3

The 3rd Session of Oxford GlobalMUN-SFLS

Model United Nations Conference
第三届上海外国语大学附属外国语学校-牛津大学
模拟联合国大会

The United Nations

Office for Outer
Space Affairs

#BACKGROUND GUIDE
This document, originally written for use in the 3rd
session of Oxford GlobalMUN-SFLS Model United
Nations Conference, is licensed under Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Any re-use or modification must be made public and

noncommercial and give credit to the original authors.

This Study Guide is ONLY for the 3rd session of

Oxford GlobalMUN-SFLS Model United Nations
Conference, co-hosting by WELAND International,
Oxford Global Education Development and Shanghai
Foreign Languages School affiliated to Shanghai
International Studies University.

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOPIC A: THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN

SPACE RESEARCH
1. INTRODUCTION
2. TIMELINE
3. THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH COOPERATION
4. THE NECESSITY OF SPACE RESEARCH
a) CLIMATE CHANGE
b) DISASTER MANAGEMENT
c) NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
SUMMARY OF THE NECESSITY OF SPACE RESEARCH
5. THE CRUX OF THE MATTER: IS THE STATUS QUO FAIR AND EFFECTIVE?
6. POINTS RESOLUTIONS COULD ADDRESS
7. FURTHER READING
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

TOPIC B: CONFLICT IN SPACE: ADAPTING TO THE NEW

CHALLENGES OF PEACEKEEPING
1. INTRODUCTION
2. TIMELINE
3. THE PRESENT PROBLEM
4. BLOC POSITIONS
5. EXISTING DOCUMENTS ON SPACE LAW
6. THE FUTURE OUTLOOK
7. POINTS RESOLUTIONS COULD ADDRESS
8. FURTHER READING
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

2
TOPIC A: THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL
COOPERATION IN SPACE RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION

Since the years of the Space Race in the 1950s and 1960s, mankind’s captivation with space
exploration has led incessantly towards a greater understanding of science and a greater
technological expertise. Thus while the race between the USA and USSR to put a man on the
moon was not a direct form of scientific research per se, the remarkable amount of knowledge
gained from such an enterprise undoubtedly benefitted the scientific world in ways we cannot even
begin to calculate.

In recent decades, the benefits of our relationship with space have been more clearly appreciated,
and so leading nations have sponsored programs in space not for the sake of propaganda, but for
the sake of scientific advancement. Through the more specialised focusing of space research
programs on areas such as climate change, natural resources and disaster management, the more
developed nations of the world have been able to combat the most serious global issues of our
time in an infinitely more informed and effective manner (“Benefits of Space for Humankind”,
unoosa.org).

But this is not without a cost. The annual budgets of NASA, Roscosmos and the ESA remain
remarkably high at a time when global inequality and poverty and are more widespread than ever
(“Guardian – Funding Articles”, see Bibliography). In the case of some countries, for example
Russia, the annual expenditure on space research even outstrips the amount spent on foreign aid
(“Guardian – Russia Foreign Aid” and en.roscosmos.ru). Equally, the total number of satellites in
orbit remain overwhelmingly dominated by a small number of countries, such as the US, Russia,
China and leading European nations. And despite rhetoric from some of the world’s more
developed countries suggesting international unity in space research, it is fair to say that we are not
regaled with examples of progress in space for the world’s poorer countries.

This therefore begs numerous questions. Are developed nations doing enough to benefit
developing nations with their research? Or would their money be better spent elsewhere, for
example on increasing overseas aid? Should more be done to give underdeveloped nations a
foothold in space, rather than almost patronisingly sharing information with them from afar? And
are there sufficient plans in place to ensure that space research does not continue to be dominated
by the same few superpowers?

Simply put, has the UN ensured that the space research industry is managed fairly and sustainably?

TIMELINE
1957 The launch of Sputnik I, the world’s first artificial satellite, by the USSR.

