Geopolitical tensions between the United States-led block and the China/Russia block are spiraling out of control.
The Israel/Hamas war represents a front in that war with Russia and China telling the world US diplomatic efforts in the Middle East are a failure. In our high-technology world, weapons in space play a role in the drama we see unfolding because some of the world's powers are space powers. The United Nations discussed space weapons in September in a meeting that yielded no agreement, as stated by writer Il-hoon Kim in his story "Using Multilateralism to Fill the Space Policy Vacuum".
Some states at the meeting put a lot of faith in political agreements, voicing the opinion that political agreements and legally binding agreements are "not mutually exclusive," and these states endorsed "political commitments on responsible behaviors". Other states opposed a behavior-based approach and endorsed legally binding measures because concepts like "responsible behavior can be subjective", supporting legally binding measures like the Treaty of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects. Kim stated the problem with these agreements: "As plausible as they may sound, these arguments are faulty. First, the blind pursuit of legally binding instruments alone cannot ensure binding solutions. The war in Ukraine, intensified by Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, is a clear example. What good is a law that is not respected and that cannot be enforced effectively? The world need not be reminded that North Korea promised never to produce or acquire a nuclear weapon when it joined the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1985 at the urging of the Soviet Union, which provided Pyongyang with nuclear research reactors. Nevertheless, North Korea developed its nuclear programs, announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, has advanced its nuclear weapons program, and conducted six nuclear tests in the 21st century. There are countless examples of states violating their legal commitments."
To date, weapons of mass destruction are the only types of weapons forbidden in space via the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The only purpose of weapons of mass destruction is to kill large numbers of people. There's no peaceful application, therefore these weapons are easier to ban, as stated by Kim. There are some types of space technologies that can be used for peaceful or non-peaceful purposes - a robot arm on a satellite can be used to throw another satellite off orbit, but the satellite or the robot arm are not in themselves warlike. Therefore, a legal ban could restrict some types of technology that are used for peaceful means. The General Assembly established the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in 1959 to review international cooperation on the peaceful uses of outer space. Only 102 countries belong to this committee, although space impacts more than just space-faring nations, and this makes laws in space so important even to states without space programs. If a country decides to destroy all its satellites, and the debris scatters down to a non-spacefaring country, then it will impact that country as well.
Anyone with an internationalist mindset realizes the benefits of laws governing the rules of space and most UN member states want to create legally binding instruments for this goal, as stated by Kim. The UN working group on reducing space threats stated: "possible solutions to outer space security can involve a combination of legally binding obligations and non-legally binding measures, and that work in both of these areas can be further pursued in a progressive, sustained and complementary manner, without undermining existing legal obligations".
Kim suggested that the next working group on space issues discuss ways to reduce space threats through voluntary and politically binding pledges. Agreements that arise from such a meeting should apply to participants and not to non-participants, and the benefits will accrue to participants. The benefits would include behaviors could include notifying and consulting each other before space launches, conducting rendezvous and proximity operations, jamming or spoofing of signals, refraining from any acts that would impair the provision of critical space-based services to civilians, and sharing information on possible breaches of such actions by private sector.
Kim feels the approach will work because, unlike traditional arms control treaties, the working group is based on behaviors and not capabilities. He also stated norms alone are not a totally effective method of governing space but are a component of governing space in the future. Maybe the political method will be followed by legally binding agreements. Let's hope that our fractured world will find a way to govern space in the future because our world becomes scarier by the day.
Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer of the Peace Economy Project
