 years of excellence. In continuing this pedagogical mission, I ask you all to prepare

yourselves pre-conference, fully engage with the committee during conference, and leave conference

with greater insight and skill. Should you have any comments, concerns or questions in the countdown to

conference, please feel free to email me at the address listed below. I hoped to end this note with a space

pun (and even created a list of contenders) but I’ll save it for conference – and hope you too will bring your

best to the Palmer Hilton!

Live long and prosper,

Nikita Coutinho

[email protected]

mailto:copuos%40munuc.org?subject=

3


History of the Committee

The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) was created in 1959, two years after the

launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik.1 The Committee was initially assembled in 1958 on an ad-hoc basis, but

assumed a more permanent status the year after.2 It was formed with the intention of upholding the peace,

primarily by promoting research into outer space and assessing the legality of space activities.3 These twin

purposes are reflected in the structure of the Committee, which has two Subcommittees. The Scientific and

Technical Subcommittee addresses, as its name implies, the scientific and technical areas of space activities.

Some of its work has been in Near-Earth Objects, navigation systems and disaster management.4 The Legal

Subcommittee tackles the legality of activities in space, by monitoring states’ adherence to the treaties on

space and clarifying legal terms.5 The Committee as a whole reports its findings to the UN General Assembly.

Over the years the Committee has spearheaded numerous initiatives to promote the peaceful uses of

space. It facilitated the crafting of the five Treaties and five sets of Principles that are the basis for space law,

including the Outer Space Treaty, the Rescue Agreement and the Benefits Declaration.6 It has also held three

Conferences since 1968, with UNISPACE+50, a commemoration of fifty years since the first Conference,

to be held in 2018.7 The Committee’s Secretariat, the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, is a

proponent of the 2006 United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and

Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER).8 UN-SPIDER aids developing countries in utilising space technology to

improve their capability before and after disasters.9 The latest COPUOS session, held in June 2017, focused

on enhancing the sustainability of space activities.10

1 “United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.” COPUOS History. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/history.html.

2 Ibid3 Ibid4 “United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.” COPUOS: Committee and Subcommittees. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.

unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/comm-subcomms.html.5 Ibid6 “United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.” Space Law Treaties and Principles. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.unoosa.org/

oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html.7 “United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.” The United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

(1968 - 2018): UNISPACE 50. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/unispaceplus50/index.html.8 “United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.” UN-SPIDER. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/un-

spider/index.html.9 Ibid10 Christopher D. Johnson and Victoria Samson. “A summer update on the COPUOS long-term sustainability guidelines.” The Space Review:

A summer update on the COPUOS long-term sustainability guidelines. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3291/1.

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/history.html


http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/comm-subcomms.html

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/comm-subcomms.html

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/unispaceplus50/index.html

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/un-spider/index.html

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/un-spider/index.html

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3291/1


4


The initial ad-hoc COPUOS was comprised of 18 members, with 24 members joining the fully-fledged

Committee in 1959.11 This membership has gradually increased over the decades, with the addition of

New Zealand in 2016 bringing total membership to 84 nations.12 This is supplemented with the presence

of Observer Organizations, including the European Space Agency and the International Air Transport

Association.13

11 “United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.” COPUOS History. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/history.html.

12 Christopher D. Johnson and Victoria Samson. “A summer update on the COPUOS long-term sustainability guidelines.” The Space Review: A summer update on the COPUOS long-term sustainability guidelines. Accessed October 01, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3291/1.

13 Ibid





5


TOPIC A: MINING IN SPACE

Statement of the Problem

In the last century, mankind initiated its ascension into space. This movement into the vast expanses of the

Universe conjures images of extreme conditions, planetary bodies and alien encounters. More symbolically,

the perilous undertaking into space presents a range of newfound threats and opportunities. These new

avenues continue to open up and evolve, decades after the first (artificial) satellite launch and moonwalk.

The question of space governance was first addressed by the United Nations in the 1960s, but as space

activity becomes more complex and is conducted by a greater variety of players,14 it appears that “vague”

current legislation may need to be amended or added to.15 The question of legality is not isolated but is

closely tied to political, economic and environmental considerations.16

Space mining, the “exploitation of natural resources from celestial bodies”, 17 is a prime example of a “new

space”18 endeavour. It may appear to be a far-fetched possibility, and in reality, is not currently being

practiced. However, with a number of private and government entities devoting expertise and resources

into its development, the rise of space mining is anticipated. In this light, there is significant pressure for

the terms that dictate space activity, which were crafted in an era before space mining was a possibility,

to be reconsidered or made more detailed before commercial activity can commence.19 Indeed, the vast

scope and promise of space mining, and the possibilities it could lead to, have stakes for the entirety of the

international community.

Desire for resources

There are high costs, legal barriers and technical difficulties associated with mining in space. With this

consideration, the question of the viability of space mining arises. Why look to the skies when “mining” can

occur on Earth? In broad terms, it stems from man’s desire for a greater quantity of resources than available

14 Ricky J Lee, Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (Springer International Publishing, 2012), 5.15 Philip R Harris. “Space Law and Space Resources.” National Space Society. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.nss.org/settlement/

nasa/spaceresvol4/spacelaw.html.16 Ricky J Lee, Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (Springer International Publishing, 2012), 3.17 Ibid, 7.18 Ram S. Jakhu, Joseph N. Pelton and Yaw O. M. Nyampong Space Mining and its Regulation (Switzerland: Springer International Publishing,

2017), 2.19 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/

commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty

http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/spacelaw.html


https://www.pcmag.com/commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty


6


on Earth.20 With a rising world population, which currently stands at 7.5 billion but is projected to reach 9.7

billion by 2050,21 and a theoretically limited supply of resources on Earth, there is an increasing demand

for resources that are not multiplying at the same rate.22 In order to match this demand, the supply of

resources must increase. In this way, the acquisition and harvesting of resources from space offers a means

of increasingly our supply of resources.

Availability and utility of resources in space

In light of this quest for resources, the premise of space mining emerges as certain space bodies contain

desirable materials such as nickel (Ni), iron (Fe), platinum (Pt) and gold (Au).23 These elements hold immense

potential. For example, the latter two are profitable, with the current price for a kilogram of gold and

platinum valued at approximately $30,00024 and $20,00025 respectively. In comparison, elements like nickel

and iron, along with water, appear less profitable because of their relative abundance on Earth. However,

in the context of space, they are considered valuable. This is because the cost of carrying these materials

from Earth to space is high: NASA states that a single gallon of water (which can be used to make rocket fuel)

weighs a little over eight pounds with the cost of transporting a pound of material into space is $10,000—thus

transporting a gallon of water into space can cost upwards of $80,000.26 To supporters of space mining, this

makes the option of extracting and using resources within space itself desirable. For example, the availability

and use of water could allow for re-fuelling stations within space, and even promote the construction of

space bases. This would be part of a broader movement towards space supply chains, and a greater space

economy, which is currently limited due to the high costs of sending objects into orbit.

Having said this, resources from space mining are likely to be utilised on Earth too, particularly as the price of

space voyages begins to decrease. There appears to be a consensus regarding the projected monetary value

of asteroid mining, with Goldman Sachs seeing vast potential in these commercial space ventures.27 A 2017

20 William Steigerwald, “New NASA Mission to Help Us Learn How to Mine Asteroids.” NASA. March 02, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-mission-to-help-us-learn-how-to-mine-asteroids.

21 “World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 | UN DESA Department of Economic and Social Affairs.” United Nations. July 29, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html.

22 Ricky J Lee, Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (Springer International Publishing, 2012), 6.23 William Steigerwald, “New NASA Mission to Help Us Learn How to Mine Asteroids.” NASA. March 02, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-mission-to-help-us-learn-how-to-mine-asteroids.24 “Gold Prices Today | Price of Gold Per Ounce | Gold Spot Price Chart.” APMEX. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.apmex.com/

spotprices/gold-price.25 “Platinum Price | Platinum Price Chart History | Price of Platinum Today.” APMEX. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.apmex.com/

spotprices/platinum-price.26 Brian Dunbar, “In-Line Water Filtration: Better Hygeine, Less Expense.” NASA. September 29, 2009. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://

www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/pure_water.html.27 Jim Edwards, “Goldman Sachs: space-mining for platinum is ‘more realistic than perceived’.” Business Insider. April 06, 2017. Accessed

August 24, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-space-mining-asteroid-platinum-2017-4?IR=T.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-mission-to-help-us-learn-how-to-mine-asteroids

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html


http://www.apmex.com/spotprices/gold-price


http://www.apmex.com/spotprices/platinum-price


https://www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/pure_water.html


http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-space-mining-asteroid-platinum-2017-4?IR=T

7


report published by the firm served to legitimise space mining and quoted a Planetary Resources interview

in explaining that a single asteroid could contain up to $50 billion worth of platinum.28

Possible site of mining

A question that arises is where the proposed mining may occur. As we continue to explore outer space and

encounter more celestial bodies, it becomes clear that not all celestial bodies would be feasible for mining

activities and that some would be more lucrative than others.29 Though there is leeway in the formal definition

of a “celestial body”,30 mining projects assess potential sites on the following criteria: a body of “over 100m

in diameter”, in “approachable orbits” that “can be reached in under a year” and with a “high percentage of

valuable resources”.31 With this in mind, there are usually two categories under consideration: the Moon and

Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs).32

The first manned mission to the Moon was carried out by the United States in 1969, with the most recent

moonwalk occurring in 1972.33 The Moon, which orbits the Earth, is optimal in terms of distance.34 However,

the “gravity” of the Moon, and other planetary bodies as well, make them economically unfeasible mining

zones – but do not rule out their ability to act as space “bases”.35 In essence, as a base, the Moon could act as an

area from which secondary space missions could be embarked upon36; this is something some governments

have desired. In April 2017, the China National Space Administration (CNSA) and the European Space

Agency (ESA) announced they were collectively working towards a “Moon Village”, which would act as a

“human outpost on the Moon”.37 There are also a number of private entities, such as Moon Express,38 that

have proposed lunar mining initiatives to harvest the water, helium-3 isotopes and other resources available.

28 Ibid29 William Steigerwald,. “New NASA Mission to Help Us Learn How to Mine Asteroids.” NASA. March 02, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-mission-to-help-us-learn-how-to-mine-asteroids.30 Ram S. Jakhu, Joseph N. Pelton and Yaw O. M. Nyampong Space Mining and its Regulation (Switzerland: Springer International Publishing,

2017), 23.31 Ibid, 26.32 Ibid, 23.33 Lee Mohon, “First Flight of Space Shuttle Endeavour Launches -- May 7, 1992.” NASA. May 10, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://

www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/history/this-week-in-nasa-history-first-flight-of-space-shuttle-endeavour-launches-may-7-1992.html.34 Ricky J Lee, Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (Springer International Publishing, 2012), 8.35 Ricky J Lee, Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (Springer International Publishing, 2012), 8.36 Ibid37 Andrew Griffin, “China and Europe to build a base on the moon and launch other projects into space.” The Independent. April 26, 2017.

Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/moon-base-outpost-china-europe-chinese-space-agency-collaboration-together-a7702936.html.

38 Dan Tynan, “Galactic gold rush: the tech companies aiming to make space mining a reality.” The Guardian. December 06, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/06/space-mining-moon-asteroids-tech-companies


https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/history/this-week-in-nasa-history-first-flight-of-space-shuttle-endeavour-launches-may-7-1992.html


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/moon-base-outpost-china-europe-chinese-space-agency-collaboration-together-a7702936.html


https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/06/space-mining-moon-asteroids-tech-companies

8


These projects are driven by financial incentive: the mineral assets of the Moon have been valued in the

range of $150-500 quadrillion.39

The more promising and widely discussed option is NEAs. According to NASA, in late 2016 there were over

15,000 known NEAs, with “30 new discoveries added each week”.40 As with the Moon, NEAs could act as

“space bases” or be used for their resources, including the precious metals described above. These asteroids

are not uniform, and scientists describe asteroids as “S-type”, “C-type” or “M-type” type.41 This categorisation

is based on the reflectivity and composition of the asteroids.42 “C-type” are “dark” and are rich in water and

organic material, “S-type” have less water but more metal, and “M” type contain even more metal.43

Legality of space mining

Though mining in space is currently a hypothetical, the possibility that it could occur has sparked numerous

legal questions. This concern arises as current space law, conceived in the last century, does not directly

addressing the multi-dimensional questions that space mining poses. Specifically, the large-scale treaties

that are the basis of space law, were drafted and signed when the main players of the space race were

nations (and private players were not involved), and when the prospects for space activities were much

more restricted.44

Navigating the legality of space mining invariably draws upon the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), which

is, to date, the most comprehensive piece of space legislation.45 Over 50 years old, the agreement declares

unequivocally that space is a “province for all mankind”,46 or a common area where territorial claims cannot

be made. Space, including the “Moon and other celestial bodies”, cannot be the sovereign (exclusive) area

of any nation, and all “use” of it must be “for the benefit and in the interests of all countries”.47 This wording

raises a number of questions:

39 Ibid40 Tony Greicius, “Catalog of Known Near-Earth Asteroids Tops 15,000.” NASA. October 26, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.

nasa.gov/feature/jpl/catalog-of-known-near-earth-asteroids-tops-15000.41 William Steigerwald, “New NASA Mission to Help Us Learn How to Mine Asteroids.” NASA. March 02, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-mission-to-help-us-learn-how-to-mine-asteroids.42 Ibid43 Ibid44 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/

commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty45 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/

commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty46 United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space.Publication. 2002. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/

publications/STSPACE11E.pdf.47 Ibid

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/catalog-of-known-near-earth-asteroids-tops-15000







http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf


9


• Does a nation need to have sovereign rights to an asteroid before utilising its resources?

