Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Security and Global Civil Space Cooperation: Space Technology Trade and Proliferation Controls as One Part of the Larger Puzzle

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Space Technology Export Controls and International Cooperation in Outer Space

Part of the book series: Space Regulations Library Series ((SPRL,volume 6))

  • 1053 Accesses

Abstract

As one part of the larger puzzle of international law, international relations, and our collective human future in outer space, this chapter examines how the current national centric paradigm of space technology trade and proliferation controls impacts global cooperation in civil space endeavours.

This chapter begins with an assessment of how the current international regime of space technology trade and proliferation controls impact the ability of States to cooperate internationally on civil space endeavours. Thereafter, it addresses outer space arms control, disarmament, and proliferation and its link to international cooperation and space technology trade and proliferation controls.

International law then becomes the focus of this chapter. Three distinct international legal obligations are analyzed under the rubric of global space cooperation: the duty to maintain international peace and security, the obligation to promote cooperation and mutual understanding, and the obligation for the exploration and use of outer space to be for the benefit and interests of all countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies [Outer Space Treaty], signed on 27th January 1967, 18 UST 2410; TIAS 6347; 610 UNTS 205. All space-faring nations, including the U.S., are Parties to this Convention.

  2. 2.

    Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty.

  3. 3.

    See, Presidential Lyndon Johnson Signing Statement to the Outer Space Treaty (27 January, 1967), available online at Lyndon Johnson Presidential Library: <http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/670127.asp>.

  4. 4.

    Article III of the Outer Space Treaty.

  5. 5.

    See Ernst Fasan, “Human Settlements on Planets: New Stations or New Nations” 22 Journal of Space Law 47 (1997).

  6. 6.

    Article III of the Outer Space Treaty.

  7. 7.

    See Chapter 2 of thesis.

  8. 8.

    The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space is the principle international instrument governing activity in outer space. It is complemented with four subsequent treaties: Rescue and Return Agreement, Registration Convention, Liability Convention, and Moon Agreement. With the exception of the Moon Agreement, the treaty regime governing outer space has received broad international support.

  9. 9.

    See Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (22 April 1968), 19 U.S.T. 7570, 672 U.N.T.S. 119 [hereinafter Rescue Agreement].

  10. 10.

    These include the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and the World Meteorology Organization (WMO). For an excellent review of international, regional, and national organization affecting space activities, See Stephen Doyle, “International Space Plans and Policies: Future Roles of International Organizations” 18 Journal of Space Law 123 (1990).

  11. 11.

    See Ram S. Jakhu, J.L. Magdelénat, and H. Rousselle, “The ITU Regulatory Framework for Satellite Communications: An Analysis of Space WARC 1985” 42(2) International Journal, The Politics of International Telecommunications (Spring, 1987), 276–288.

  12. 12.

    It has been hypothesized that the development of greater State reliance on inter-agency arrangements reflects, in part, the decline of United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) as an effective body to facilitate cooperation. See Ram Jakhu, “The Effect of Globalization on Space Law” in Stephen Hobe, Ed., Globalisation – The State and International Law (Franz Steiner Verlag, 2009) at 75–77.

  13. 13.

    These include the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC), the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS), and the International Committee on Global Navigation Satellite Systems (ICG).

  14. 14.

    Charter on Cooperation to Achieve the Coordinated Use of Space Facilities in the Event of Natural or Technological Disasters, available online at Disaster Charter Homepage: <http://www.disasterscharter.org/web/charter/charter>.

  15. 15.

    J. Bessis, J. Bequignon, and A. Mahood, “The International Charter ‘Space and Major Disasters’ Initiative” 54(3) Acta Astronautica 183 (2004).

  16. 16.

    Atsuyo Ito, “Issues in the Implementation of the International Charter of Space and Major Disasters” 21(2) Space Policy 141 (2005).

  17. 17.

    Atsuyo Ito, “Issues in the Implementation of the International Charter of Space and Major Disasters” 21(2) Space Policy 141 (2005) at 148.

  18. 18.

    Originally the U.S. was going to undertake a space station named Freedom. This project was replaced in 1993 with the International Space Station. Russia was later added as partner to the ISS.

  19. 19.

    Agreement Among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, The Government of Japan, The Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning cooperation on the civil international space station [ISS Agreement], (29 January 1998).

  20. 20.

    Article 5 of the ISS Agreement.

  21. 21.

    Article 6 of the ISS Agreement.

  22. 22.

    Article 7 of the ISS Agreement.

  23. 23.

    Article 8 and Article 10 of the ISS Agreement.

  24. 24.

    Those States with proven space launch capabilities are: The United States of America, Russia, France, China, India, and Japan.

  25. 25.

    While there are many companies that sell, on behalf of the launch service provider, particular launch services, these types of companies are essentially agents and do not contribute or participate in the physical trade or operation of launch vehicle technologies and services.

  26. 26.

    See Joosung Lee, “Legal Analysis of SeaLaunch License: National Security and Environmental Concerns” 24(2) Space Policy 104 (2008) at 105.

  27. 27.

