A new pillar of global stability: What does state space security entail?

Thursday, October 14, 2021 | Chimniii Desk

Highlights

Current efforts to (re)write a legally binding prohibition on the placement of weapons in outer space, or to restart discussions on reducing space threats through responsible behaviour, demonstrate a broader concern about global stability.

However, some of these assets may be perceived as a threat to other States and thus become a target of choice due to their strategic significance, resulting in escalations that could spark a dangerous arms race.

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution 75/36 on reducing space threats through norms, rules, and principles of responsible behaviour' on 7 December 2020, a new initiative laying the groundwork for a discussion about responsible behaviour in outer space.

By taking a bottom-up approach, Resolution 75/36 seeks to alleviate tensions and dissuade individuals from engaging in a space-based arms race.

This instrument, sponsored by China and Russia, seeks to prohibit the placement of weapons in outer space, a provision that has been criticised by observers who believe that the greater threat would come from the ground, not from outer space.

Advertisement

The recent proliferation of space actors, whether States or non-governmental organisations, as well as their assets and activities, has shifted the playing field for legislators and policymakers.

Current efforts to (re)write a legally binding prohibition on the placement of weapons in outer space, or to restart discussions on reducing space threats through responsible behaviour, demonstrate a broader concern about global stability. Commercial value and social benefits generated by the space industry serve as additional incentives to safeguard space systems and operations in the future. However, some of these assets may be perceived as a threat to other States and thus become a target of choice due to their strategic significance, resulting in escalations that could spark a dangerous arms race.

The deployment of potentially disruptive systems and strategies via novel types of space operations continues to be a source of concern across the globe—at times intensifying, at others diminishing. It is possible to become overwhelmed by emerging modes of space operation. Rendezvous and proximity operations, the establishment of space forces, the launch of thousands of satellites by a single operator, the public disclosure of classified'space weapons' or disruptive technologies, or the division of a single space object into two distinct capabilities and thus assets, to name a few, all tend to jeopardise diplomatic discussions and exacerbate tensions.

While space security has been a focal point of discussion at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) for the last four decades, recent developments indicate an increase in mistrust between spacefaring nations. It is necessary to investigate new initiatives relating to space security and strategic defence, based on the existing legal framework governing space activities.

While developing space norms during times of conflict is not novel, it is worth noting that the number of States participating in preliminary discussions, as well as the range of topics discussed, were much smaller at the time of drafting the Outer Space Treaty. The negotiating parties agreed in 1967 to adopt a treaty that immediately became the cornerstone of international space law, with subsequent ratification by other States. The number of stakeholders involved in the negotiations has increased over time. Not only did the 1967 Outer Space Treaty establish the 'one space treaty to rule them all' as a compendium of principles compliant with the United Nations Charter and establishing common understanding and visions for space use and exploration, but it also served as the starting point for regulating space activities.

Advertisement

This procedure exemplified States' capacity to make agreements and develop robust, legally binding mechanisms to address specific challenges raised by the advent of innovative space activities. However, the recent proliferation of space players, whether States or non-governmental organisations, as well as their assets and activities, has shifted the playing field for legislators and policymakers.

Not only did the 1967 Outer Space Treaty establish the 'one space treaty to rule them all' as a compendium of principles compliant with the United Nations Charter and establishing common understanding and visions for space use and exploration, but it also served as the starting point for regulating space activities.

Advertisement

The proliferation of space players and the ramifications for space policy

Diverse perspectives can help refocus the conversation on the problems that matter most to all stakeholders, including protecting the space environment and securing space infrastructure. Not only for military and strategic goals, but also for humanitarian, governmental, and commercial purposes, the space sector is critical. These contributions to worldwide efforts for outer space peace and security are critical for maximising the benefits of space systems, bearing in mind that "sustainable and security [are] two sides of the same coin" currently, and that safety and security are inextricably linked.