• If that is the case, will any nation ever be able to mine in space?

• If sovereign rights are not required to mine in space, what is the procedure when competing entities

are attempting to mine in the same area?

• If property rights, in the form of sovereignty, are not assigned, how will potential disputes be managed

– or will the absence of territorial gains serve to curb the new space race?

• If nations cannot lay sovereign claims in space, can they claim the by-products of, or materials

contained within, celestial bodies in space?

The uncertainty stemming from a lack of property rights, and the potential knock-on effects of implementing

some form of national rights within space, are some of the greatest legal challenges posed by space mining.

The notion of space existing as a “global commons” has further implications:

• What does it mean for its “exploration and use” to be in the best interests of all nations?

• Would the spoils from space have to be distributed amongst all nations and if so, how will this

allocation be determined? For example, would the largest share of a shipment from space go to the

nation that is least developed, the nation that is willing to pay the most for those resources or the

nation that was the greatest financer of the mission?

• Would an additional body or multilateral organisation have to be created to oversee these operations?

Or would an all-encompassing treaty, which would serve as a successor to the Outer Space Treaty,

be required?

A fear that has been expressed is that a lack of legal clarification may lead to a “tragedy of the commons” – a

scenario in which a something shared between multiple parties experiences a decline in quality as parties do

not treat it as well as they would something in their name alone.

10


Governmental and Private Space Mining

In the context of an international space race, the introduction of private companies could further complicate

the question of space mining. Private firms are currently pioneering the quest for space resources and the

relationship between competing firms, between firms and their respective governments and between firms

and the wider public may come under increased scrutiny as time passes. A concern is that that these firms

may not uphold the principles of space law as stringently as a national space program, that is funded by a

government that is a signatory of the space treaties and in turn answerable to the international community.

To some extent, the Outer Space Treaty addresses this issue, with Article 6 laying responsibility on home

governments for ensuring that even home-originating “non-governmental entities” are held to the terms of

the Treaty.48 However, with some private firms more technologically advanced and invested in space mining

than their governmental counterparts, the question of the capability and even willingness of governments

to regulate the space activities of their home firms persists. The broader question of how the international

community can monitor and regulate private firms, without the intermediary of a national government

also remains. The United States’ CLSCA and Luxembourg’s space-related bill (passed July 2017) are recent

examples of the legal intersection of a national government, international space law and private firms, and

are explored later. They show how the domestic politics and legislation can foster an environment of space

mining regardless of the prevailing international law.

Possible side-effects of space mining

Economically, space mining could open up revolutionary new markets and greatly enhance existing ones.49

However, the introduction of these materials also has the potential to distort the Earthly market. For example,

vast imports of a certain mineral from space could saturate a market and decrease the price of the mineral50

– which could strain an economy that may be dependent upon exports of said mineral. Although this has yet

to occur, it does highlight the role a new space economy may play, and the need for regulation. This regulation

does not solely have to be at the international level, especially with the entry of non-governmental players

into the space race.

48 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html

49 Jim Edwards, “Goldman Sachs: space-mining for platinum is ‘more realistic than perceived’.” Business Insider. April 06, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-space-mining-asteroid-platinum-2017-4?IR=T.

50 Ibid

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html



11


Regulation is also cited in discussing the potential environmental effects of space mining. According to a

World Economic Forum (WEF) article, though space mining may decrease in situ Earth mining, the dust

released by space mining processes could also pose an environmental risk both in space and on Earth.51 This

phenomenon can be described as an externality, as it is an unintended consequence resulting from the main

act of space mining that the firms or governments are not necessarily affected by. With an emerging field like

space mining, side effects may not be fully realised at the onset but may only be discovered later. Thus, the

knowledge of this particular negative externality should be taken into account in making future decisions.

In particular, they should form the basis of future regulation. The role of externalities is closely associated to

the legal questions and roles of stakeholders described above.

The question of space mining

In looking at the emerging “problem” that space mining presents, this section has stressed legal, economic,

political and environmental issues. At conference, these issues can be addressed in a number of ways. What

is crucial is that they are all sufficiently addressed. That may mean that more so than general suggestions of

how national space programs can be enhanced, an encompassing resolution that has recommendations on

the international, national and private company level, may be more appropriate.

51 Arwen Armbrecht, “Asteroid mining: is this the next space race?” World Economic Forum. February 5, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/asteroid-mining-next-space-race/.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/asteroid-mining-next-space-race/

12


History of the Problem

Humans first travelled into space six decades ago and since that time, the fields of science and technology

have vastly expanded. A 2015 Goldman Sachs publication reported that from 2010-2015, the cost of space

launches and satellites dropped 11 and 100 times respectively52 and claimed this “affordable access is a

game changer”.53 This atmosphere of progress has led to the emergence of a number of “new space” ventures.

“New Space” ventures such as space mining, which some predict will cause a “gold rush”, were not on

government agendas at the time of the original space race, but are now considered to be at the at the

forefront. Considering that space mining is still in the future, analyzing its origins would involve recounting

the history of increased human presence in space and the efforts by the international community to both

facilitate and set boundaries upon this activity.

Asteroids were discovered in 1801,54 and

the concept of them as beacons of resources

to be utilized by humans was first described

in 1898 in a science fiction novel by Garrett

Serviss.55 Comparable to the economic

potential that modern-day investors see in

space mining, Serviss describes travelers

being in awe of an asteroid, a “little metallic

planet”.56 Transitioning from fiction to fact,

Russian Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was the first

scientist to actively envision space mining.57 In the late 19th century and early 20th century, he conceived of

rockets as vehicles to enter space and saw asteroid mining as an integral step towards the human colonization

of space.58

52 What If I Told You... Report. December 2, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/macroeconomic-insights-folder/what-if-i-told-you/report.pdf.6-8

53 Ibid.54 Issue Overview: Space Mining. Report. July 10, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://vanclasses.weebly.com/

uploads/3/7/7/1/37718445/solar_use.pdf.55 Matt Novak, “Asteroid mining’s peculiar past.” BBC. November 18, 2014. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/future/

story/20130129-asteroid-minings-peculiar-past.56 Ibid57 “Kaluga Period.” Russian Space Web. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tsiolkovsky_kaluga.html.58 Ibid

http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/macroeconomic-insights-folder/what-if-i-told-you/report.pdf.6-8

http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/macroeconomic-insights-folder/what-if-i-told-you/report.pdf.6-8

http://vanclasses.weebly.com/uploads/3/7/7/1/37718445/solar_use.pdf


http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130129-asteroid-minings-peculiar-past


http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tsiolkovsky_kaluga.html

13


The prospect of space mining entered the political realm with the onset of the Cold War, a period of

deteriorated relations between the United States and the Soviet Union during the 20th century. The Space

Race was the competition between the two national powers to surpass each other in space achievements as

a sign of dominance. Lyndon Johnson, the US Vice-President under John F Kennedy and later US President,

was an early and key supporter of US space involvement in light of the 1957 Russian launch of Sputnik, a

satellite.59 Along with directing Congressional focus and investment towards space affairs and instituting

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), he also made statements regarding space mining.60

Notably, at the 1962 World’s Fair he projected that “Someday we will be able to bring an asteroid containing

billions of dollars’ worth of critically needed metals close to Earth to provide a vast source of mineral wealth

to our factories”.61 Regardless of how sincerely Johnson believed his statement, it does highlight how space

resources was a topic at the highest levels of government and that it was a serious concept in the public domain.

In terms of the “gold rush” for mining in space, there has been a shift in the composition of key players.62 With

private companies devoted to space mining increasingly coming to dominate headlines, the race is likely to

be led by firms rather than government-funded national space programs, at least within the domain of space

mining.63 The rise of these private firms, including the prominent “Planetary Resources” and “Deep Space

Industries” has been significant, but they are not currently publicly traded.64 Instead, these ventures have

high profile investors, such as Larry Page (Google), James Cameron (Academy Award winning director),

Charles Simonyi (Microsoft), Ross Perot Jr. (Perot Group) as well the technical support of long-standing NASA

astronauts and engineers.65 The backing of these individuals and the respected brands they represent add

credibility to these private firms and their missions. Planetary Resources’ vision is to “expand the economy

into outer space”,66 while Deep Space Industries’ aspires to “develop the technologies to find, harvest, and

supply the asteroid resources that will transform the space economy”.67 In 2014 NASA announced that it

59 Alan Wasser. “LBJ’s Space Race: what we didn’t know then (part 1).” The Space Review. June 20, 2005. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/396/1.

60 Ibid.61 Matt Novak, “Asteroid mining’s peculiar past.” BBC. November 18, 2014. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/future/

story/20130129-asteroid-minings-peculiar-past.62 Dan Tynan, “Galactic gold rush: the tech companies aiming to make space mining a reality.” The Guardian. December 06, 2016. Accessed

August 24, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/06/space-mining-moon-asteroids-tech-companies.63 Ibid64 Paul B Farrell, “Asteroid mining 2022 a $1 trillion bet for Earth.” MarketWatch. January 08, 2013. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.

marketwatch.com/story/asteroid-mining-2022-a-1-trillion-bet-for-earth-2013-01-0865 Ibid66 “Our Vision is to Expand the Economy into Space.,” Planetary Resources, accessed September 10, 2017, http://www.planetaryresources.

com/#home-asteroids.67 “Space Resources for an Unlimited Future,” Deep Space Industries, accessed September 10, 2017, http://deepspaceindustries.com/.






http://www.marketwatch.com/story/asteroid-mining-2022-a-1-trillion-bet-for-earth-2013-01-08


http://www.planetaryresources.com/#home-asteroids


http://deepspaceindustries.com/

14


would contract with these two companies in mining asteroids68 – an example of how governmental and non-

governmental entities can collaborate.

68 Brooks Hays, “NASA contracts two firms to work on asteroid mining,” UPI, November 24, 2014, accessed September 10, 2017, https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/11/24/NASA-contracts-two-firms-to-work-on-asteroid-mining/5301416856690/.

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/11/24/NASA-contracts-two-firms-to-work-on-asteroid-mining/5301416856690/


15


Past Actions

In the spirit of maintaining peaceful relations within space, the UN has, over the years, facilitated a number

of international treaties and declarations specific to space.

The Legal Principles Declaration (1963)

Following the launch of Sputnik in 1959 and successful space orbit of Yuri Gagarin two years later, it became

clear that space was a fast opening avenue. The passing of this Declaration by the UN General Assembly in

1963 reflects the international consensus that guiding principles needed to be established within this wider

arena. The nine clauses use terminology and concepts that would feature prominently in future international

space law treaties.69 Some of the concepts embraced by the clauses include the “use” of space “for the benefit

and in the interests of all mankind”, the “free exploration” of space, the non-sovereignty and enforcement of

international law in space and the responsibility and liability of nations in space, amongst others.70 This set

of Principles formed the basis for the Outer Space Treaty, which came into being four years later and has

greater legal grounding than the Principles.

The Outer Space Treaty (1967)

The first multilateral space treaty was the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), which remains the most

instrumental document pertaining to space activities and relations.71 Signed during the space race, the

Treaty was formed from the collective efforts of the United States and the Soviet Union, each of whom

submitted ideas and suggested varying scales of jurisdiction.72 The mutual desire for peace in space helped

forge the second international “nonarmament” treaty73 and allowed for the creation of a “framework on

international space law.”74 Intended to regulate the “exploration and use” of space, the full form of the title

of the Treaty specifies inclusion of “the Moon and other celestial bodies” – a clear reference to the main

subjects of space mining.

69 General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration of the Legal Principles Governing the Activites of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space,” 13 December, 1962, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/legal-principles.html

70 Ibid71 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/

commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty72 “Outer Space Treaty.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm.73 Ibid.74 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use

of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/legal-principles.html



https://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm



16


With seventeen Articles in total, the key provisions of the OST can be divided into roughly four categories:

universality, peaceful relations, national responsibility and environmental sustainability. In terms of

universality, Article I declares space to be the “province of all mankind”, an area free for “use and exploration

by all States” and in “the benefit and interests of all countries”.75 This would allow for any nation to conduct

space activities, so long as those activities do not harm, but are beneficial to all other countries. Article II

further notes that “national sovereignty” does not apply in space – no matter if an area is occupied or used

by a nation.76 As a result, countries cannot own or enforce their national ruling on any area in outer space.

