The Incremental Militarization of Outer Space: A Threshold Analysis

What are the implications of human activity in outer space for international human rights law? In this article, we reflect on these questions with a view to advancing dialogue on the intersection between space law and human rights. We do so by considering the impact of extra-terrestrial human activities such as access to space and remote-sensing activities, space debris, space mining, the weaponisation and militarization of space, and the assertion of criminal jurisdiction extra-terrestrially. Ultimately, we conclude that human activity in space has significant consequences for the advancement of human rights. While, in our view, existing legal frameworks on international human rights law apply extra-terrestrially, there is still scope for specialist frameworks guarding human rights law in the context of human activity in outer space. 
 "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." 
 ~ Stephen Hawking, Astrophysicist 
 "Space is for everybody. It's not just for a few people in science or math, or for a select group of astronauts. That's our new frontier out there, and it's everybody's business to know about space." 
 ~ Christa McAuliffe, Teacher and Challenger Astronaut

The adoption and entering into force of the 1975 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (also known as the Registration Convention) was another achievement in expanding and strengthening the corpus iuris spatialis. It was the fourth treaty negotiated by the member states of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN COPUOS) and it represents a lex specialis to the Outer Space Treaty (OST), elaborating further Articles V, VIII, and XI of the OST. Article V OST deals with safe and prompt return of astronauts in case of distress or emergency landing to the state of registry of their space vehicle, which is then further defined in the Registration Convention. Article VIII OST only implied registration and provided for the consequences thereof, namely in respect of exercising jurisdiction and control over a registered space object. However, the Registration Convention specified the ensuing obligations and regulated the necessary practical steps of space objects registration. The Registration Convention also complements and strengthens Article XI OST, which stipulates an obligation of state parties to inform the secretary-general of the nature, conduct, locations, and results of their space activities in order to promote international cooperation. The prevailing purposes of the Registration Convention is the clarification of “jurisdiction and control” as a comprehensive concept mentioned in Article VIII OST. In addition to its overriding objective, the Registration Convention also contributes to the promotion and the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes. Establishing and maintaining a public register reduces the possibility of the existence of unidentified space objects and thereby lowers the risk of putting, for example, weapons of mass destruction secretly into orbit. Notwithstanding these important objectives, the negotiation history of the Convention and its lower number of ratification compared to the previous three space treaties testify to the numerous challenges that surround registration. The mandatory marking of space objects was one of the most heated points of debate between member states during the drafting of the Convention in the 1970s. Member states had conflicting views, depending on whether they were launching states or potential victims of launch failures. Additionally, questions on whether there should be one central or several registers and whether the type of information to be registered should be obligatory or optional were also pivotal in the discussion. It took five years of negotiation for member states to reach compromises and to adopt the Registration Convention, containing 12 articles. The articles covered issues ranging from registration procedure and different registries to amendments and withdrawal from the Convention. In addition, the following novelties were introduced: a new definition on “state of registry” was included; the “Moscow formula” was abandoned as the depositary was moved to the UN; and the “in five years review” clause found in Article X signified that the drafters were anticipating that technological developments could have such an impact on the Convention’s provisions that shorter time span between reviews were required than in previous space treaties. Despite the Convention’s novelties and its objective to protect the attribution of jurisdiction and control on the basis of a registry, as well as to ensure the rights provided in the Liability Convention and the Rescue and Return Agreement by offering means to identify space objects, the articles dealing with joint launch registration and registration by Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) are seen as weakening jurisdiction and control concept. Due to the fact that jurisdiction and control stay only with the state of registry, the other launching states may only conclude appropriate agreements to retain any of these rights. Thus, international responsibility and liability remain with all the launching states, but jurisdiction and control only with the state of registry. Furthermore, in the case of an IGO, the IGO does not have the sovereign authority to exercise jurisdiction and control, thereby raising the question who could do so instead of or on behalf of an IGO. In this regard, the Convention leaves important areas unregulated. In the following years, there were proposals to expand the Registration Convention to encompass other subject matters such as financial interests of assets in outer space; however, up until today, these issues remain regulated only by the UNIDROIT Space Assets Protocol.