1968 The first United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space (UNISPACE I). The UN General Assembly endorsed “the recommendation of the
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space for the appointment by the Secretary-

3
 General of a qualified individual with the full-time task of promoting the practical
applications of space technology” (Resolution 2601 A (XXIV))

1971 The United Nations Programme on Space Applications (PSA) commences

1982 Second United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space (UNISPACE II)

1996 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 (A/RES/51/122)

1998 Launch of the International Space Station (ISS) involving the US, Russia, Canada,
Japan and the European Space Agency (ESA)

1999 The Third United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space (UNISPACE III), where 97 Member States, 9 UN specialized agencies and
15 international intergovernmental organizations recognised the importance of space
research to the future well-being of humanity and the planet

2006 United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and
Emergency Response at the General Assembly 61st Session

THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH COOPERATION

The history of international cooperation in space is a fascinating one, given that we are faced with
some fundamental questions regarding its progress: do the resolutions of the PSA and UNISPACE
III show clear evidence that developed nations are aiding underdeveloped nations? Or do the
words of these resolutions lack sufficient advances in the real world?

UNISPACE I, held in August 1968, certainly did call for increased international cooperation, along
with a heightened realisation on the multi-faceted benefits of research in Outer-Space
(“UNISPACE I”, unoosa.org). It led to the creation of the PSA in 1971, which implemented a
variety of workshops on the wide-ranging opportunities of space research, such as in
environmental monitoring and the use of satellites (Ibid.). Despite this, it must be accepted that
the claims of increased international cooperation were, to a large part, shaped by the Cold War,
and were perhaps more focused on diffusing US-USSR tensions than genuinely advancing the
space capabilities of smaller nations.

The PSA did receive a timely boost in the following decade. In December 1982 after the Second
United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE
II) the General Assembly in Resolution 37/90 gave a mandate to the United Nations Office for
Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) for the expansion of the PSA “UNISPACE II Report”,
unoosa.org). The very first point in the mandate was the ‘Promotion of greater cooperation and
exchange of actual experiences in space science and technology between industrialized and
developing countries as well as among developing countries’, thereby making international
cooperation a key premise of future space research.

However while the PSA has claimed that its work has ‘led to greater awareness on the part of
Member States, especially developing countries, of the benefits of space technology and of the

4
many ways in which it can promote sustainable development at the local level’ (unoosa.org), one
has to question whether there are any concrete proofs of progress for underdeveloped nations.

The most recent conference on international cooperation in space was the Third United Nations
Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE III), which
concluded with the Vienna declaration, a resolution containing 33 recommendations to address
the new challenges of space (“UNISPACE III Report”, unoosa.org). Key points of this strategy
included:

a) Protecting the Earth’s environment and managing its resources

b) Using space applications for human security, development and welfare

c) Advancing scientific knowledge of space and protecting the space environment

d) Enhancing education and training opportunities and ensuring public awareness of the
importance of space activities

e) Strengthening and repositioning of space activities in the United Nations system

f) Promoting international cooperation

The points of the Vienna declaration certainly highlight the vast array of opportunities which space
research provides, along with the apparent effort which the UN is making to increase global
collaboration.

Yet since this conference nearly two decades ago there has been no major UN conference devoted
to international cooperation in space research. And while ‘promoting international cooperation’
may well have been the final point of the Vienna declaration’s nucleus of key points, a strong
critique of this could be that there have been few verifiable signs that developing countries are
receiving adequate help to gain a foothold in the space research industry.

So is there a solid history of the UN taking steps to aid poorer nations in space research? Or is a
lot of it simply empty rhetoric? And, as the Vienna Declaration approaches its 20 th anniversary, is
it high time that the international community reviewed and adapted to the new challenges facing
it in space?

THE NECESSITY OF SPACE RESEARCH

Regardless of the question of international cooperation in space and whether more should be done,
it is doubtless that there are countless benefits of space research for the nations able to afford it.
Much of this progress has been driven by the PSA since its foundation, in collaboration with other
UN bodies such as UNEP.