Peaceful relations are stressed in Articles IV and V, with the former banning nuclear or other weapons of

mass destruction (WMDs) in space, and the latter committing states to aiding fellow astronauts, regardless

of nationality, should they be in danger or “distress”.77 Interestingly, exceptions to Article IV include “the

use of military personnel” or “any equipment or facility

necessary” as long as they are used for “scientific

research” or other “peaceful purposes”.78 Article IX

also notes that space activities must be based on “the

principle of co-operation and mutual assistance.”79

National responsibility when operating in outer space

is embodied particularly in Articles VI to VIII. Article

VI places “responsibility” on member states for any

activities they carry out in space, whether pursued

by “governmental agencies or non-governmental

entities.”80 This means that nations can also be held at fault for the activities of private actors originating from

their country. It further states that these “entities” must be “authorized” and face “continuing supervision”

by their home governments. 81 Article VII dictates that nations are “internationally liable” should the efforts

of their space programs cause “damage” whether in Earth or space, and Article VIII affirms that national

property rights over “objects launched into outer space” are maintained regardless of location.82

75 Ibid76 Ibid77 Ibid78 Ibid79 Ibid80 Ibid81 Ibid82 Ibid

17


Finally, the notion of environmental sustainability, both in space and on Earth, as a result of activities in space,

is emphasized in Article IX. The Article aspires to avert the “harmful contamination” of space or “adverse

changes in the environment of the Earth” as a result a foreign substance or organism being introduced. In

terms of space mining, this could include technology from Earth accumulating into space debris over time,

and a harvested sources from space being brought to Earth to the detriment of any person or nation. The

Article also grants countries that suspect another nation of planning or executing any space activity that is

unsustainable as described above, the ability to seek further information and “consultation” on the specific

initiative.83

This year, 2017, the Outer Space Treaty commemorates fifty years of space regulation. While it has fielded

recent criticism, the OST has remained unchanged in its nature since its creation.84 To a degree, some of this

criticism comes from the fact that the OST has not been amended, the rationale being that it was written

when space possibilities were not as great.85 Other criticism levied at the OST includes its lack of scientific

standards and terminology and its failure to ban, or even mention, conventional weaponry.86 In addressing

the US Congress in 2017, Texan Senator Ted Cruz stressed to the body the need “…to properly determine

our actual international obligations, to decide if specific articles in the treaty are self-executing or not…”, 87

hinting at the vagueness and gravity of the OST.

The Liability Convention

Signed in 1971 and enforced the following year, the Liability Convention can be viewed as one of the first

attempts to clarify existing space law.88 Its specific aim was to expand upon Article VII of the OST,89 which

stated that nations were “internationally liable” should their space programs or objects result in “damage” to

another party.90 Pertinently, it clarifies the wide-ranging definitions of “damage” (“loss of life, personal injury

or other impairment of health; or loss of or damage to property of States or of persons, natural or juridical,

83 Ibid84 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/


commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty86 Lalit K Jha, “US lawmakers seek review of Outer Space Treaty amid competition from India, China.” Livemint. May 26, 2017. Accessed

August 24, 2017. http://www.livemint.com/Science/6uxgbhcNcRfBtbWyq63wTO/US-lawmakers-seek-review-of-Outer-Space-Treaty-amid-competit.html.

87 Ibid88 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on International Liability for damage Caused by Space Objects,” 1971, http://

www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf89 Ibid90 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use






http://www.livemint.com/Science/6uxgbhcNcRfBtbWyq63wTO/US-lawmakers-seek-review-of-Outer-Space-Treaty-amid-competit.html


http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf




18


or property of international intergovernmental organizations”) and “space object” (it “includes component

parts of a space object as well as its launch vehicle and parts thereof”) with respect to international space

law.91 While Article II describes nations as being “absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused

by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight”, Article III describes damage that may

occur to objects or people in outer space by another nations’ space object, and puts the burden of liability on

the offending nation only if they, or one of their citizens, caused the event.92 The notion of claiming damage

is also addressed Article VII, which states that the terms of the Convention itself cannot be applied to

“nationals” or “foreign nationals” of “launching States.”93 In effect, an individual or group cannot hold another

nation accountable, or vice versa. Rather, only nations themselves can claim or be liable for damages under

this Convention, which is crucial when considering the rise of private companies in space.

The Moon Agreement (The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies)

The Moon Agreement was drafted by COPUOS during the 1970s, passed the UN General Assembly in

1979, and came into force five years later.94 This process occurred following the US moon landing in 1969.

The treaty, composed of 21 articles, was drafted to provide greater clarity on the Moon (note that the

principles of the OST do, and have always, applied to the Moon) but, as per its full name, is also relevant to

other “celestial bodies”.95 In this light, there are striking similarities to the OST, with mention of “international

law” to be upheld (Article II), “peaceful use” of the Moon (Article III), “exploration and use” of the Moon to

be “for the benefit and in the interests of all countries” and “guided by the principle of co-operation and

mutual assistance” (Article IV), “freedom of scientific investigation” (Article VI), environmental sustainability

(Article VII), national responsibility (Article XIV, XV) and non-sovereignty (Article XI).96

However, there are some distinct clauses, which are interesting when considering how they could pertain to

space mining. In particular, Article XI describes the implementation of an “international regime” to “govern

the exploitation of the natural resources of the moon.”97 This would involve promoting “orderly and safe

91 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on International Liability for damage Caused by Space Objects,” 1971, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf

92 Ibid93 Ibid94 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,”

1979, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html95 Ibid96 General Assembly, United Nations, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1979, http://

www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_34_68E.pdf, Annex97 Ibid



http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html



19


development of natural resources on the moon”, “rational management of those resources”, “expansion in

the opportunities of those resources” and “equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived

from those resources.”98 Essentially, it provides some principles that could form the backbone of a potential

framework on using and sharing the Moon’s resources.

A significant set-back to the Moon Agreement has been its lack of consensus amongst nations. Its five-year

delay in being enforced stemmed from a lack of ratifying nations. 99 This does not appear to have improved

as some of the most advanced space nations, including the US, Russia and China, have yet to sign or ratify the

Treaty, limiting its enforcement scope.100 France and India, both signatories to the Treaty, are not party to it

either.101 This is a major indication that the Moon Agreement, the contents of which is largely similar to the

OST, is viewed unfavorably by nations, as its stipulations are not in line with national space agendas.

The Benefits Declaration

In keeping with the sentiment that space “use” and “exploration” is “for the benefit and in the interests of all

countries”, this 1996 Declaration aimed to spell out and strengthen international space cooperation.102 It is

important to note that the full form of the title of the Declaration includes the phrase “taking into particular

account the needs of developing countries.”103 The clauses discuss adherence to international law, possible

forms of space collaboration such “governmental and non-governmental; commercial and non-commercial;

global, multilateral, regional or bilateral”, and suggests means by which developed and developing nations

can cooperate in space “technology”, “capability” and “expertise.”104

US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act

Having passed through the US House and Senate, the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act

became law in November 2015.105 Its primary purpose is to “to facilitate a pro-growth environment for the

98 Ibid99 Michael Listner. “The Moon Treaty: failed international law or waiting in the shadows?” The Space Review. October 24, 2011. Accessed

August 24, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1954/1.100 Ibid101 Ibid102 General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit

and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/space-benefits-declaration.html

103 Ibid104 Ibid105 Congress, United States Government, “H.R. 2262 – US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act,” 2014-2015, https://www.

congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262


http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/space-benefits-declaration.html


https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262


20


developing commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment and creating more stable

and predictable regulatory conditions.”106 The most significant segment of the Act, in terms of space mining,

was featured at its end. Section 51303 reads: “A United States citizen engaged in commercial recovery of

an asteroid resource or a space resource under this chapter shall be entitled to any asteroid resource or

space resource obtained, including to possess, own, transport, use, and sell the asteroid resource or space

resource obtained in accordance with applicable law, including the international obligations of the United

States.”107 Although a stride forward for space mining, this statement appears to be at odds with the notions

of “non-sovereignty” and “interests of all mankind” enshrined in international space legislation. The clause

is followed by a disclaimer that the US “does not thereby assert sovereignty or sovereign or exclusive rights

or jurisdiction over, or the ownership of, any celestial body.”108 However, the Act prompted international

queries over its legality:109 does the US have the right to grant its citizens property rights of space objects?

Can a nation grant property rights without holding, or having the ability to hold, sovereignty? Is use of a

space resource by a US citizen in the “interests of all mankind”?

Luxembourg Commercial Space Law

Following in the footsteps of the US, Luxembourg, a state in central Europe, passed a law similar to the US

CLSCA.110 The July 2017 law allows private entities that operate within the nation (whether or not they

are originally Luxembourgian) the right to own space resources.111 The national space website affirms that

Luxembourg is the “first European nation” with such regulation and that it was permitted under the notion

that “space resources are capable of being owned”, the opening article of the law.112

106 Ibid107 Ibid108 Ibid109 Peter B. de Selding. “U.S. Commercial Space Act’s Treaty Compliance May Depend on Implementation.” Space News. December 09, 2015.

Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacenews.com/u-s-commercial-space-acts-treaty-compliance-may-depend-on-implementation/.110 Jeff Foust. “Luxembourg adopts space resources law.” Space News. July 17, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacenews.com/

luxembourg-adopts-space-resources-law/.111 Ibid112 “Space resources in Luxembourg.” Space Resources // Luxembourg. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/en/

space-resources-luxembourg.html.

http://spacenews.com/u-s-commercial-space-acts-treaty-compliance-may-depend-on-implementation/

http://spacenews.com/luxembourg-adopts-space-resources-law/


http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/en/space-resources-luxembourg.html


21


Possible Solutions

Resolutions should be sensitive to the unique nature of space and the issue of space mining. In crafting

clauses, it may be helpful to think thematically so that all of the relevant issues receive coverage. In this light,

the rest of this section is divided into subsections that each broach leads for potential solutions. Bear in

mind that what follows is by no means exhaustive or “correct” but is merely illustrative of possible avenues

of exploration.

Legality

Any resolution must explore the legal grounds of exploring and exploiting space. While there exist legal

instruments, none have been written following the increased movement towards space mining. As a result,

there appear to be two distinct possibilities: either amending existing legislation or drafting entirely new

treaties or principles. Regardless, it is crucial that greater clarity on the legality of space mining is reached.

This would entail spelling out how space mining would fit within a peaceful order in space, so that international

and national space law could adjust accordingly. Addressing this point would require answering, or providing

guidelines to the questions raised throughout the background guide: can property rights exist in space? Can

governments or private entities own objects or bodies from outer space? Does one need to own a space body

or object to use or profit from it? Who will regulate governmental and private space activity, especially as

the latter begins to surpass the former? On the last point in particular, it is worth noting the limited influence

of the Moon Agreement and its inclusion of an “international regime” – why was that unpopular then and

would increased multilateral space governance still be shunned or welcomed?

In scholarly discussion and assessments on space law, there are two international treaties that are often cited,

or likened to space law. Although space is on a different scale and nature to regions that these documents

govern, it may be helpful to consider the rationale and eventual policies adopted in each of these cases.

Case study: The Antarctic Treaty

The first non-armament treaty, the Antarctic Treaty laid the foundation for legislation such as the Outer

Space Treaty.113 As the location of multiple territorial claims and exploratory operations in the 1950s, it

was clear that a multilateral solution to the Antarctica issue was required, particularly with the possibilities

113 “Antarctic Treaty.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/193967.htm.

https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/193967.htm

22


of economic exploitation or militarization.114 The drafting of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty involved relevant

national stakeholders who collectively agreed to its 14 Articles.115 The crucial clauses allow the continent

“to be used for peaceful purposes only”, promote “freedom of scientific investigation” with results to

be “exchanged and made freely available”, deny “territorial sovereignty” and permit “inspection”.116 The

Treaty does not allow for the economic exploitation of Antarctica by any nation, and so does not discuss

how potential gains would be distributed. The strength of this Treaty lies in its commitment to protecting

Antarctica from human influence – adapting it to space would be tantamount to heavily restricting human

activities in space.

Case study: The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

An article written to commemorate half a century since the OST became law, noted that the OST was “just

seventeen short articles in length”, but that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) “spans

hundreds of articles in length.”117 Although the oceans are vast, the expanse of space is greater still, making

the discrepancy between the two legal documents almost comical. UNCLOS is used to regulate large bodies

of water and it declares that nations “have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment”

(Article 192) but that is also “the sovereign right of States to exploit their natural resources” (Article 193).118

This duality is also reflected in one of the key creations of the Convention, the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)—which allows nations 200 nautical miles of sovereignty past their coast, where they are able to conduct

“economic activities and “exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection”

while other nations may also enjoy “freedom of navigation” and be permitted to lay certain infrastructure in

this zone.119 There are considerations for “landlocked or geographically disadvantaged States” (which can be

likened to nations with limited to no space programs) and a dispute resolution mechanism, the International

Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, should any disagreements over the Convention arise.120 As an example, this

Tribunal provided a ruling in mid-2016 on the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines,

although tensions in the region persist. Many of these concepts could be applied to space, such as a

multilateral commitment to protect the expanse, an EEZ for nations and a tribunal to preside over disputes.

114 Ibid115 Ibid116 “The Antarctic Treaty.” Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm.117 Loren Grush, “How an international treaty signed 50 years ago became the backbone for space law.” The Verge. January 27, 2017.

Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/27/14398492/outer-space-treaty-50-anniversary-exploration-guidelines.118 Hans Chr. Bugge, “UN Law of the Sea Convention: Main concepts and principles of environmental protection”, Faculty of Law, University

of Oslo, https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/JUS5520/h11/undervisningsmateriale/jus5520Powerpoint%20UNCLOS.pdf119 “Overview - Convention & Related Agreements.” United Nations. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_

agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm.120 Ibid

http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm

https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/27/14398492/outer-space-treaty-50-anniversary-exploration-guidelines

https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/JUS5520/h11/undervisningsmateriale/jus5520Powerpoint%20UNCLOS.pdf

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm


23


The interaction between governments and private firms

The Outer Space Treaty appears forward thinking in that it mentions “non-government entities” and

accordingly addresses them.121 As per the OST, nations must “authorize” and be “monitoring” the non-

government entities from the nation, with the latter ultimately bearing “responsibility” for the former.122 This

dynamic could become increasingly strained as private companies may feel they are being spied and reported

upon. A possible solution to this could include increased government support of these private ventures,

such as through funding, technological collaboration or passage of favorable national space legislation. An

alternative would be to amend the stipulation entirely, and make the private companies directly accountable.

This could entail making them register with an international regulating organization, making them sign and

be party to space legislation, or having a neutral third party engage in monitoring activities.

The side effects of mining

The scale of negative economic and environmental effects, as a result of space mining, is unknown. However,

since they are anticipated, it would be prudent to take action to minimize their impacts with regulation being

a possible choice. The approach to minimizing the damaging effects should be two-fold: it should both be

prevented and effectively managed should a catastrophe occur. With environmental effects, a possibility

would be increased specifications on which celestial bodies are to be mined (e.g. distance from Earth) and

how they are to be mined, with contingency plans, possibly in the form of a task-force, should there be a

crisis.

In terms of economic impacts, such as oversupply or underground market activities, quotas and greater

oversight of items leaving and entering space may be required. Thought should also be given to how any gains

from space mining (either brought back to Earth, or within space) are going to be utilized and distributed,

especially keeping in mind the Benefits Declaration. With the involvement of private companies, schemes

to redistribute these gains may be more difficult and may serve to dissuade investment. While it is up to

individual nations to advocate for their preferred solution, redistribution of these gains could be done in

many ways. For example, it could be on a need-basis (e.g. countries with the lowest development, countries

which lack a particular resource), or a fair-share basis (wherein all countries get some share of the gains). In

121 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html

122 Ibid



24


describing these models, be aware that this redistribution does not have to be free, and can be sold at one

or differing prices.

25


Bloc Positions

Despite not yet being practiced, there are differing levels of activity amongst space-mining players. At the

international level, there appears to be a split between nations that are taking steps to foster an environment

conducive to space mining or have vocalized desires to do so, and those that are not taking any such steps.

Whether or not this changes in the future, it currently provides a framework for considering how countries

may interact with each other on the topic. Furthermore, a discussion on the players of space mining would

be incomplete without considering the role of private firms but as none are currently members of COPUOS,

they will not be focused on below.

Countries at the legal forefront of space mining (The United States and Luxembourg)

With passage of the 2015 CLSCA the United States emerged as a leader in the movement towards space

mining.123 Legal scholars began weighing in on how it fit within international law as it was the first national

123 Peter B. de Selding. “U.S. Commercial Space Act’s Treaty Compliance May Depend on Implementation.” Space News. December 09, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacenews.com/u-s-commercial-space-acts-treaty-compliance-may-depend-on-implementation/.


26


law in the domain of space mining.124 As a precursor to asteroid mining, in September 2016, NASA’s OSIRIS-

Rex mission set off towards the NEA Bennu with the intention of studying the body, collecting samples and

returning in 2018.125 Two further missions, Lucy and Psyche, are due to explore asteroids within our Solar

System in the early 2020s.126

The role of the United States is further bolstered by the number of private companies, dedicated to space

exploration and mining, that it hosts. Indeed, the CLCSA can be considered a tool to incentivize these

companies and foster a culture of national space endeavor. The US commitment to space activity was

emphasized in the July 2017 Senate sanctions against Russia, as the exceptions of Section 237127 showed

that it was “not intended to prevent commercial launch service providers from using Russian engines on

rockets that launch NASA or commercial payloads”.128

The nation of Luxembourg is the other COPUOS member to have enacted national legislation to promote

space mining. The passage of the July 2017 law was drafted in the hope of allowing the nation to “play a

leading role” and to “ensure that space resources explored under its jurisdiction serve a peaceful purpose,

are gathered and used in a sustainable manner compatible with international law and for the benefit of

humankind.”129 Other Luxembourgian initiatives include collaborations with private space companies such

as Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, and offers of funding for space mining initiatives.130

In June 2017 the Luxembourg government announced their intention to create a national space program

“whose only focus is on the commercial use of space resources.”131

124 Ibid125 Rob. “OSIRIS-REx.” NASA. February 20, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/osiris-rex.126 Karen Northon, “NASA Selects Two Missions to Explore the Early Solar System.” NASA. January 04, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-two-missions-to-explore-the-early-solar-system.127 Congress, United States Government, “S.722 – Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activites Act of 2017,” 2017-2018, https://www.congress.

gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/722/text#toc-id5d0ad711357841bc8c6ed7fd1b885090128 Marcia Smith. “Senate-Passed Sanctions Bill Includes Exception for NASA, Commercial Space Launches.” July 27, 2017. Accessed August

24, 2017. http://spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-passed-sanctions-bill-includes-exception-for-nasa-commercial-space-launches-2/.129 “Space resources.” SpaceResources // Luxembourg. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/en.html.130 “ Press releases” SpaceResources // Luxembourg. Accessed August 24, 2017 http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/en/press/press-

release.html131 Jeff Foust, “Luxembourg adopts space resources law.” Space News. July 17, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacenews.com/

luxembourg-adopts-space-resources-law/.

https://www.nasa.gov/osiris-rex.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-two-missions-to-explore-the-early-solar-system

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/722/text#toc-id5d0ad711357841bc8c6ed7fd1b885090


http://spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-passed-sanctions-bill-includes-exception-for-nasa-commercial-space-launches-2/

http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/en.html

http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/en/press/press-release.html




27


Asian nations that have not yet enacted legislation explicitly promoting space mining (e.g. China, India, Japan, UAE)

Between them, Asian nations are developing increasingly advanced space programs, a phenomena termed

the “Asian space race.”132 In May 2017 the government-backed China National Space Administration (CNSA)

detailed their plans for mining NEAs from the 2020s. The blueprint includes “landing” and “capturing” an

asteroid by diverting and placing it within the same orbit of our Moon, with the hope that the short distance

would allow for ease of access in mining and even inhabiting the asteroids.133 Since 2007 the CNSA has also

periodically sent missions to the Moon under the “Chang’e” program to learn more about lunar conditions.134

The Indian Space Research Organization, which propelled its first lunar mission in 2008,135 dismissed

statements that it was intending to mine the Moon for helium-3 isotopes.136 The Japanese Space Exploration

Agency (JAXA) expects the return of its second asteroid probe, Hayabusa-2, in 2020.137 In December 2016 it

also announced that it would cooperate with a local private company specifically to develop space mining.138

The Asian space race may see further competition from the Western part of the continent. In July 2014 the

United Arab Emirates launched its national space program, becoming the first Arab nation to achieve the

feat.139 While a long-term goal of the agency is to have communities on Mars by 2117, in the short term it is

also fielding advice from space lawyers over developing policy on matters such as space mining.140

132 Quintana, Elizabeth. “The Asian space race.” Observer Research Foundation. February 21, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.orfonline.org/expert-speaks/the-asian-space-race/.

133 Griffin, Andrew. “China to send people to live on asteroids and mine them, authorities announce.” The Independent. May 12, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/china-nasa-asteroid-space-agency-beijing-a7732306.html.

134 ‘Namrata. “China’s Unique Space Ambitions.” The Diplomat. August 03, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/chinas-unique-space-ambitions/.

135 Kate Greene, “Why India Is Investing in Space in a Big Way.” Slate Magazine. March 17, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/why_india_is_investing_in_space.html.

136 Vasudevan.Mukunth, “ISRO Is Not Going to Mine the Moon for Helium-3.” The Wire. April 25, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://thewire.in/126926/isro-helium3-fake-news/.

137 Forster, Katie. “Japan Is Launching An Asteroid Mining Space Program.” Business Insider. September 02, 2014. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-is-launching-an-asteroid-mining-space-program-2014-9?IR=T.

138 Messier, Doug. “JAXA Takes Step Toward Lunar Mining.” Parabolic Arc. December 17, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/12/17/jaxa-takes-step-lunar-mining/.

139 Greene, Kate. “Why the United Arab Emirates Is Building a Space Program From Scratch.” Slate Magazine. March 30, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/why_the_united_arab_emirates_is_building_a_space_program.html.

140 Ibid

http://www.orfonline.org/expert-speaks/the-asian-space-race/


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/china-nasa-asteroid-space-agency-beijing-a7732306.html

http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/chinas-unique-space-ambitions/


http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/why_india_is_investing_in_space.html


https://thewire.in/126926/isro-helium3-fake-news/


http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-is-launching-an-asteroid-mining-space-program-2014-9?IR=T

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/12/17/jaxa-takes-step-lunar-mining/


http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/why_the_united_arab_emirates_is_building_a_space_program.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/why_the_united_arab_emirates_is_building_a_space_program.html

28


European nations that have not yet enacted legislation explicitly promoting space mining (e.g. Russia, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.)

As the counterpart to the United States in the Cold War space race, Russia has a long history of space

activity. It was not in favor of the recent law passed by Luxembourg,141 which is comparable to the December

2015 CSLCA Act of the United States. The European Space Agency (ESA) is a union between 22 nations of

the continent,142 including Luxembourg (although, as noted above, Luxembourg has plans to establish its

own space agency).143 The ESA, along with the CNSA, also plan to jointly establish a “Moon Village” which

amongst other things could promote space mining by acting as a space base.144 In June 2017, the ESA and

Luxembourg affirmed their “cooperation on asteroid missions, related technology and space resources

exploration and utilization”.145

141 Mark Kaufman on August 1, 2017. “Luxembourg’s Asteroid Mining is Legal, Says Space Law Expert.” Inverse. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.inverse.com/article/34935-luxembourg-s-asteroid-mining-is-legal-says-space-law-expert.

142 “Welcome to ESA.” European Space Agency. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://m.esa.int/About_Us/Welcome_to_ESA.143 Jeff Foust, “Luxembourg adopts space resources law.” Space News. July 17, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacenews.com/

luxembourg-adopts-space-resources-law/.144 Andrew Griffin, “China and Europe to build a base on the moon and launch other projects into space.” The Independent. April 26, 2017.

Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/moon-base-outpost-china-europe-chinese-space-agency-collaboration-together-a7702936.html.

145 Space Resources, The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, “Luxembourg and the European Space Agency enhance cooperation on asteroid missions, related technology and space resources exploration and utilization,” 20 June, 2017, http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/content/dam/spaceresources/press-release/2017/2017_06_21%20Press%20Release%20ESA%20LeBourget.pdf

https://www.inverse.com/article/34935-luxembourg-s-asteroid-mining-is-legal-says-space-law-expert

http://m.esa.int/About_Us/Welcome_to_ESA





http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/content/dam/spaceresources/press-release/2017/2017_06_21%20Press%20Release%20ESA%20LeBourget.pdf



29


Glossary

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs): Weapons that can cause large-scale destruction, sub-categories

include nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

New Space Race: Although it makes reference to the original Space Race in its name, the New Space Race

describes the competition for space achievement between private companies rather than countries.

Asteroid: A type of celestial body, which is also a principal site for mining. The different sub-categories (with

variations in color and composition) are described in greater detail in the Statement of the Problem.

CSLCA (US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act): This is a piece of US legislation, passed in

2015, that allows a citizen of the Unites States the right to own by-products of space mining.

30


Bibliography

Lee, Ricky J Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (Springer International Publishing, 2012).

Harris, Philip R, “Space Law and Space Resources.” National Space Society. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.nss.

org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/spacelaw.html.

Ram S. Jakhu, Joseph N. Pelton and Yaw O. M. Nyampong Space Mining and its Regulation (Switzerland: Springer

International Publishing, 2017).

Costa, Dan. “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.

com/commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty

Steigerwald, William. “New NASA Mission to Help Us Learn How to Mine Asteroids.” NASA. March 02, 2015. Accessed

August 24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-mission-to-help-us-learn-how-to-mine-

asteroids.

“World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 | UN DESA Department of Economic and Social Affairs.”

United Nations. July 29, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/

population/2015-report.html.

“Gold Prices Today | Price of Gold Per Ounce | Gold Spot Price Chart.” APMEX. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://

www.apmex.com/spotprices/gold-price.

“Platinum Price | Platinum Price Chart History | Price of Platinum Today.” APMEX. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://

www.apmex.com/spotprices/platinum-price.

Dunbar, Brian. “In-Line Water Filtration: Better Hygeine, Less Expense.” NASA. September 29, 2009. Accessed August

24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/pure_water.html.

Edwards, Jim. “Goldman Sachs: space-mining for platinum is ‘more realistic than perceived’.” Business Insider. April 06,

2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-space-mining-asteroid-

platinum-2017-4?IR=T.

Mohon, Lee. “First Flight of Space Shuttle Endeavour Launches -- May 7, 1992.” NASA. May 10, 2017. Accessed August

24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/history/this-week-in-nasa-history-first-flight-of-space-

shuttle-endeavour-launches-may-7-1992.html.