Observers have reignited debate over a specific component of space security, specifically anti-satellite (ASAT) technologies. The destruction of assets deployed in outer space is a top priority on their list of urgent issues demanding prompt response. As a result, several academics and professionals proposed a transparent and cooperative approach, advocating for the abolition of destructive operations both in outer space and from the ground. One strategy was the development of ASAT Test Guidelines, which began in 2013 with the formation of a Group of Governmental Experts on Outer Space Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures. Another is through widespread calls to prohibit anti-satellite tests in order to not only strengthen the outer space arms control regime and avoid the generation of debris, but also to mitigate threats to space security and regulate destabilising force. Numerous members of the space community signed on to a letter requesting the United Nations (UN) General Assembly to consider a kinetic anti-satellite (ASAT) test ban treaty in order to ensure safe access to Earth orbit and alleviate concerns about collisions and the development of space debris. A significant highlight is a former diplomat's recent proposal for an extra protocol to the Outer Space Treaty, which would expand the treaty's existing prohibition on weapons of mass destruction to all types of weaponry. All of these activities appear to be directed at the source of the risks and thus fall under the category of space security. However, the threats may be directed at civilian space infrastructure, and the resulting consequences will affect all stakeholders, not only military assets and players. These issues are being discussed at the CD by UN member states.

Several academics and professionals proposed an open and cooperative approach, advocating for the abolition of harmful activities conducted in outer space and launched from the earth.

Advertisement

Multilateralism and space policy

At the United Nations, several States have advocated for the development of new binding standards and voluntary measures relating to both human behaviour and space technologies. Attracted by the increasing financial, political, and strategic relevance of the space domain, diplomats are attempting to adapt existing laws and regulations to the actual practise of space activities.

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution 75/36 on'reducing space threats through norms, rules, and principles of responsible behaviour' on 7 December 2020, a new initiative laying the groundwork for a discussion about responsible behaviour in outer space. By taking a bottom-up approach, Resolution 75/36 seeks to alleviate tensions and dissuade individuals from engaging in a space-based arms race. This culminated in the UN Secretary-General publishing a report on the reduction of space risks, with the assistance of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs. Resolution 75/36 establishes the groundwork for a broad engagement of States in defining responsible, irresponsible, and threatening behaviour in outer space. As a result, the United Nations member states, the European Union, and non-governmental organisations provided input for the report. The report emphasises the UN's critical role in advancing the regime governing outer space. Whether the UNGA decides to address concerns about ASAT testing or simply disregard them and focus on more general issues remains to be seen.

Parallel to this evolution, one of the most recent multilateral proposals is the Russian Federation's Minister of Foreign Affairs' renewed proposal for a legally binding document published in April 2021. The draught Treaty on the Prevention of Weapons Placement in Outer Space (PPWT) was first suggested in 2008 and amended in 2014. The initial recommendation came less than a year after anti-satellite missile tests elevated space safety to the top of the priority list for key space powers and the United Nations. This instrument, sponsored by China and Russia, seeks to prohibit the placement of weapons in outer space, a provision that has been criticised by observers who believe that the greater threat would come from the ground, not from outer space.

One of the most recent multilateral initiatives is the Russian Federation's Minister of Foreign Affairs' renewed proposal for a legally binding instrument announced in April 2021. The draught Treaty on the Prevention of Weapons Placement in Outer Space (PPWT) was first suggested in 2008 and amended in 2014.

The threats and risks mentioned, as well as public declarations about the unveiling of potential 'weapons,' frequently re-ignite these debates. This results in an increase in tensions and, on occasion, an escalation through the creation of offensive or defensive space security technology. China and Russia are developing a multilateral instrument and have invited other CD members to participate in the negotiations. Some observers cast doubt on the enterprise's success, while others regard it as a "good starting point." China and Russia appear to prioritise multilateralism, soliciting member states' participation and inviting them to participate in early negotiations.

While the spacefaring States' intentions to close the loophole in the current legal system are admirable, the proliferation of divergent initiatives is a double-edged sword of political will. However, decades of negotiation experience demonstrates that including additional voices and introducing new topics into discussions can result in complementary initiatives.

Advertisement