In order to see just why the world’s major nations spend so much on space research each year, it
is necessary to take a look at some of the benefits. Indeed, representatives from countries such as
the US and Russia may well argue that given the urgency of issues such as climate change and
disaster management, the priority has to be not on equal contributions from all nations in space
research, but simply doing the work quickly and successfully.

a) Climate Change

5
Although for a long time the reality of climate change faced doubters in the international sphere,
in recent years the UN has united the global community and made continual progress towards
combatting the most pressing issue of our time. UNOOSA and its subsidiary committees, notably
the PSA, have inevitably played a crucial role, given the obviously crucial nature of space research
in collecting climate data and assessing the changing nature of the Earth’s atmosphere.

There are many examples of the UN raising awareness and uniting countries in the past few years.
In 2008, a UN/UNESCO/Saudi Arabia international conference was held on the topic of the Use
of Space Technology for Water Management, which was organised as a specific follow up to the
findings and recommendations of UNISPACE III (“Benefits of Space for humankind”,
unoosa.org). Similarly in the same year a conference on Integrated Space Technology Applications
for Monitoring Climate Change Impact on Agricultural Development and Food Security was held,
which aimed at increasing the use of space technologies in the measures taken to stop climate
change related problems (Ibid.).

Indeed, satellites in particular are of vital importance in the fight against climate change. They are
in the unique position to be able to amalgamate data and observations to provide scientists with a
holistic view of the earth’s climate. Equally satellites are invaluable in monitoring changing factors
such as the levels of greenhouse gases, the rising sea levels, and other important climate indicators
(Ibid.). While the fight against climate change is an international one, the fact that the vast majority
of satellites are operated by the US, China, Russia, Japan and the UK is indicative of the fact that
this facet of space research is dominated by a few superpowers. Equally though, these countries
may well argue that given the imminent threats of climate change, can they really afford not to
take the lead?

b) Disaster Management

In perhaps the most major step in space technology in recent years, UNOOSA established in
2006 the United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and
Emergency Response, commonly known as the UN-SPIDER. The principles behind this
platform is that through the use of satellites and space technology, the world’s countries,
especially developing countries with limited technological expertise, will be able to handle every
stage of disaster management more effectively, from prevention to restoration (unspider.org).

A key focus of the UN-SPIDER is on finding ways to share knowledge between the greatly
varying regions and communities of the world (A/RES/61/110, “UN Documents Catalogue”).
The challenge is far more complicated than simply collecting data from space research, as the
overwhelming appearance of multitudes of data would be actively unhelpful when faced with the
short timeframes of managing a disaster. Rather, the UN-SPIDER has, since its foundation,
aimed to build bridges between nations and communities, frequently organising expert
conferences and workshops and also developing its framework of Regional Support Offices and
National Focal Points. In particular, the UN-SPIDER’s online Knowledge Portal, launched in
2009, epitomises the organisation’s attempt to provide all nations with straightforward and
efficient access to all the benefits of advanced space technology (unspider.org).

While the UN-SPIDER is certainly evidence of international cooperation in space research, we

are inevitably faced with the debate which we have seen consistently in this paper. Is it fair to say
that the superpowers of space are doing all they can to use their technology to help poorer
nations? Or could it be argued that instead of simply sharing information with developing
countries, the nations with the biggest space-faring capacities should be helping their less
prosperous neighbours to actually get a foothold in space for the generations to come?

6
c) Natural Resource Management

Natural resource management is a topical issue in which the necessity of space research is clearly
evident, and in the past few decades the UN has often highlighted the importance of space research
to international development. In 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD),
the Plan of Implementation of the meeting made explicit reference to the need to fully utilise
space-based technology in order to lead to the comprehensive and effective advancement of the
world’s poorer nations (“Sustainable Development”, un.org).