Griffin, Andrew. “China and Europe to build a base on the moon and launch other projects into space.” The Independent.

April 26, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/moon-base-

outpost-china-europe-chinese-space-agency-collaboration-together-a7702936.html.

Tynan, Dan. “Galactic gold rush: the tech companies aiming to make space mining a reality.” The Guardian. December

06, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/06/space-mining-

moon-asteroids-tech-companies

Greicius, Tony. “Catalog of Known Near-Earth Asteroids Tops 15,000.” NASA. October 26, 2016. Accessed August 24,

2017. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/catalog-of-known-near-earth-asteroids-tops-15000.

United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space. Publication. 2002. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.unoosa.

org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf.

























31


United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the

Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1996, http://www.

unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html

Armbrecht, Arwen. “Asteroid mining: is this the next space race?” World Economic Forum. February 5, 2016. Accessed

August 24, 2017. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/asteroid-mining-next-space-race/.

What If I Told You... Report. December 2, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-

thinking/pages/macroeconomic-insights-folder/what-if-i-told-you/report.pdf.

Issue Overview: Space Mining. Report. July 10, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://vanclasses.weebly.com/

uploads/3/7/7/1/37718445/solar_use.pdf.

Novak, Matt. “Asteroid mining’s peculiar past.” BBC. November 18, 2014. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.bbc.

com/future/story/20130129-asteroid-minings-peculiar-past.

“Kaluga Period.” Russian Space Web. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tsiolkovsky_

kaluga.html.

Wasser, Alan. “LBJ’s Space Race: what we didn’t know then (part 1).” The Space Review. June 20, 2005. Accessed

August 24, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/396/1.

Farrell, Paul B. “Asteroid mining 2022 a $1 trillion bet for Earth.” MarketWatch. January 08, 2013. Accessed August

24, 2017. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/asteroid-mining-2022-a-1-trillion-bet-for-earth-2013-01-08

“Our Vision is to Expand the Economy into Space.,” Planetary Resources, accessed September 10, 2017, http://www.

planetaryresources.com/#home-asteroids.

“Space Resources for an Unlimited Future,” Deep Space Industries, accessed September 10, 2017, http://

deepspaceindustries.com/.

Hays, Brooks. “NASA contracts two firms to work on asteroid mining,” UPI, November 24, 2014, accessed September

10, 2017, https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/11/24/NASA-contracts-two-firms-to-work-on-

asteroid-mining/5301416856690/.

General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration of the Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the

Exploration and Use of Outer Space,” 13 December, 1962, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/

spacelaw/principles/legal-principles.html

“Outer Space Treaty.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm.




Jha, Lalit K. “US lawmakers seek review of Outer Space Treaty amid competition from India, China.” Livemint. May

26, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.livemint.com/Science/6uxgbhcNcRfBtbWyq63wTO/US-

lawmakers-seek-review-of-Outer-Space-Treaty-amid-competit.html.

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on International Liability for damage Caused by Space

Objects,” 1971, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf



https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/asteroid-mining-next-space-race

http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/macroeconomic-insights-folder/what-if-i-told-you/report.pdf

http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/macroeconomic-insights-folder/what-if-i-told-you/report.pdf















ttp://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/legal-principles.html

ttp://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/legal-principles.html







32





General Assembly, United Nations, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial

Bodies,” 1979, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_34_68E.pdf, Annex

Listner, Michael. “The Moon Treaty: failed international law or waiting in the shadows?” The Space Review. October

24, 2011. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1954/1.

General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer

Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing

Countries,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/space-benefits-

declaration.html

Congress, United States Government, “H.R. 2262 – US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act,” 2014-2015,


de Selding, Peter B. “U.S. Commercial Space Act’s Treaty Compliance May Depend on Implementation.” Space News.

December 09, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacenews.com/u-s-commercial-space-acts-treaty-

compliance-may-depend-on-implementation/.

Foust, Jeff. “Luxembourg adopts space resources law.” Space News. July 17, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://

spacenews.com/luxembourg-adopts-space-resources-law/.

“Space resources in Luxembourg.” Space Resources // Luxembourg. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.

spaceresources.public.lu/en/space-resources-luxembourg.html.

“Antarctic Treaty.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/193967.

htm.

“The Antarctic Treaty.” Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm.

Grush, Loren. “How an international treaty signed 50 years ago became the backbone for space law.” The Verge.

January 27, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/27/14398492/outer-space-

treaty-50-anniversary-exploration-guidelines.

Bugge, Hans Chr. “UN Law of the Sea Convention: Main concepts and principles of environmental protection”, Faculty

of Law, University of Oslo, https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/jus/jus/JUS5520/h11/undervisningsmateriale/

jus5520Powerpoint%20UNCLOS.pdf

“Overview - Convention & Related Agreements.” United Nations. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.un.org/

depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm.

Garner, Rob. “OSIRIS-REx.” NASA. February 20, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/osiris-rex.

Northon, Karen. “NASA Selects Two Missions to Explore the Early Solar System.” NASA. January 04, 2017. Accessed

August 24, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-two-missions-to-explore-the-early-

solar-system.

Congress, United States Government, “S.722 – Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activites Act of 2017,” 2017-2018,

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/722/text#toc-id5d0ad711357841bc8c6ed7fd

1b885090
















http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm







https://www.nasa.gov/osiris-rex





33


Marcia Smith. “Senate-Passed Sanctions Bill Includes Exception for NASA, Commercial Space Launches.” July 27,

2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-passed-sanctions-bill-includes-

exception-for-nasa-commercial-space-launches-2/.

“Space resources.” SpaceResources // Luxembourg. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/

en.html.

“ Press releases” SpaceResources // Luxembourg. Accessed August 24, 2017 http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/

en/press/press-release.html

Quintana, Elizabeth. “The Asian space race.” Observer Research Foundation. February 21, 2017. Accessed August 24,

2017. http://www.orfonline.org/expert-speaks/the-asian-space-race/.

Griffin, Andrew. “China to send people to live on asteroids and mine them, authorities announce.” The Independent.

May 12, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/china-nasa-

asteroid-space-agency-beijing-a7732306.html.

Goswami, Namrata. “China’s Unique Space Ambitions.” The Diplomat. August 03, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/chinas-unique-space-ambitions/.

Greene, Kate. “Why India Is Investing in Space in a Big Way.” Slate Magazine. March 17, 2017. Accessed August 24,

2017. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/why_india_is_investing_in_space.

html.

Mukunth, Vasudevan. “ISRO Is Not Going to Mine the Moon for Helium-3.” The Wire. April 25, 2017. Accessed August

24, 2017. https://thewire.in/126926/isro-helium3-fake-news/.

Forster, Katie. “Japan Is Launching An Asteroid Mining Space Program.” Business Insider. September 02, 2014.

Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-is-launching-an-asteroid-mining-space-

program-2014-9?IR=T.

Messier, Doug. “JAXA Takes Step Toward Lunar Mining.” Parabolic Arc. December 17, 2016. Accessed August 24,

2017. http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/12/17/jaxa-takes-step-lunar-mining/.

Greene, Kate. “Why the United Arab Emirates Is Building a Space Program From Scratch.” Slate Magazine. March

30, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/why_

the_united_arab_emirates_is_building_a_space_program.html.

Kaufman, Mark on August 1, 2017. “Luxembourg’s Asteroid Mining is Legal, Says Space Law Expert.” Inverse. Accessed

August 24, 2017. https://www.inverse.com/article/34935-luxembourg-s-asteroid-mining-is-legal-says-

space-law-expert.

“Welcome to ESA.” European Space Agency. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://m.esa.int/About_Us/Welcome_to_ESA.

Space Resources, The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, “Luxembourg and the European Space

Agency enhance cooperation on asteroid missions, related technology and space resources exploration

and utilization,” 20 June, 2017, http://www.spaceresources.public.lu/content/dam/spaceresources/press-

release/2017/2017_06_21%20Press%20Release%20ESA%20LeBourget.pdf

















http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/why_the_united_arab_emirates_is_building_a_space_program.html.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/why_the_united_arab_emirates_is_building_a_space_program.html.



http://m.esa.int/About_Us/Welcome_to_ESA



34


TOPIC B: MILITARIZATION OF SPACE

Statement of the Problem

Following human entrance in the past century, space has captured our imagination and allowed for

unprecedented possibilities. As our interest in space increases, and space infrastructure and technology

advance, the returns from our activities have greater magnitude. However, these initiatives have the

potential to be either helpful or harmful to humanity. Of particular concern is the increasing use of space

for military means – with space being used as a means to improve earth-based warfare and, potentially, as a

site of warfare itself. Although the Cold War may be over, increased military capability over the past decade

have stoked fears that we may be entering an era in which the waging of war can be coordinated via, and

possibly even fought within, space.

In addressing the militarization of space, it is imperative to note that space has technically been “militarized”

since we began exploring it.146 Although this may seem shocking, it is because space militarization is broadly

defined as the “use of space in support of ground, sea and air-based military operations.”147 This wide-

ranging definition has allowed for the characterization of a “militarized” space to be modeled as a spectrum,

with varying degrees of severity.148 Contained within the upper realms of this scale is the “weaponization”

of space, the “placement in orbit of space-based devices that have destructive capacity.”149 At the time of

writing, space has not been weaponized, despite being militarized.150 As a result, we currently exist on the

cusp between space militarization and weaponization.151 Though there is a distinction between the concepts

of space militarization and weaponization, some scholars consider the latter to be a part of the former,152 a

view this guide follows.

146 Wilson S. Wong and James Gordon Fergusson, Military space power: a guide to the issues (Santa Barbara (Calif.): Praeger, 2010), 4.147 P. N. Tripathi, “Weaponisation and Militarisation of Space,” Centre for Land Warfare Studies Journal, Winter 2013, 193, accessed September

1, 2017, http://www.claws.in/images/journals_doc/464050849_PNTripathi.pdf.148 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 30, accessed September 1, 2017.149 P. N. Tripathi, “Weaponisation and Militarisation of Space,” Centre for Land Warfare Studies Journal, Winter 2013, 193, accessed September

1, 2017, http://www.claws.in/images/journals_doc/464050849_PNTripathi.pdf.150 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 31, accessed September 1, 2017.151 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 30, accessed September 1, 2017.152 P. N. Tripathi, “Weaponisation and Militarisation of Space,” Centre for Land Warfare Studies Journal, Winter 2013, 194, accessed September

1, 2017, http://www.claws.in/images/journals_doc/464050849_PNTripathi.pdf.

http://www.claws.in/images/journals_doc/464050849_PNTripathi.pdf



35


Why would nations militarize space?

Considering the high investment costs, a viable concern is why nations would choose to militarize space in

the first place. The obvious reason may be the desire for increased military prowess, which in realist terms,

is decisive to the continued existence of a nation.153 Realism, a concept in political science, stresses the

importance of a nation’s relative power, or its power in comparison to other nations. In terms of space, this

could be the aspiration for “space control” or the “ability to ensure one’s own access to satellite capabilities

while denying space-based services to adversaries,”154 which would grant an advantage to the nation

pursuing it. With this in mind, nations may feel compelled to out-do one another in order to stay on top and

ensure security. This concept of an “arms race” is a key concern as space becomes increasingly militarised.

Within the same context of international relations, there may be additional incentives, which can be related

to the above reasoning. The first of these is national prestige155 – or the “perception other countries have of

a nation’s worth or value.”156 To that end, countries would venture into and militarize space as a display of

military, economic and scientific strength to the international community. Although this was a dominating

factor during the Space Race (a feature of the Cold War, discussed in History), some analysts suggest that it

may play less of a role today.157 Another factor may be considered inherent in human nature, that is, man’s

desire to master new environments by militarizing them.158 Citing historical precedent, the argument goes

that because man originally fought on land, then on the oceans, and most recently in the skies – as technology

improved and access arose – the militarization of space will naturally follow.159

What kinds of military activities or weapons are involved?

Despite the ominous sentiment of the previous paragraph, space-based technology has been leveraged to

improve lives. This is to the extent that some of the key features of 21st century life, such as television, GPS and

weather forecasting, would not be possible without the exploitation of outer space.160 Governments can also

153 Anne-Marie Slaughter, “International Relations, Principal Theories,” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2011).

154 Space 2030: Tackling Society’s Challenges (OECD, 2005), 20.155 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 35, accessed September 1, 2017.156 Bruce Thornton, “Prestige As A Tool Of Foreign Policy,” Hoover Institution, June 12, 2017, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.

hoover.org/research/prestige-tool-foreign-policy.157 “Space: Still an important Matter of National Prestige?” European Business Review, March 15, 2017, accessed September 01, 2017, http://

www.europeanbusinessreview.eu/page.asp?pid=1820.158 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 39, accessed September 1, 2017.159 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 39, accessed September 1, 2017.160 Frank Slijper, From Venus to Mars: the European Union’s steps towards the militarisation of space (Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2008),

9.

http://www.hoover.org/research/prestige-tool-foreign-policy


http://www.europeanbusinessreview.eu/page.asp?pid=1820


36


use this technology in the name of national security – to bolster both offensive and defensive capabilities.161

Revisiting the concept of weaponization, it is interesting to note that in space, it is traditionally thought that

regardless of original purpose, any object can be utilized as a weapon.162 This is a result of the “dual-use”

principle, which allows for multi-purpose space objects, or objects that can change purpose during their

existence.163 An example of this could be a satellite, perhaps used to map Earth’s surface, also having latent

weaponry capability or being used to collide into another object.164 These two states are characterized as

“passive, non-destructive” and “active, destructive” respectively.165

Space militarization, despite its name, is not necessarily limited to space but can include Earth. The three

broad categories of weaponry under the umbrella of space militarization are: Space-to-Space, Earth-to-

Space and Space-to-Earth.166 Space-to-Space weaponry, such as the satellite described in the last paragraph,

use space-based weapons to attack another space-based object.167 Earth-to-Space weaponry, such as Anti-

Satellite technology (ASAT) or Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABM), involves earth-based systems targeting space-

based objects.168 Finally, Space-to-Earth weaponry would originate in space and move towards an earth-

based target.169

How are nations permitted to militarize space?