Keeping Up With The Neighbours? Reviewing National Space Laws to Account For New Technology - The Australian and Canadian Experience

Following the beginning of human activities in outer space, such issues as governance, jurisdiction and other legal matters were investigated by jurists. It should be accepted that technological advancement cannot be made possible in the presence of legal gaps, and it should be acknowledged that law is easily changing and developing constantly. With increasing progression law of outer space is essential. humans having access to the outer space, it is extremely essential and important to develop international law governing the outer space and celestial Bodies.As the most resent branch of international law, therefore, International Space law provides new concepts related to criminal jurisdiction for this reason, present paper attempts to explain criminal jurisdiction within international law system while evaluating its position in the framework of international outer space law on interrelated issues such as command authority, authority of commanding the international space stations, and Command of the International Space Station and commanders in light of U.N outer space treaty

The responsibility of international organizations for internationally wrongful acts is by no means a field of international law that is ruled by consensus even on the level of the most basic norms of responsibility. This confusion is even more prevalent when an international organization acts in outer space. International law applicable for outer space activity is sometimes regarded as lexspecialis to general norms of responsibility without much further considerations. The aim of this contribution is to examine whether this statement has merit, in light of the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention and the Articles of the Responsibility of International Organizations drafted by the International Law Commission. Based on a theoretical analysis––due to the lack of practice––, it can be concluded, that the joint and several responsibility regime created by the Outer Space Treaty, and the liability and––at the same time––international responsibility system of the Liability Convention are indeed lex specialis and this responsibility is by default shared in nature. This conclusion is valid only for damage caused by illegal space activity by space objects on the surface of the Earth and to aircraft in flight.

Militarization of outer space is one of the most complex challenges to global peace, harmony, and security in the 21st century. Initially, recognized as a subject area of scientific exploration and constructive engagement, outer space has progressively become a critical zone for defense competition among major powers. The arrangement of multi-domain satellites, development of anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) and creation of autonomous defense structure by powerful nations like USA, China, Russia and India. These countries have shifted from the peaceful uses to framework conceived in 1967 Outer Space Treaty. This evolving militarization intimidates to rebuild space into a war zone and risk of conflict beyond boundaries. The existing international skeleton secured by the Outer Space Treaty, like the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space 3235(XXIX), was created in a time when space capabilities were limited. These treaties restrain the installation of weapon of mass destruction in orbit but are still silent on the usage of cyber-based weapons in space. This vagueness created an inadequacy that states can justify their military activities as a self-defense or technological advancement. To safeguard outer space as a global collective good, there is an urgent need for recommencing diplomatic engagement, stronger transparency measures and development of a comprehensive international legal authority addressing both military and non-military threats. Preserving space as a peaceful and collective land is crucial for global security as well as collective survival of humankind.

What security implications do North Korea's purported peaceful space activities have? North Korea's recent launch of a reconnaissance satellite not only raises concerns about its nuclear weapons program but also has broader implications for international security. The nuclear threat posed by North Korea is certainly growing. However, there seems to be an overlooked security threat in North Korea's space initiative: the threat of militarization and weaponization of outer space. Therefore, the security policy toward North Korea must be changed comprehensively to address the militarization and weaponization of space, as North Korea's threats can be transformed by the use of space. North Korea's destructive weapons and strategies, such as EMP attacks and space hybrid operations, are not prohibited, even when they appear to be aligned with the outer space legal regime. Hence, rather than concentrating only on nuclear weapons, this study proposes that a fundamental shift in policy is required.

The Agreement on the Rescue and Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (ARRA) of 1968 deals with the obligation of states toward astronauts in distress or in emergency situations and with the obligation to return space objects. It is the second of the five United Nations space treaties, after the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967 and before the Liability Convention (LIAB) of 1972. The historical development of ARRA and how this agreement reflects the needs and interests of the two important space-faring nations at the time of its entry into force, the United States and the Soviet Union, are important factors for understanding the space race. ARRA is related to the OST and regards the various obligations of states concerning rescue and assistance as well as the return of astronauts, which stand in the middle between a general humanitarian duty and political and national security considerations. The return of space objects and the question of costs of rescue and return operations are important concerns and can be compared to the situation with the law of the sea, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982 and the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Respecting Assistance and Salvage at Sea (Salvage Convention) of 1989. ARRA has never been applied with respect to accidents or distress of astronauts or cosmonauts but several times with respect to the recovering and returning of space objects. Finally, current challenges, such as the commercialization and privatization of outer space activities need to be addressed. This includes the increased interests of private individuals to enter outer space (so-called space tourism) and the question of the application of the ARRA to suborbital flights. Many legal challenges created by technological progress can be resolved via an evolving interpretation and application of the ARRA. Yet, some issues might warrant a new legal framework.

The role of unacknowledged classified programs remains an enigma for fully understanding activities in space and the study of astropolitics. Classified programs by law are not publicly announced, and remain inaccessible to all except those with valid security clearances to be briefed about them. In the United States, waived Unacknowledged Special Access Programs are the most highly classified programs conducted by the military and intelligence community. The same classification protocols are also required of private contractors working with U.S. military departments and intelligence agencies on classified programs. As space continues to grow in its national security significance, the number of these unacknowledged programs pertaining to space is likely to grow significantly from its current number. This requires adopting the necessary conceptual tools and methodological flexibility for investigating unacknowledged activities in space. This also extends to evidence concerning unidentified flying objects and extraterrestrial life. This article suggests that “exopolitics” is a unique multidisciplinary approach to extraterrestrial life that offers a helpful set of conceptual tools for studying unacknowledged space activities, and complements the field of astropolitics.