Indeed, a primary focus of the PSA since its inception has been to organise conferences and
workshops for developing nations to help them make full use of space-based technology as their
economies develop, thereby making the wellbeing of their resources and environment a key
concern. For example, in April 2007 a UN/ESA workshop in Morocco was aimed at increasing
leaders’ awareness in the region of the uses of satellites in environmental monitoring (“Benefits of
Space for Humankind”, unoosa.org). Similarly in September 2009, there was a joint
UN/ESA/UNEP/UNESCO workshop in Peru on the integration of space technology
applications for sustainable development in the mountain regions of Andean countries (Ibid.). The
meeting, which followed previous successes in Nepal (2004, 2006) and Argentina (2007), was able
to introduce developing countries to the benefits which space technology can bring to
mountainous areas, for instance remote sensing software.

In these ways the leading space-faring nations may well argue that they have made consistent
efforts to inform developing countries about the benefits of space applications on sustainable,
environmentally-friendly development. Such actions are doubtlessly important not just for
individual countries, but for the future preservation of the entire planet.

Summary of the Necessity of Space Research

It is hence evident that in the modern world, space research is not an optional activity but rather
a vital one, necessary to ensure that we sustain our resources and environment, any combat any
threats to us which could cause untold numbers of casualties and fatalities. In this light one could
well argue that the work done by NASA, Roscosmos and the other leading nations simply has to
be done, and that in spite of the fact that these are the only nations with the capacity to conduct
such research, they do so not just for their own benefit but for the benefit of all UN member
states.

Indeed, the pressing nature of many of the world’s problems means that many of the world’s
leading nations could well argue that there is simply no time to focus efforts on expanding the
space-faring capacity of poorer countries. While in an ideal world this would be possible, the
alarming rate of climate change and the ever-present dangers which the UN-SPIDER helps to
combat suggest that there may be no other option at present but to let the superpowers continue
to dominate the space industry for the greater good.

Therefore can the US, Russia, China and European nations really afford to devote considerable
time and resources to assist the world’s poorer nations in expanding their space research programs?
Is the dominance of a few states a necessary price to pay for guarantees to the world’s sustainability?

7
THE CRUX OF THE MATTER: IS THE STATUS QUO FAIR AND
EFFECTIVE?
In spite of these undoubted advantages of space research, the question nevertheless remains
whether enough has been done to encourage collaboration and teamwork between highly
developed and underdeveloped countries.

Issues such as climate change and disaster management are certainly issues which require an input
from all of the world’s nations, yet with the status quo the only countries with the means to truly
contribute to solving these problems are the traditional superpowers: USA, Russia, and other
economic powerhouses such as members of the ESA, Canada, China and Japan. And although
UN documents such as the Vienna Declaration have suggested that more will be done to cooperate
with less developed nations, the fact remains that the space research industry and the quantity of
satellites in orbit is overwhelmingly dominated by a very small number of countries.

Is it truly fair that the current situation should persist for subsequent decades and even centuries?
Or should there be an explicit and certified effort led by the UN to create more equality in the
industry of space research?

Is the status quo sustainable? Or should steps be made to ensure that, in the future, space research
is a truly global effort?

6. POINTS RESOLUTIONS COULD ADDRESS

• Given the urgent crises which the world faces, is it essential, at least in the short term, that
the superpowers of the space industry continue to dominate?
• Should more efforts be made to give equal opportunities to UN member states in space?
And should there be more concrete laws guaranteeing that all countries benefit justly from
research regarding climate change, disaster management and other universal problems?
• Are developed nations doing enough to help developing nations to gain a foothold in the
space research industry? Or does the current situation represent an unjust oligopoly of the
space industry?
• Do underdeveloped nations receive enough benefits? Or do developed nations have a
moral obligation to donate more directly in overseas aid and/or help underdeveloped
nations to gain a foothold in space?
• Is the status quo a short-term fix for handling issues such as climate change and disaster
management, or is it genuinely a sustainable state of affairs?
• Is it now time to have a fourth United Nations Conference on the Exploration and
Peaceful Uses of Outer Space?