The name and long-term existence of our body, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space,

suggests that the militarization of space (much less the increasing militarization of space) should not be

occurring. This sentiment is reiterated in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which was written once the Space

Race had commenced and is considered the most important document in space law.170 The Treaty, which

describes space as “the province of all mankind”, stipulates that space bodies must be “used exclusively for

peaceful purposes” and prohibits the deposition of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in space.171 As

airtight as this may seem, this document grants nations significant leeway in pursuing their space ambitions. In

161 Ibid162 David Axe, “When it comes to war in space, U.S. has the edge,” Reuters, August 09, 2015, accessed September 01, 2017, http://blogs.

reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/09/the-u-s-military-is-preparing-for-the-real-star-wars/.163 Ibid164 Ibid165 Irmgard Marboe, Militarization of outer space: present and future challenges from the international legal perspective, PDF.166 Ibid167 Ibid168 Ibid169 Ibid170 Costa, Dan. “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/

commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty171 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use


http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/09/the-u-s-military-is-preparing-for-the-real-star-wars/

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/09/the-u-s-military-is-preparing-for-the-real-star-wars/





37


particular, the classification of space as a “peaceful” area is somewhat ambiguous.172 This is primarily because

nations can interpret “peaceful” as being the same as “non-aggressive”173 – allowing for rising militarization,

so long as there is no hostile action being enacted. As a result, a space arms race, with nations scrambling

to dominate one another through armaments, would not necessarily be against the letter of international

space law.

Another oft-cited loophole is the clause regarding WMDs. Similarly contentious, it only forbids WMDs,

rather than conventional weaponry.174 In the absence of other legislation outlawing conventional weaponry,

a grey area is created in which countries are permitted conventional weaponry since they have not been

told otherwise. Examples of conventional weaponry include objects like rockets, missiles and bombs – all of

which could constitute a threat. Furthermore, though these WMDs are not permitted to be in orbit or on a

celestial body, there is no legal check against their being transported through space.175

What are some of the impacts of an increasingly militarized space?

The implications of an increasingly militarized space are far-reaching. This sub-section will focus on some of

these effects and try to place them within the context of existing space law.

There are environmental consequences associated with increased

space militarization. Of particular concern is space debris – a

mixture of natural and man-made particles in space that travel

at an immense speed and can damage space infrastructure.176

Comprised of the non-functional objects launched into space,

space debris can be of varying sizes.177 As the number of satellites

(which may not necessarily be used for military purposes)

deployed into space increases, space debris looks set to increase.

Indeed, events like China’s 2007 ASAT test and the 2009 Russia-

US satellite collision (discussed in History) both contributed to the

172 Hans-Joachim Heintze, “Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and International Law,” Space4Peace, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.space4peace.org/ethics/puosil.htm.

173 Ibid174 “International Legal Agreements Relevant to Space Weapons.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed September 01, 2017. http://

www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/space-weapons/international-legal-agreements#.WanGS9MjExc.175 Ibid176 Mark Garcia, “Space Debris and Human Spacecraft,” NASA, April 13, 2015, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.nasa.gov/

mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html.177 Ibid

http://www.space4peace.org/ethics/puosil.htm


http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/space-weapons/international-legal-agreements#.WanGS9MjExc

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/space-weapons/international-legal-agreements#.WanGS9MjExc

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html


38


debris issue.178 In this scenario, the addition of further objects of militarization (which may not necessarily be

satellites) would be a further detriment to the space environment.

In analyzing militarization there are a number of countries (and their respective space programs) that

dominate the space arena. These countries, including the United States and China, typically have either

strong or rising economies and may view space, amongst other things, as a means of further bolstering their

armed forces. A common justification is that the use of space-based technology allows for military strikes

to be better focused. By being able to pinpoint specific targets through mapping, the hope is that civilian

deaths could be avoided. An implication of this technology is that it could go against space law. Considering

the stipulation that space be used for “peaceful purposes”, it may be problematic that space is enabling these

strikes.

Another concern is the feasibility of deterrence that space militarization may offer. Rather than serving to

prevent conflict, or even reduce deaths (e.g. through targeting), some scholars suggest space weaponization

specifically could increase global and regional conflict.179 This is because only a few countries have

the capacity to utilize it, which could be seen as wildly threatening to the nations that have less space

technology and infrastructure.180 This capacity difference should also be considered in the context of The

Benefits Declaration (See Past Actions for further detail). With the technology required to venture into and

militarize space increasingly being held by a selection of countries, many developing nations fear they are

being sidelined.181 Specifically, the sentiment is that the technological difference between developed and

developing nations is further exacerbated through space militarization, making these developed nations

more reliant upon nations with space capability.182

The rising commercialization of space, embodied in tourism or asteroid mining aspirations (see Topic A) should

also be taken into account in considering the militarization of outer space. One on hand, it could make nations

with greater stakes in the commercialization of space less likely to escalate their militarization of space. This

could be because of their fear that other nations may reciprocate, which could threaten commercial ventures,

a source of revenue to nations that host these companies. On the other hand, the commercialization of space

may be correlated with the militarization of space.183 This may be because existing space law does not allow

178 Ibid179 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 44, accessed September 1, 2017.180 Ibid181 Outer Space in Society, Politics and Law, vol. 8, Studies in Space Policy (Springer, 2011), 729.182 Ibid183 Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 32, accessed September 1, 2017.

39


nations to claim sovereignty over bodies in space (although countries are responsible for objects, such as

satellites, that they place into space, regardless of whether they originate from governmental or private

ventures) and so nations may feel the need to “protect” commodities of value to them, which they otherwise

cannot exercise control over.

40


History of the Problem

Militarization of Space: The Cold War era

Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, was launched by the Soviet Union in 1957. Its ascendance into space was

the beginning of the Space Race and in turn, the start of the “militarization” of outer space.184 The Space

Race was the competition between the Cold

War rivals to outperform one another in space

feats – it was an aspect of the broader Cold

War, thedecades-long conflict between the

United States and the Soviet Union during the

twentieth century that never escalated into

a direct war between the two superpowers.

Sputnik acted as a turning point, particularly for

the United States, to boost its space investment

and technology. The creation of the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

by the US government occurred in the next

year.185

The priority for the United States government was to use space to conduct reconnaissance missions to gain

greater information about the Soviet Union.186 Satellites placed in orbit would conduct these information-

gathering exercises. This did not entail weaponization plans, as President Eisenhower was an early supporter

of the peaceful use of space.187 Nevertheless, both nations continued to develop their respective arsenals,

and in the domain of space this was directed towards anti-satellite technology.188 Within this charged

international atmosphere, the United Nations established the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer

Space in 1958, first on an ad-hoc basis and later as a permanent fixture.189

184 Wilson S. Wong and James Gordon Fergusson, Military space power: a guide to the issues (Santa Barbara (Calif.): Praeger, 2010), 4.185 Matthew Mowthorpe, Militarization and Weaponization of Space, 14.186 Ibid187 Ibid188 Pericles Gasparini Alves, Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space: A Guide to the Discussions in the Conference on Disarmament (Geneva:

United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research ), 1:1.189 Ibid, 1:2

41


The 1960s saw the struggle for space one-upmanship continue, and at the end of the decade, NASA launched

a manned mission to the Moon. Concurrently, both nations continued to develop their offensive capabilities

in space, with technology including ballistic missiles and satellite interceptors.190 Both superpowers, along

with the international community, began to realize the need for legal restrictions to weaponizing space.191

These concerns paved the way for the drafting and signing of the Test Ban Treaty.192 In turn, this treaty aided

in the formation and eventual signing of the Outer Space Treaty (OST) in 1967 – with one of its key provisions

banning the use of WMDs in space.193 Following this, and with an apparent thaw in relations between the

superpowers, further legislation was drafted to limit space militarization. Bilateral effort saw the signing

of both the SALT I (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks I) and ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) agreements in the

early 1970s —although these were focused solely on preventing the weaponization and not the broader

militarization of space.194 It was only in 1982, a decade later, that the topic of PAROS (Prevention of an Arms

Race in Outer Space) first entered the international fray.195

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan of the United States announced the creation of a Strategic Defense

Initiative (SDI), known colloquially as “Star Wars”.196 Its goal was to defend the US from attack by Soviet

ICBMs (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) by preventing the missiles from completing their flight.197 When

made public, the long-term project alarmed the Soviets, but ultimately never came to fruition.198 The end of

the Cold War came in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, although the final ASAT of the period was

deployed in 1985.199

Militarization of Space: The Post-Cold War period

Following 1991, the world shifted towards unipolarity as the United States was the sole superpower after the

collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite this dominance, the US took a number of steps in the following years to

further militarize space. In the same year, the US fought what has been described as the first “space war”.200

190 Ibid191 Ibid, 1:3192 Ibid193 Ibid194 Ibid, 1:4195 Ibid196 “Cold War: A Brief History,” Reagans Star Wars | Cold War: A Brief History | History of the Atomic Age, accessed September 01, 2017,

http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page20.shtml.197 Ibid198 Ibid 199 “Arms Control Today,” Weapons in Space? | Arms Control Association, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.armscontrol.org/

act/2004_11/Krepon.200 Larry Greenemeier, “GPS and the World’s First “Space War”,” Scientific American, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.

scientificamerican.com/article/gps-and-the-world-s-first-space-war/.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page20.shtml

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gps-and-the-world-s-first-space-war/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gps-and-the-world-s-first-space-war/

42


Despite not having a “full constellation” of Global Positing System (GPS), the United States used the system

in their intervention in the Gulf War.201 In 1997, the US Space Command released their “Vision 2020”.202 This

had two central aims – “dominating the space medium” and “integrating space power throughout military

operations”.203 In 2001, President George W. Bush announced American intention to withdraw from the

1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, citing national defense concerns.204 This came a year after a Congressional

committee claimed the US was “an attractive candidate for a space Pearl Harbor.”205

On the global stage, more nations were beginning to enter the space arena and develop infrastructure

therein. Two notable events in the past decade served to remind the international community of the

dangers of unchecked space militarization. The first was a Chinese Anti-Satellite Weapon (ASAT) attack

that was targeted at an older Chinese weather satellite. The exercise, to test out missile technology, was

successful but created a cloud of debris.206 This cloud began to form over the area around the attack but over

time dispersed across Earth’s orbit.207 The majority of this debris will remain within Earth’s orbit a century

after the attack.208 The second event was a collision between US and Russian communication satellites.209

Although unintentional, the incident created debris and served as a reminder of how “crowded” outer space

was becoming.210

201 Ibid202 Jonathan Granoff and Craig Eisendrath, “United States—Masters of Space? The US Space Command’s “Vision for 2020” ,” December

2005, accessed September 1, 2017, https://gsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/s3/assets/docs/Vision2020_Analysis.pdf.203 Ibid204 Terence Neilan, “Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty; Putin Calls Move a Mistake,” The New York Times, December 13, 2001, accessed

September 01, 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html.

205 James Dao, “Rumsfeld Seeking An Arms Strategy Using Outer Space,” The New York Times, May 07, 2001, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/world/rumsfeld-seeking-an-arms-strategy-using-outer-space.html?mcubz=0.

206 Brian Weeden, 2007 Chinese Anti-Satellite Test Fact Sheet, Secure World Foundation, November 23, 2010.207 Ibid208 Ibid209 William J. Broad, “Debris Spews Into Space After Satellites Collide,” The New York Times, February 11, 2009, accessed September 01,

2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/science/space/12satellite.html?mcubz=0.210 Ibid

https://gsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/s3/assets/docs/Vision2020_Analysis.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/world/rumsfeld-seeking-an-arms-strategy-using-outer-space.html?mcubz=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/science/space/12satellite.html?mcubz=0

43


Past Actions

The Legal Principles Declaration

Following the launch of Sputnik in 1959 and successful space orbit of Yuri Gagarin two years later, it became

clear that space was a fast opening avenue for human expansion. The passage of the Legal Principles

Declaration by the UN General Assembly in 1963 reflects the international consensus that guiding principles

needed to be established within this wider arena. The nine clauses use terminology and concepts that would

feature prominently in future international space law treaties.211 Some of the concepts embraced by the

clauses include the “use” of space “for the benefit and in the interests of all mankind”, the “free exploration”

of space, the non-sovereignty and enforcement of international law in space and the responsibility and

liability of nations in space, amongst others.212 This set of Principles formed the basis for the Outer Space

Treaty, which came into being four years later and has greater legal grounding than the Principles.

Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (Test Ban Treaty)

The Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1963, following the brinkmanship of the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis. The five

Articles of the Treaty do not address all WMDs, but are specific to nuclear weapons.213 The key provision,

Article I, forbids nations from nuclear weapon activities where “such an explosion causes radioactive debris

to be present outside of the territorial limits” of the nation carrying out the activities, or “in the atmosphere;

beyond its limits, including outer space; or under water, including territorial waters or high seas.”214 The

United States and Soviet Union, adversaries during the Cold War, were both supportive of this legislation.

The Outer Space Treaty

The first multilateral space treaty was the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), which remains the most

instrumental document pertaining to space activities and relations.215 Signed during the space race, the

Treaty was formed from the collective efforts of the United States and the Soviet Union, each of whom

211 General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration of the Legal Principles Governing the Activites of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space,” 13 December, 1962, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/legal-principles.html

212 Ibid213 “Limited Test Ban Treaty,” U.S. Department of State, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.state.gov/t/isn/4797.htm.214 Ibid215 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/

commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty





44


submitted ideas and suggested varying scales of jurisdiction.216 The mutual desire for peace in space helped

forge the second international “nonarmament” treaty217 and allowed for the creation of a “framework on

international space law”218. In terms of jurisdiction, the Treaty includes “the Moon and other celestial bodies”.

With seventeen Articles in total, the key provisions of the OST can be divided into roughly four categories:

universality, peaceful relations, national responsibility and environmental sustainability. In terms of

universality, Article I declares space to be the “province of all mankind”, an area free for “use and exploration

by all States” and in “the benefit and interests of all countries”.219 This would allow for any nation to conduct

space activities, so long as those activities do not harm all other countries. Article II further notes that

“national sovereignty” cannot apply in space – no matter if an area is occupied or used by a nation.220 As a

result, countries cannot own or enforce their national ruling on any area in outer space.

Peaceful relations are stressed in Articles IV and V, with the former banning nuclear or other “weapons of

mass destruction” (WMDs) in space, and the latter committing states to aiding fellow astronauts, regardless

of nationality, should they be in danger.221 Interestingly, exceptions to Article IV include “the use of military

personnel” or “any equipment or facility necessary” as long as they are used for “scientific research” or other

“peaceful purposes”.222 This offers leeway for nations that wish to have non-aggressive military presence

and activities. Article IX also notes that space activities must be based on “the principle of co-operation and

mutual assistance.”223

National responsibility is embodied particularly in Articles VI to VIII. Article VI places “responsibility” on

member states for any activities they carry out in space, whether pursued by “governmental agencies or

non-governmental entities”.224 This means that nations can also be held at fault for the activities of private

actors originating from their country. It further states that these entities must be “authorized” and face

“continuing supervision” by their home governments. 225 Article VII dictates that nations are “internationally

liable” should the efforts of their space programs cause “damage” whether in Earth or space, and Article VIII

216 “Outer Space Treaty.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm.217 Ibid.218 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use


219 Ibid220 Ibid221 Ibid222 Ibid223 Ibid224 Ibid225 Ibid




45


affirms that national property rights over “objects launched into outer space” are maintained regardless of

location.226

Finally, the notion of environmental sustainability, both in space and on Earth, as a result of activities in space,

is emphasized in Article IX. The Article aspires to avert the “harmful contamination” of space or “adverse

changes in the environment of the Earth” as a result a foreign substance or organism being introduced. In

terms of space militarization, this includes activities (such as China’s 2007 ASAT test) that increase space

debris. The Article also grants countries that suspect another nation of planning or executing any space

activity that is unsustainable as described above, the ability to seek further information and “consultation”

on the specific initiative.227

This year, 2017, the Outer Space Treaty commemorates fifty years of space regulation. While it has fielded

recent criticism, the OST has remained unchanged in its nature since its creation.228 To a degree, some of this

criticism comes from the fact that the OST has not been amended, the rationale being that it was written

when space possibilities were not as great.229 Other criticism levied at the OST includes its lack of scientific

standards and terminology and its failure to ban, or even mention, conventional weaponry.230

Rescue Agreement

The full name of the Agreement, signed in 1968, refers to the “rescue of astronauts, the return of astronauts

and the return of objects launched into Outer space”.231 Article III outlines procedure should people be in a

“place not under the jurisdiction of any State” – to the extent that they can, all states are expected to aid in

these scenarios. Article V explains that “launching nations” can expect to have objects they place into space

returned should they be found in a place beyond their “territorial limit” – but they would have to bear the

costs of any rescue and return operation.232

226 Ibid227 Ibid228 Dan Costa, “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.com/


commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty230 Lalit K Jha, “US lawmakers seek review of Outer Space Treaty amid competition from India, China.” Livemint. May 26, 2017. Accessed

August 24, 2017. http://www.livemint.com/Science/6uxgbhcNcRfBtbWyq63wTO/US-lawmakers-seek-review-of-Outer-Space-Treaty-amid-competit.html.

231 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects launched into Outer Space,” 1967, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_22_2345E.pdf

232 Ibid








46


The Liability Convention

Signed in 1971 and enforced the following year, the Liability Convention can be viewed as one of the first

attempts to clarify existing space law.233 Its specific aim was to expand upon Article VII of the OST,234 which

stated that nations were “internationally liable” should their space programs or objects result in “damage” to

another party.235 Pertinently, it clarifies the wide-ranging definitions of “damage” (“loss of life, personal injury

or other impairment of health; or loss of or damage to property of States or of persons, natural or juridical,

or property of international intergovernmental organizations”) and “space object” (it “includes component

parts of a space object as well as its launch vehicle and parts thereof”) with respect to international space

law.236 While Article II describes nations as being “absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused

by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight”, Article III describes damage that may

occur to objects or people in outer space by another nations’ space object, and puts the burden of liability

on the offending nation only if they, or one of their citizens, caused the event.237 The notion of claiming

damage is also addressed Article VII, which states that the terms of the Convention itself cannot be applied

to “nationals” or “foreign nationals” of “launching States”.238 In effect, an individual or group cannot hold

another nation accountable, or vice versa.

Registration Convention

The 12 Article Convention was signed in 1975.239 It called for governments to maintain records of the objects

it sent into space (Article II), and for the Secretary General of the United Nations to receive this information

and make the records open (Article III, IV) so that nations can identify objects, should there arise a need to

do so (Article VI).240


234 Ibid235 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use



237 Ibid238 Ibid239 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on Registration of Objects launched into Outer Space,” 1974 ,http://www.

unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_29_3235E.pdf240 Ibid









47


The Moon Agreement

The Moon Agreement was drafted by COPUOS during the 1970s, passed the UN General Assembly in 1979,

and came into force five years later.241 This process occurred following the US moon landing in 1969. The

treaty, composed of 21 articles, was drafted to provide greater clarity on the Moon (note that the principles

of the OST do, and have always, applied to the Moon) but, as per its full name, is also relevant to other

“celestial bodies”.242 In this light, there are striking similarities to the OST, with mention of “international

law” to be upheld (Article II), “peaceful use” of the Moon (Article III), “exploration and use” of the Moon to

be “for the benefit and in the interests of all countries” and “guided by the principle of co-operation and

241 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1979, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html

242 Ibid


48


mutual assistance” (Article IV), “freedom of scientific investigation” (Article VI), environmental sustainability

(Article VII), national responsibility (Article XIV, XV) and non-sovereignty (Article XI).243

A significant set-back to the Moon Agreement has been its lack of consensus amongst nations. Its five-year

delay in being enforced stemmed from a lack of ratifying nations. 244 This does not appear to have improved

as some of the most advanced space nations, including the US, Russia and China, have yet to sign or ratify the

Treaty, limiting its enforcement scope.245 France and India, both signatories to the Treaty, are not party to it

either.246 This is a major indication that the Moon Agreement, the contents of which is largely similar to the

OST, is viewed unfavorably by many nations, as its stipulations are not in line with national space agendas.

Remote Sensing Principles

The 1968 Principles emphasizes many of the key tenets of the OST. Principle II demands that these activities

are “carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries”, Principle III specifies that they must be

“conducted in accordance with international law” and Principle IV explicitly refers to Article 1 of the OST.247

Other principles call for greater cooperation, data sharing and assistance between states.248 Nations are also

asked to use their technology to “promote the protection of the Earth’s natural environment” and “mankind

from natural disasters”.249 Nations that are “sensed” also have the ability to gain access to information

regarding their assessed territory (Principle XII).250

The Benefits Declaration

In keeping with the sentiment that space “use” and “exploration” is “for the benefit and in the interests of all

countries”, the 1996 Declaration aimed to spell out and strengthen international space cooperation.251 It is

important to note that the full form of the title of the Declaration includes the phrase “taking into particular

243 General Assembly, United Nations, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 1979, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_34_68E.pdf, Annex

244 Michael Listner. “The Moon Treaty: failed international law or waiting in the shadows?” The Space Review. October 24, 2011. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1954/1.

245 Ibid246 Ibid247 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space,” 1974 http://www.

unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/remote-sensing-principles.html248 Ibid249 Ibid250 Ibid251 General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit

and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/space-benefits-declaration.html




http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/remote-sensing-principles.html




49


account the needs of developing countries”.252 The clauses discuss adherence to international law, possible

forms of space collaboration such “governmental and non-governmental; commercial and non-commercial;

global, multilateral, regional or bilateral”, and suggests means by which developed and developing nations

can cooperate in space “technology”, “capability” and “expertise”. 253 Its hope all nations, regardless of

development level or space activity, may be able to benefit from space.

252 Ibid253 Ibid

50


Possible Solutions

As the militarization of space began when we first entered space, efforts should be directed towards limiting

its escalation and ameliorating its secondary impacts. There are many ways to approach this vast, long-

standing issue and below is a sampling of approaches; draft resolutions do not have to use all or any of the

following suggestions, creativity is always welcome. It is important to note that an outright ban on satellites

and related objects, conceived with the intention of reducing militarization, would negatively impact the

non-military uses of satellites (such as communication and weather forecasting).

The first option is to revisit existing agreements by either amending or adding to them. This could entail

looking at legislation, such as the Outer Space Treaty, to address loopholes and grey areas. This could mean

more specificity regarding the “peaceful” uses of outer space and consideration of the role of conventional

weaponry (as opposed to just WMDs). It could also address weaponry that is not stationed in space, but

merely transits through: is the use of space as a medium for transporting weaponry within the constraints of

a “peaceful” space? There is also space to improve, and in some cases craft, definitions of terms. For example,

“outer space” is a term that has not been defined, a point previously raised at COPUOS sessions. Clearer

definitions would ensure all Member nations are on the same page.

Thinking long-term, there is also discussion about a new framework for governing space relations. There

appears to be division between nations over whether this should be a stringent, legally binding agreement or

an optional, non-binding Code of Conduct. Consider the advantages and disadvantages of each of these and

why some nations would prefer one to the other. Would a set of principles, which countries do not have to

comply with and may not be sanctioned for trespassing, be sufficient? Is another treaty required, and could

it possibly threaten otherwise peaceful uses of space? This last question touches on the further contentious

issue of whether there should be a distinction made between military and civilian space instruments –

requiring a distinction could pave the way for quotas to be implemented and may require more disclosure

than some governments would be comfortable with.

Quotas, or some other measure of limiting space objects could be implemented as we await scientific

advances to cope with space debris. This solution is unlikely to be popular, particularly amongst the most

advanced space nations that may feel they are being unnecessarily reigned in. This hypothetical solution

would also raise questions about how quotas about space objects would be allocated. Passed over a decade

ago, the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines urge greater caution before, during and following space missions

51


52


to limit debris but is not legally binding, and so nations cannot be held to it. 254 Again however, it may be

difficult to gain support for a legally binding treaty directly addressing space debris, as countries would be

limited in the number of space launches they could undertake.

In this light, greater cooperation and transparency between nations regarding their space activities should

also be a priority. The International Space Station (ISS) and UN-SPIDER reflect how productive international

collaboration within the space arena can be between nations of similar and differing development.

Considering the question of militarization this cooperation could emerge in a number of ways, such as

greater technology sharing (e.g. best practices for debris limiting infrastructure) and increased data sharing

(particularly between countries in the same region). Advanced space nations should take steps to exhibit

their commitment to the “peaceful” uses of space and for each nation this could mean different things.

Another avenue to consider is a sanctioning system or body. Currently, there is no authority, or tribunal to

manage disputes from space that may emerge from commercial or military activities. Though we aim to limit

militarization as far as possible, contingency steps, such as the creation of an independent body to manage

disputes that may arise may be important. The creation of such a body could act as a deterrent to nations

that may increasingly militarize space that the international community is not accepting of such actions.

Who will comprise the panel, the types of penalties it can dispense, and what activities it would constitute,

as “too far” should all be discussed.

Combining the commercialization of space with the question of its militarization may also prove to be fruitful.

On one hand, it may seem like countries would not prefer an increasingly militarized space as it would

threaten commercial interests. On the other hand, nations may feel compelled to militarize space to protect

those same interests (remember sovereignty cannot be exercised over celestial bodies). As the international

community is increasingly forced to respond to the ambiguity and challenges that the commercialization of

space poses (see Topic A), it would be wise to steer discussion to the former scenario. How can nations, and

private players, be incentivized or forced to not militarize as they increasingly look to commercialize?

