Home > Bibliography > View Citation

View Citation


Mineiro, Michael C. "The United States and the Legality of Outer Space Weaponization: A Proposal for Greater Transparency and a Dispute Resolution Mechanism." Annals of Air and Space Law. (2008): 441-466. [ 5 quotes ]

Evidence Related to this Citation

Even Civillian Space Applications could be Used as Space Weapons
 
One of the major difficulties in defining "space weapon" is that many space systems designed for peaceful purposes have the capacity to destroy or interfere with another object or being in space or in the Earth environment.26 For example, NASA recently launched their first autonomous robotic spacecraft, a repair robot called DART.27 DART is laying the groundwork for future projects like robotic delivery of cargo to space shuttles and automated docking and repair between spacecraft in orbit. DART is capable of maneuvering to satellites and physically interacting with satellites. DART's ability to maneuver and interact with other satellites gives it the potential to be used as an anti-satellite weapon (ASAT). A DART-like space system could target a satellite and force it out of its orbit, either destroying it or effectively negating its usefulness. Is a space robot like DART a "space weapon?" Is it a dual-use system? Or is it strictly a peaceful non-weaponized system? Lawyers and policy makers debating the issue of weaponization must consider the overlapping capabilities inherent in space systems. Most space systems, due to their very nature, will exhibit some weapon-like capabilities.
Mineiro, Michael C. "The United States and the Legality of Outer Space Weaponization: A Proposal for Greater Transparency and a Dispute Resolution Mechanism." Annals of Air and Space Law. (2008): 441-466. [ 5 quotes ] [ page 447 ]
Proposed Definition that Includes Earth-Based Space Weapons and Focuses on Intended Function
 
Unless otherwise noted, this paper adopts the following definition of a space weapon: Any device, whether based on Earth, in outer space, or in any other location, designed or modified to inflict physical or operational damage to an object in outer space through the projection of mass, the projection of energy, or through direct physical contact; or, any device based in outer space designed or modified to inflict physical or operational damage to targets on the Earth through the projection of mass, the projection of energy, or through direct physical contact.

This definition has several advantages. First, it includes both terrestrial and space-based systems. This is important because "the discussion on space weapons should not be limited to deployment in space but [must] include those weapons on Earth that can be directed into space".33 Second, numerous systems currently deployed in outer space and on Earth may have the capability to interfere with the operation of an object in space. If a definition fails to consider the function of a system, then the definition may include systems that are currently deployed but not designed to act as space weapons. The definition adopted in this paper is limited to devices "designed or modified" to "inflict physical or operational damage". An over-inclusive definition of space weapon would undermine the rationale for a debate on weaponization and contradict years of State practice.
Mineiro, Michael C. "The United States and the Legality of Outer Space Weaponization: A Proposal for Greater Transparency and a Dispute Resolution Mechanism." Annals of Air and Space Law. (2008): 441-466. [ 5 quotes ] [ page 448 ]
Current International Outer Space Legal Regime does not Provide either Transparency or Provide a Dispute Resolution Mechanism
 
The current legal regime requires little, if any, transparency and provides hardly any mechanisms for dispute resolution. The reporting requirements established under the Registration Convention provide very little transparency, allowing States to effectively conceal whether or not a registered object is a space weapon.106 The Outer Space Treaty does provide for the application of international law and the United Nations Charter. Thus, in case of a dispute relating to outer space weaponization, in accordance with article 2(3) of the Charter, States are obligated to negotiate in good faith under article 33 of the Charter.107 However, in the event that negotiations fail, few other methods of dispute resolution are available. While article IX of the Outer Space Treaty calls for international consultations, it is unclear whether the deployment of a space weapon alone triggers this obligation and even if it does, to what extent such.
Mineiro, Michael C. "The United States and the Legality of Outer Space Weaponization: A Proposal for Greater Transparency and a Dispute Resolution Mechanism." Annals of Air and Space Law. (2008): 441-466. [ 5 quotes ] [ page 464 ]
Should Update Existing Outer Space Law to Promote Transparency about Military Space Intentions and Provide Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
 
For these reasons, this author calls upon the United States to support the creation of a legal agreement that provides for greater transparency in space activities and establishes a space weaponization dispute resolution mechanism. This agreement should achieve the following:
  1. Strengthen the Registration Convention reporting requirements. The ability of States to conceal the location and function of registered space objects should be inhibited by requiring registries to contain more detailed information. Reports to the Secretary-General should be furnished within a specific period of time, eliminating the ability of States to delay.

  2. Allow States engaged in space weaponization to clarify the purpose and intent of their activities. This may come in the form of "notices of intent" filed with registration reports that explain why a State has undertaken a particular space weaponization activity.

  3. Provide a forum through which States may request information and clarification of space weaponization activities. In this forum, States can raise perceived violations of applicable law, request treaty obligations be fulfilled, and call for negotiations.

  4. Establish a body that facilitates communication and negotiations for the purposes of preventing weaponization and removing weaponization systems already deployed.

  5. Establish a legal mechanism to resolve disputes over the interpretation and application of the Outer Space Treaty, in particular as it relates to space weaponization. This dispute resolution mechanism could be three-tiered. The first-tier would allow for private mediation, similar to the consultation provisions of the Moon Treaty. The second-tier would be binding arbitration, subject to appeal. The third-tier would be the International Court of Justice, or other judicial body, whose decisions would be final and binding. The United Nations Security Council would be the appropriate body to enforce the decision.
Mineiro, Michael C. "The United States and the Legality of Outer Space Weaponization: A Proposal for Greater Transparency and a Dispute Resolution Mechanism." Annals of Air and Space Law. (2008): 441-466. [ 5 quotes ] [ page 465 ]
Introducing Transparency and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms into Existing Outer Space Law could Prevent Spiraling Space Arms Race
 
The goals outlined above are not outside the scope of political reality, for they attempt to strike a balance between idealism and pragmatism. All nations, whether or not they have deployed or have the capacity to deploy space weapons, have an interest in the peaceful development of outer space. At the same time, States have an incentive to weaponize outer space because the absence of a diplomatic sovereign to arbitrate international conflicts means that States must rely upon their own strength for protection.111 A spiraling cycle of weaponization can only be prevented if States are more transparent with their activities, clear on the intent and purpose of their activities, willing to negotiate, and have an effective legal means to resolve disputes.
Mineiro, Michael C. "The United States and the Legality of Outer Space Weaponization: A Proposal for Greater Transparency and a Dispute Resolution Mechanism." Annals of Air and Space Law. (2008): 441-466. [ 5 quotes ] [ page 466 ]