7. FURTHER READING
• Documents Database - http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/documents-and-resolutions
• “Our Work” - http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/index.html
• UNOOSA Information for Students -
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/informationfor/students.html

8
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

• “Benefits of Space for Humankind”, UNOOSA -

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/benefits-of-space/benefits.html. Web, December
2016
• “Guardian – Funding Articles” – NASA =
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/01/nasa-budgets-us-spending-
space-travel, China = https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/28/china-new-
space-superpower-lunar-mars-missions. Web, January 2017
• “Guardian – Russia Foreign Aid” https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-
professionals-network/2015/sep/09/foreign-aid-which-countries-are-the-most-
generous. Web, January 2017
• Roscosmos, http://en.roscosmos.ru/. Web, January 2017
• “Sustainable Development”, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ Web, January 2017
• “UN Documents Catalogue” http://research.un.org/en/docs/ga/quick/regular/61.
Web, January 2017
• “UNISPACE I” http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gadocs/A_7285E.pdf. Web, December
2016
• “UNISPACE II” http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/documents-and-
resolutions/search.jspx?view=&match=a%2Fconf.101. Web, December 2016
• “UNISPACE III Report”
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/oosadoc/data/documents/1999/a/aconf.1846_0.htm
l. Web, December 2016
• UN SPIDER http://www.un-spider.org/. Web, January 2017

9
TOPIC B: CONFLICT IN SPACE: ADAPTING TO THE NEW
CHALLENGES OF PEACEKEEPING

INTRODUCTION

Ever since the launch of Sputnik I in 1957, the onus has been on the international community to
ensure peaceful cooperation and symbiosis between different states in outer space. While there
has not yet been an instance of actual conflict, there nevertheless remains the persistent danger
that an escalation of tensions between countries could manifest itself in a new arms race in outer
space, and eventually conflict. As time progresses and our technological capacities grow ever more
sophisticated, the challenge of peacekeeping for the UN has developed simultaneously.

A landmark moment came in 1958 when, in response to the creation of the first artificial satellite,
the UN established the ad hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS)
through General Assembly Resolution 1348 (XIII) (Document Database, unoosa.org). Since then,
the notion that ‘outer space should only be for the betterment of mankind and to the benefit of
States irrespective of the stage of their economic of scientific development” has been firmly at the
heart of the committee (Ibid.).

Perhaps the most significant moment in the committee’s history came in 1967 with the advent of
the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer
Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (otherwise known as the Outer Space
Treaty). This treaty marked the first major shift towards developing a coherent and adhered to
international space law, and 104 nations have so far ratified it (RES 2222 (XXI), unossa.org).
Conflict in outer space has been explicitly guarded against in the treaty in Article IV, with nations
agreeing ‘not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other
kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such
weapons in outer space in any other manner’ (Ibid.).

Despite this progress, there have in the past few decades remained contentious and challenging
instances of disagreement between UN member states with regards to the development of space
law. This is specifically in relation to the guarantee (or lack of guarantee) that countries will desist
from placing weapons in space as part of a response to an act of aggression from another country.
The international community therefore lies in a state of disharmony, with some nations, such as
Russian and China, calling for additional measures to safeguard against future conflict, with other
nations, such as the USA, being reluctant to infringe on the freedom of sovereign nations to
protect their own interests.

TIMELINE
1957 Launch of Sputnik I, the world’s first artificial satellite, by the USSR
1959 The first General Assembly resolution on outer space adopted, entitled ‘Question
of the Peaceful Use of Outer Space’
1963 The UN General Assembly adopts the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing
the Activities
1968 UNISPACE I
1972 Introduction of the Liability Agreement
1982 UNISPACE II

10
 1984 Moon Agreement enters into force, reiterating international law and the Charter of
the United Nations that the moon must only be used for peaceful purposes
1999 UNISPACE III

THE PRESENT PROBLEM

Every year, the United Nations General Assembly adopts a resolution entitled ‘International
cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space’ (“COPUOS Documents”, unoosa.org). While on
the face of it this may suggest that there is no risk of outer space becoming militarised, the
resolutions are in no way legally binding, and have consistently failed to address a number of
fundamental points of disagreement between major nations. A key marker of this danger is the
fact that the UN is yet to pass a resolution or treaty which explicitly guards against the future
placement of weapons in space by any nation.