254 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space,” 2010, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/st_space_49E.pdf

http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/st_space_49E.pdf

53


Bloc Positions

USA/Israel

As one of the earliest space-faring nations, the United States continues to prioritize space activities. Earlier

this year, President Donald Trump emphasized the “tremendous military application in space” to members

of the International Space Station in a televised address.255 This seems consistent with the current bipartisan

effort to create a “Space Corps”.256 Notably, the United States would not supportive of Russian drafted

measures for greater transparency and other legislation produced by the Sino-Russian grouping.257 However,

the US did express support for the European Union produced Code of Conduct.258 With its extent of space

involvement, the stance that the United States adopts is crucial to the question of militarization in space.

Russia/China

Along with the United States, Russia was a contender in the Space Race of the last century. China is a rising

space power and both nations have demonstrated the capability to deploy anti-satellite technology. The duo

has been very active in responding to the militarization of space, producing draft transparency measures

that were viewed upon favorably by most of the international community and, in 2008, a draft PPWT

(Prevention and Placement on Weapons in Outer Space) treaty.259 In 2014 both nations re-submitted this

draft PPWT treaty. The United States appeared to be the chief opponent to these proposals, as it felt the

legislation could have done more, particularly in regulating the development of ASATs.260 Both nations have

affirmed their support of a PAROS treaty.261

255 Eoin O’Carroll and Jason Thomson, “Military space race? Why some say now’s the time for an upgraded treaty.,” The Christian Science Monitor, August 29, 2017, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2017/0829/Military-space-race-Why-some-say-now-s-the-time-for-an-upgraded-treaty.

256 Emily Cochrane, “Forces Align Against a New Military Branch to ‘Win Wars’ in Space,” The New York Times, July 26, 2017, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/congress-budget-space-corps-pentagon-opposition.html?mcubz=3.

257 “Proposed Prevention of an Arms Race in Space (PAROS) Treaty,” Nuclear Threat Initiative - Ten Years of Building a Safer World, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-race-space-paros-treaty/.

258 Ibid259 Ibid260 “U.S. Dismisses Space Weapons Treaty Proposal As.” SpaceNews.com. September 11, 2014. Accessed September 30, 2017. http://

spacenews.com/41842us-dismisses-space-weapons-treaty-proposal-as-fundamentally-flawed/.261 “Proposed Prevention of an Arms Race in Space (PAROS) Treaty,” Nuclear Threat Initiative - Ten Years of Building a Safer World, accessed

September 01, 2017, http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-race-space-paros-treaty/.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2017/0829/Military-space-race-Why-some-say-now-s-the-time-for-an-upgraded-treaty.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2017/0829/Military-space-race-Why-some-say-now-s-the-time-for-an-upgraded-treaty.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/congress-budget-space-corps-pentagon-opposition

http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-race-space-paros-treaty/

http://spacenews.com/41842us-dismisses-space-weapons-treaty-proposal-as-fundamentally-flawed/

http://spacenews.com/41842us-dismisses-space-weapons-treaty-proposal-as-fundamentally-flawed/

http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-race-space-paros-treaty/

54


European Space Agency

Significantly, the 22-member Agency proposed an International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities

in response to rising militarization in space. This followed an unsuccessful attempt to commit nations to

its Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, with the majority of the BRIC nations

withholding support.262 The Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities has been amended, but has yet to

receive support from space powers like Russia, China and India.263

Nations with limited or no space program

For nations with developing, limited or no space program, space militarization is nevertheless a concern.

These nations are likely to promote the “peaceful” uses of space in order to ensure their own security (keep in

mind that space technology can be used for offensive and defensive purposes on Earth). This concern would

be supported by the legal notion that space must be used for the benefit of all nations, particularly those of

lesser development. These nations would also be in favor of greater transparency and technology sharing

mechanisms. Bear in mind that these nations have all previously supported measures for the Prevention of

An Arms Race in Space, and would likely continue to do so.

262 “A Code of Conduct for Outer Space,” Council on Foreign Relations, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.cfr.org/report/code-conduct-outer-space.

263 Michael J. Listner, “The International Code of Conduct: Comments on changes in the latest draft and post-mortem thoughts,” The Space Review, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2851/1.

https://www.cfr.org/report/code-conduct-outer-space



55


Glossary

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Weapons that can cause large-scale destruction, sub-categories include

nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

Space Debris: Man-made objects in space that have outlived their original purpose, but continue remain in

space. These can be of varying sizes and can accumulate over time as more, and newer objects are sent into

space.

Deterrence: Actions that aim to prevent a certain course of action from occurring. With space militarization,

this could mean enforcing harsh penalties on any country that weaponizes space, to discourage nations from

actually weaponizing space.

Arms Race: A contest between one or more nations to have a military advantage through more and better

weaponry. In space this could mean the race between nations for a greater space arsenal.

Dual-Use: Having more than one use. Within the space context, it can refer to satellites having the ability to

be used for both peaceful and non-peaceful purposes.

ASAT: Anti-Satellite technology can be both earth and space-based, and targets satellites.

PAROS (Prevention of An Arms Race in Space): The desire for a peaceful space without a military build-up,

in accordance with the OST.

PPWT (Treaty on the Prevention of Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of

Force Against Outer Space Objects): Draft treaties submitted by China and Russia, in 2008 and 2014, as a

means of preventing the escalation of space militarization.

TCBMs (Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures): Steps to enhance dialogue and trust between

nations as a means of safeguarding outer space.

Satellite: An object, either natural or man-made, that orbits (revolves around) another space-based body.

56


Space Race: The contest for space-based achievements between the USA and the USSR during the Cold

War, a period of deteriorated relations between the two superpowers during the 20th century.

57


Bibliography

“A Code of Conduct for Outer Space,” Council on Foreign Relations, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.cfr.

org/report/code-conduct-outer-space.

Alves, Pericles Gasparini Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space: A Guide to the Discussions in the Conference on Disarmament (Geneva: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research)

“Arms Control Today,” Weapons in Space? | Arms Control Association, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.

armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon.

Axe, David “When it comes to war in space, U.S. has the edge,” Reuters, August 09, 2015, accessed September 01, 2017,

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/09/the-u-s-military-is-preparing-for-the-real-star-wars/.

Broad, William J. “Debris Spews Into Space After Satellites Collide,” The New York Times, February 11, 2009, accessed

September 01, 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/science/space/12satellite.html?mcubz=0.

Bruce M. Deblois, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 31, accessed September 1,

2017.

Bruce M. “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics 1, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 30, accessed September 1, 2017.

Cochrane, Emily “Forces Align Against a New Military Branch to ‘Win Wars’ in Space,” The New York Times, July 26,

2017, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/congress-budget-

space-corps-pentagon-opposition.html?mcubz=3.

“Cold War: A Brief History,” Reagans Star Wars | Cold War: A Brief History | History of the Atomic Age, accessed

September 01, 2017, http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page20.shtml.

Costa, Dan. “We Need a New Space Treaty.” PCMag. July 29, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.pcmag.

com/commentary/355225/we-need-a-new-space-treaty

Deblois, Dao, James “Rumsfeld Seeking An Arms Strategy Using Outer Space,” The New York Times, May 07, 2001,

accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/world/rumsfeld-seeking-an-arms-

strategy-using-outer-space.html?mcubz=0.

Garcia, Mark “Space Debris and Human Spacecraft,” NASA, April 13, 2015, accessed September 01, 2017, https://

www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html.

General Assembly, United Nations, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial

Bodies,” 1979, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_34_68E.pdf, Annex

General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer

Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing

Countries,” 1996, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/space-benefits-

declaration.html

General Assembly, United Nations, “Declaration of the Legal Principles Governing the Activites of States in the

Exploration and Use of Outer Space,” 13 December, 1962, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/

spacelaw/principles/legal-principles.html





http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/09/the-u-s-

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/science/space/12satellite.html?mcubz=0

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/congress-budget-space-corps-pentagon-

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/congress-budget-space-corps-pentagon-

http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page20.shtml



http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/world/rumsfeld-seeking-an-arms-strategy-using-outer-

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/world/rumsfeld-seeking-an-arms-strategy-using-outer-








58


Granoff, Jonathan and Eisendrath, Craig “United States—Masters of Space? The US Space Command’s “Vision for

2020” ,” December 2005, accessed September 1, 2017, https://gsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/s3/

assets/docs/Vision2020_Analysis.pdf.

Greenemeier, Larry “GPS and the World’s First “Space War”,” Scientific American, accessed September 01, 2017,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gps-and-the-world-s-first-space-war/.

Heintze ,Hans-Joachim, “Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and International Law,” Space4Peace, accessed September 01,

2017, http://www.space4peace.org/ethics/puosil.htm.

“International Legal Agreements Relevant to Space Weapons.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed September

01, 2017. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/space-weapons/international-legal-agreements#.

WanGS9MjExc.

Jha, Lalit K “US lawmakers seek review of Outer Space Treaty amid competition from India, China.” Livemint. May

26, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.livemint.com/Science/6uxgbhcNcRfBtbWyq63wTO/US-

lawmakers-seek-review-of-Outer-Space-Treaty-amid-competit.html.

“Limited Test Ban Treaty,” U.S. Department of State, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.state.gov/t/isn/4797.

htm.

Listner, Michael J. “The International Code of Conduct: Comments on changes in the latest draft and post-mortem

thoughts,” The Space Review, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2851/1.

Listner, Michael “The Moon Treaty: failed international law or waiting in the shadows?” The Space Review. October 24,

2011. Accessed August 24, 2017. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1954/1.

Marboe,Irmgard, Militarization of outer space: present and future challenges from the international legal perspective, pdf.

Mowthorpe, Matthew Militarization and Weaponization of Space, 14.

Neilan, Terence “Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty; Putin Calls Move a Mistake,” The New York Times, December 13,

2001, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-

abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html.

O’Carroll, Eoin and Thomson, Jason “Military space race? Why some say now’s the time for an upgraded treaty.,” The

Christian Science Monitor, August 29, 2017, accessed September 01, 2017, https://www.csmonitor.com/

USA/Military/2017/0829/Military-space-race-Why-some-say-now-s-the-time-for-an-upgraded-treaty.

Outer Space in Society, Politics and Law, vol. 8, Studies in Space Policy (Springer, 2011).

“Outer Space Treaty.” U.S. Department of State. Accessed August 24, 2017. https://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm.

“Proposed Prevention of an Arms Race in Space (PAROS) Treaty,” Nuclear Threat Initiative - Ten Years of Building

a Safer World, accessed September 01, 2017, http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-

prevention-arms-race-space-paros-treaty/.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie “International Relations, Principal Theories,” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2011).

Slijper, Frank From Venus to Mars: the European Union’s steps towards the militarisation of space (Amsterdam: Transnational

Institute, 2008).

Space 2030: Tackling Society’s Challenges (OECD, 2005).



https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gps-and-the-world-s-first-


http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/space-

http://www.livemint.com/Science/6uxgbhcNcRfBtbWyq63wTO/US-lawmakers-seek-review-

http://www.livemint.com/Science/6uxgbhcNcRfBtbWyq63wTO/US-lawmakers-seek-review-





http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2017/0829/Military-space-race-Why-some-

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2017/0829/Military-space-race-Why-some-


http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-race-space-paros-

http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-race-space-paros-

59


“Space: Still an important Matter of National Prestige?” European Business Review, March 15, 2017, accessed

September 01, 2017, http://www.europeanbusinessreview.eu/page.asp?pid=1820.

Thornton, Bruce “Prestige As A Tool Of Foreign Policy,” Hoover Institution, June 12, 2017, accessed September 01,

2017, http://www.hoover.org/research/prestige-tool-foreign-policy.

Tripathi, P. N., “Weaponisation and Militarisation of Space,” Centre for Land Warfare Studies Journal, Winter 2013, 193,

accessed September 1, 2017, http://www.claws.in/images/journals_doc/464050849_PNTripathi.pdf.

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other

Celestial Bodies,” 1979, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.

html

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and

the Return of Objects launched into Outer Space,” 1967, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_22_2345E.

pdf

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on International Liability for damage Caused by Space

Objects,” 1971, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_26_2777E.pdf

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Convention on Registration of Objects launched into Outer Space,”

1974, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_29_3235E.pdf

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space,”

1974, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/remote-sensing-principles.html

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, “Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful

Uses of Outer Space,” 2010, “U.S. Dismisses Space Weapons Treaty Proposal As.” SpaceNews.com. September

11, 2014. Accessed September 30, 2017. http://spacenews.com/41842us-dismisses-space-weapons-treaty-

proposal-as-fundamentally-flawed/.




Weeden, Brian 2007 Chinese Anti-Satellite Test Fact Sheet, Secure World Foundation, November 23, 2010.

Wong, Wilson S. and Fergusson, James Gordon, Military space power: a guide to the issues (Santa Barbara (Calif.):

Praeger, 2010).











http://spacenews.com/41842us-dismisses-space-weapons-treaty-proposal-as-fundamentally-

http://spacenews.com/41842us-dismisses-space-weapons-treaty-proposal-as-fundamentally-



Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space xÈzÈ...

Documents

Transcript of Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space xÈzÈ...