In recent times, private industry has made great advancements in the commercialization of outer space. Such advancement represents a monumental shift from a period in which outer space activities were the business of national governments. However, the traditional interpretation of Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty still assigns responsibility for private space activities to States despite private industry’s increased ability to conduct outer space activities without government involvement or assistance. Ultimately, the blanket application of State responsibility associated with the traditional interpretation of Article VI may be unworkable or inequitable as private industry becomes a dominant force in outer space. Therefore, this Article evaluates the shortcomings of the traditional interpretation of Article VI and proposes a solution based on the customary law of State responsibility in order to ensure that both private and public actors in outer space are unhampered by an overly broad interpretation of Article VI.

The number of satellites in low Earth orbit is constantly increasing, particularly with the introduction of larger satellite constellations in recent times. This has resulted in a very crowded environment in Outer Space, which poses a number of challenges, not only to activities in Outer Space but also to the activity of observing Outer Space. Prior to humankind’s entry into and progressive exploration of Outer Space, the practice of astronomy, what Venkatesan et al. describe as the “millennia-old ability to observe, discover and analyse the cosmos from the surface of the Earth”, linked humankind to Outer Space; in particular the Indigenous Peoples whose practice of astronomy is integral to their ways of life. The Indigenous relationship with Outer Space through astronomy requires protection to ensure the continuation of Indigenous culture. However, the aforementioned continual increase of satellites in Outer Space has started to disrupt the view of the night sky and its components from Earth, disrupting the practice of astronomy as a whole and, thus, Indigenous practice. Therefore, humankind’s future plans for Outer Space must be constructed with humankind as a whole in mind, including the astronomy practices essential to the way of life of many Indigenous Peoples.

Intellectual Property Protection in Outer Space: Conflict in Theory and Application in Practice

The increasing utilization of outer space has brought about unprecedented opportunities and potential security challenges. The development of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons has raised concerns about the militarization of space and the potential for conflict. This research examines the legal framework governing ASAT weapons under international space law, focusing on the Outer Space Treaty (OST) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations. It analyzes the limitations of existing legal instruments in addressing the threats posed by ASATs, particularly their potential to generate space debris and disrupt critical satellite infrastructure. This research adopts normative (doctrinal) legal methods by incorporating statutes and conceptual frameworks to analyze primary and secondary legal sources in order to investigate legal standards regarding militarization and disarmament in space. This research highlight that the current legal framework is insufficient to prevent the proliferation and use of ASAT weapons and proposes the development of a new international treaty specifically addressing ASATs. This treaty would provide clearer definitions, stricter regulations, and stronger enforcement mechanisms to ensure the long-term sustainability and security of space activities. This research also explores the role of the ITU in promoting the peaceful and responsible use of outer space through its Radio Regulations and technical expertise. The findings emphasize the need for greater cooperation between the ITU and other international organizations to address the challenges posed by ASAT weapons and ensure the continued benefits of space technology for all humankind.

In spite of the fact that international law has proclaimed that outer space is to be used for peaceful purposes, States continue to expand their military capacity beyond the bounds of the Earth's atmosphere. Recent testing of anti-satellite weaponry is a cause for concern that the term 'peaceful uses' is losing its meaning in an increasingly militarized outer space environment. The problem certainly stems from the fact that space law does not explicitly define said uses, thereby allowing States to provide a legal justification for their actions. This article will examine existing space law, as well as general international law, in an attempt to flesh out a more substantial meaning for the most oft-abused provisions of the relevant treaties in three distinct sections: first, we shall explore the notion of 'peaceful uses' as a general term; we shall proceed with an analysis of the prohibition of stationing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in outer space; finally, we shall see how the Liability Convention may be read as limiting States' potential advantages from militarizing space.

The involvement of Malaysia in outer space activities is irrefutable. It had started long ago from 1960 with the construction of her first earth satellite station in Kuantan, Pahang. Apart from building the earth satellite stations, Malaysia also has involved in various space applications and activities. These include telecommunication and broadcasting, remote sensing, meteorology, navigation, satellite manufacturing and launching, astronaut programme, suborbital space plane, commercial space ports and so forth. Such activities in fact need proper regulations. Even though some of these activities are at initial stages of involvement, however, there is a great opportunity for further engagement. Since Malaysia has no specific law deals with outer space activities, thus this paper discusses the legal rationales why it is necessary to enact the Malaysian outer space legislation. It hopes it will justify the importance of outer space legislation in the context of Malaysia as an actor and a contributor to outer space activities.