That is not to say that some countries have not attempted to solve the matter. In 2004 several
states, most notably the Russian Federation, made it their official policy that they would not be
‘the first State to place weapons in outer space’ (UN RES 70/53). However, not only is the paucity
of states an issue, but the wording of the policy clearly allows the possibility that the signatory
states could place weapons into outer space in response to a move by a rival nation. The policy is
therefore to a large extent immaterial, as in the event of arms entering outer space there is nothing
that would prevent the escalation of tensions and indeed armaments.

As mentioned above, UN resolutions frequently highlight the importance of guarding against war
in space. A clause commonly seen, for example in Resolution 70/53 in 2015, is:

‘Reaffirming also that preventing an arms race in outer space is in the interest of maintaining
international peace and security and is an essential condition for the promotion and strengthening
of international cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes’.

Despite this, to date there has been no legally binding code of conduct for the potential presence
of weapons in international space, and it is easy to see the annual resolution of the General
Assembly as dangerously passing over an issue which has yet to be properly accepted and tackled.

Part of the reason why this remains such a major problem is because of a major divide in views
on the extent to which arms in outer space must be monitored. One bloc, led by China and Russia
and featuring many other nations, has consistently called for the creation of an international
agreement safeguarding against the potential future militarisation of outer space (e.g. (“Statement
by H.E. Ambassador Wu Haitao” 2012). Any chance of an agreement however has been firmly
blocked by the USA along with its European allies, who are critical of the working papers and
plans made by China and Russia and are, generally speaking, against any additional measures to
regulate weapons in outer space.

BLOC POSITIONS
China

China has traditionally been against the introduction of arms in outer space, and has a long
history of advocating for the prevention of extra-terrestrial military escalation. China has
consistently collaborated in and drafted documents relating to the prevention of an arms race,

11
especially as part of the Conference on Disarmament (CD). In 2000, China submitted a working
paper advocating the reinstitution of an ad hoc committee on the prevention of an arms race in
outer space (PAROS) and the framework of a potential outer space treaty (“UNOG Conference
on Disarmament”). Yet the CD did not take this up.

Russian Federation

Russia has for decades been a close ally of China in their attempts to prevent the militarisation of
Space. Following China’s unsuccessful attempt to re-establish an ad hoc PAROS committee in
2000, Russia united with them in 2008 to submit a working paper entitled the ‘Prevention of the
Placement of Weapons in Outer Space’ (PPWT) (Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on PAROS,
2008). However, the two nations have to date achieved no success in their attempts to introduce
an internationally recognised agreement on reducing the risk of outer space being militarised.

The United States of America

The USA has naturally been a major player in space diplomacy since the years of the space race.
Unlike China and Russia though, it has consistently voted against any resolutions which attempt
to limit the sovereign powers of states to act in outer space as they see fit. The US believes that
the status quo is sufficient, and opposes the creation of any further treaties on the limitations of
arms placements in outer space. It has also explicitly criticised the draft paper developed by
China and Russia, for example in its 2008 letter to the Secretary-General of the Conference on
Disarmament that it fails to define exactly what ‘weapon in outer space’ actually is (“USA 2008
letter to Secretary-General of Conference on Disarmament”).

European Union

The EU began developing its own Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities in 2008 and
made it public in 2010, but have yet to submit it to the Conference on Disarmament, meaning
that no concrete international progress has been made by them (“Code of Conduct for Outer
Space Activities”). The EU has however received backing from the USA, suggesting that it could
be a better first step for an international agreement than the attempt by China and Russia.

The Group of 21 / Non-Aligned Movement

This bloc consists of countries which, though not being superpowers, nevertheless want to
ensure the maintenance of peace in space through appropriate international measures. The group
originated in the 1980s when the ad hoc PAROS (Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space)
committee were attempting to come to an agreement, and consisted of; Algeria; Bangladesh;
Botswana; Cameroon; Chile; Colombia; Democratic Republic of Congo; Cuba; Ecuador; Egypt;
Ethiopia; India; Indonesia; Iran; Iraq; Kenya; DPR Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; Mongolia;
Morocco; Myanmar; Nigeria; Pakistan; Peru; Senegal; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Syria; Tunisia;
Trinidad & Tobago; Venezuela; Vietnam; Zimbabwe. In more recent times, the group has
maintained their stance that current treaties do not go far enough, given that there is nothing in
place to ban the launching nor testing of weapons in outer space. The group therefore advocates
the establishment of a working group devoted to the guaranteeing of peace in outer space
(“Documents Database”, unoosa.org).

12
EXISTING DOCUMENTS ON SPACE LAW
In order to get a full understanding of the potential progress which can be made in the future
regarding the prevention of conflict in outer space, it is essential to first understand the successes
and limitations of existing UN resolutions on space law.

Treaties

(NB all following treaties are referenced via the “Documents Database” at unoosa.org, details in
Bibliography).

There are to date five international treaties on outer space; none of these are legally binding per
se, however they are binding for all signatures.

The major treaty is the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration
and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Resolution 2222 (XXI).
Also known as the ‘Outer Space Treaty’, this was the first major step towards creating an
internationally recognised agreement on the prevention of arms placement. The main point of the
treaty is that space should be accessible to all nations, regardless of their economic and
technological development and that all space related activities should be peaceful. As mentioned
before however, it goes no further in terms of creating stringent prohibitions on the activity of
nations in outer space.

Another document of great importance is the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched

into Outer Space, Resolution 3235 (XXIX). This was created in order to expand on the United
Nations Register of Objects Launched into Outer Space. Naturally this is focused on the task of
ensuring that all objects launched into space are documented and acceptable to the international
community, however it would likely prove little deterrence to a country if it felt that it was essential
to its security to launch arms into outer space.

There have been three further treaties, namely the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the
Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, and also the ‘Moon
Treaty’ acknowledging that the moon is ‘the common heritage of all mankind’. It may be argued
however that these three documents show just how much there is still to do; despite the major
disagreements states such as the US, China and Russia, the bulk of treaties to date have only
addressed fairly straightforward and mundane issues. Moreover, one has to question whether truly
concerted efforts have been made to reconcile the divided parties with a unifying treaty, rather
than focusing on easier but less significant pieces of space law.

Principles

(NB all following principles are referenced via the “Documents Database” at unoosa.org, details
in Bibliography).

Furthermore, there are an additional five principles from UN documents which relate to the
prevention of future conflict in outer space, however they have even less of a legally-binding effect
than the aforementioned treaties. While the treaties are applicable to any nation that has signed
them, the principles have no legal influence on states but simply serve as guidelines for space
activity. These are:

13
1. Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Uses
of Outer Space, Resolution 1962 (XVIII) adopted in 1963 (Declaration of Legal Principles) which
sets out the guidelines for the behaviour in outer space of both private and public organisations.

2. The Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct
Television Broadcasting, Resolution 37/92 adopted in 1982 (Broadcasting Principles), which
details the ways in which nations collaborate for the purpose of TV broadcasting.

3. The Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space, Resolution 41/65,
adopted in 1986 (Remote Sensing Principles).

4. The Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space, Resolution 47/68
adopted in 1992 (Nuclear Power Sources Principles) which provides direction on the safe and
sustainable usage of nuclear power in outer space.

5. The 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, Resolution 51/122 adopted in 1996.

These principles reaffirm the fact that, to date, there has simply not been enough international
documentation on the development of peacekeeping in outer space, in spite of the challenges
facing nations in finding compromises with each other.

THE FUTURE OUTLOOK

The future of progress in maintaining peace in outer space relies on countries finding compromises,
however as we have seen UN member states have thus far failed to make any significant progress
on legally-binding measures. As technology develops and our presence in space increases, the
urgency with which we have to find new and effective ways of peacekeeping will grow
exponentially.

Not only does the advances in technology contribute to growing fears over the potential of conflict
in outer space, but the threats to peacekeeping are heightened by growing fractures in international
relations. With the arrival of the Trump Administration the international community has entered
a state of confusion and unpredictability, with even the most seasoned experts being unable to
predict the future of diplomacy. While the US’s ties with Russia seem closer than ever, therefore
making a new resolution seem a real possibility, Trump’s impulsive approach to foreign policy has
clouded the future of peacekeeping in uncertainty.

To complicate matters further, the EU, a possible bridge between nations, has entered the most
tumultuous period in its history. Not only does the impending UK exit from the organisation
create countless questions and issues for the EU to address, but it also throws into question its
very future, given the rising anti-establishment sentiment across the continent. Given this political
atmosphere in Europe, it seems that major efforts will have to be made to include the EU in the
reconciliation of opposing nations and coming up with a truly international agreement on the
prevention of conflict escalation.

Yet another impediment comes with the fact that the state of North Korea continues to expand
its nuclear capabilities, and has even succeeded in launching satellites into space without the

14
assistance of China (Reuters, 2016). This therefore makes it a reasonable possibility that in the near
future, the rogue state could install weapons into outer space. But what would the international
community’s response be? Would it even be possible to have a coherent response without stronger
and clearer legislation in place?

Given this confused and divided state of international relations, it seems that a decisive and wide-
reaching agreement on the maintenance of peace in outer space is essential. The challenge of
achieving this, however, will be monumental. Nations such as China and Russia have to find ways
to reach states such as the US and the European countries, and build bridges where previously
there have been none. The longer it is before an agreement can be reached, the greater the risk is
that tensions will be escalated to dangerous and unsustainable levels.

POINTS RESOLUTIONS COULD ADDRESS

• Is it possible to find a new resolution which can combine the opposing sides of the debate,
i.e. unite Russia, China, the US and all other nations in a harmonious and legally-binding
policy?
• What areas should nations be willing to compromise on? Should the proposals of Russia
and China be amended to address the concerns of Europe and America? And equally
should America be more ready to negotiate on ways in which they can reach an
international agreement?
• How can groups such as the Group of 21 assist in the reconciliation process? Is it fair to
say that these comparatively neutral nations hold the key in brokering any future agreement
between the more divided superpowers?
• Should there be clarity over the actions of the international community in the event that a
state (e.g. North Korea) unexpectedly places arms in outer space? What might such actions
consist of?

FURTHER READING

• Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities (http://eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-

and-disarmament/outer-space-activities/index_en.htm)
• Space Law Treaties and Principals, UNOOSA
(http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html)
• Recordings of COPUOS meetings
(http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/audio/v2/meetings.jsp?lng=en)
• Non-legally Binding UN Instruments
(http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/nlbcompendium.html)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
"Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities." European Union External Action. The EU, n.d.
Web. December 2016.

15
“COPUOS Documents”, http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/documents.html.
Web, January 2017.

“Documents Database” (http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/documents-and-resolutions)

Javits, Eric M. “USA: text of the remarks made at an informal conference on “Future security in
space: commercial, military and arms control trade-offs” (CD/1680)”. The UN, 10 July 2002.
Web. December 2016.

"Liability Convention." UNOOSA. The UN, n.d. Web. January 2017.

"The Outer Space Treaty." UNOOSA. The UN, n.d. Web. December 2016.

"Registration Convention." UNOOSA. The UN, n.d. Web. December 2016.

"Rescue Agreement." UNOOSA. The UN, n.d. Web. January 2017.

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-satellite-orbit-idUSKCN0VI1XN)
February 2016

"Space Law: Resolutions." UNOOSA. N.p., n.d. Web. December 2016.

“Working paper Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (CD/1925)”. The UN, 13 Sept.
2011. Web. December 2016

“UNOG Conference on Disarmament”,

(http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/128C93D52DF3BA7FC1257F3400396
345?OpenDocument) Web. March 2017

“USA 2008 letter to Secretary-General of Conference on Disarmament” https://documents-

dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/628/51/PDF/G0862851.pdf?OpenElement

16