    See Article II of WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) Most Favored Nation (MFN) Exemption List for the United States of America (August 2010), Sector: “Transportation Services: Space Transportation.”

  28. 28.

    Id.

  29. 29.

    Article IV(b) (2) of WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).

  30. 30.

    Article IV, Outer Space Treaty.

  31. 31.

    Article IV, Registration Convention.

  32. 32.

    Article XII, Outer Space Treaty.

  33. 33.

    Article X, Outer Space Treaty.

  34. 34.

    See Michael Mineiro, “The United States and the Legality of Outer Space Weaponization” XXXIII Annals of Air & Space Law 441 (2008) at 464.

  35. 35.

    Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water [Limited Test Ban Treaty], signed at Moscow August 5, 1963, 480 UNTS 43 [Limited Test Ban Treaty]. Ratification advised by U.S. Senate September 24, 1963; Ratified by U.S. President October 7, 1963; U.S. ratification deposited at Washington, London, and Moscow October 10, 1963; Proclaimed by U.S. President October 10, 1963.

  36. 36.

    Preamble, Limited Test Ban Treaty.

  37. 37.

    Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques [Environmental Convention], signed in Geneva May 18, 1977 1108 U.N.T.S. 151. Entered into force October 5, 1978; Ratification by U.S. President December 13, 1979; U.S. ratification deposited at New York January 17, 1980.

  38. 38.

    MTCR Website: <http://www.mtcr.info/english/>.

  39. 39.

    Id.

  40. 40.

    Id.

  41. 41.

    MTCR Website: <http://www.mtcr.info/english/guidetext.htm>.

  42. 42.

    MTCR Guidelines <http://www.mtcr.info/english/guidelines.html>.

  43. 43.

    See The Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCOC) U.S. State Department Fact Sheet, <http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/govern/ICOC-6January2004.html> (Last accessed on 22 September 2009).

  44. 44.

    See HCOC U.S. State Department Fact Sheet, <http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/govern/ICOC-6January2004.html> (Last accessed on 22 September 2009).

  45. 45.

    Id.

  46. 46.

    The Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCOC) (formally brought into effect on 25 November 2002).

  47. 47.

    Wassenaar Arrangement at Scope, para.3.

  48. 48.

    Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems [AMB Treaty] (Entered into Force on 3 October 1972; Terminated by unilateral withdrawal by the United States on 13 June 2002).

  49. 49.

    See Michael Mineiro, “FY-1C and USA-193 ASAT Intercepts: An Assessment of Legal Obligations under Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty” 34(2) Journal of Space Law 321 (2008).

  50. 50.

    See Theresa Hutchins and David Chen, “Forging a Sino-US Grand Bargain in Space” 24(3) Space Policy 128 (2008).

  51. 51.

    See Michael Mineiro, “The United States and the Legality of Outer Space Weaponization” 33 Annals of Air & Space Law 441 (2008) at 452–463.

  52. 52.

    Id.

  53. 53.

    During the development of India’s space launch vehicle during the 1990s, the U.S. boycotted civil space cooperation. More recently, the development by Iran of a space launch vehicle has raised concern amongst certain space-active members of the international community.

  54. 54.

    Consider the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

  55. 55.

    See International Atomic Energy Agency Statute, Article 3(5): “[The IAEA is authorized] To establish and administer safeguards designed to ensure that special fissionable and other materials, services, equipment, facilities, and information made available by the Agency or at its request or under its supervision or control are not used in such a way as to further any military purpose; and to apply safeguards, at the request of the parties, to any bilateral or multilateral arrangement, or at the request of a State, to any of that State’s activities in the field of atomic energy.”

  56. 56.

    See Michael Mineiro, “The United States and the Legality of Outer Space Weaponization” 33 Annals of Air & Space Law 441 (2008).

  57. 57.

    Article III, Outer Space Treaty: “States Parties to the Treaty undertake 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. The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.”

  58. 58.

    U.N. Centre for Disarmament Affairs, Study on the Application of Confidence Building Measures in Outer Space, A/48/305 (1994) at 50.

  59. 59.

    I.A. Vlasic, “Space Law and the Military Applications of Space Technology”, in N. Jasentuliyana, Ed., Perspectives on International Law (Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1995) at 489. “All they are obliged to do, according to the key Article IV, is to submit their reports ‘as soon as practicable’, containing information designed not to reveal the true nature of the mission.” [Vlasic]

  60. 60.

    Nandasiri Jasentuliyana, International Space Law and the United Nations (Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999) at 218.

  61. 61.

    See Michael Mineiro, “FY-1C and USA-197 ASAT Intercepts: An Assessment of Legal Obligations under Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty” 34(2) Journal of Space Law 321 (2008).

  62. 62.

    Article III, Outer Space Treaty.

  63. 63.

    Article 1(1), UN Charter.

  64. 64.

    Id.

  65. 65.

    See Peter Jakobsen, “National Interest, Humanitarianism or CNN: What Triggers UN Peace Enforcement After the Cold War?” 33(2) Journal of Peace Research 202 (1996). See also, Adam Roberts, “Humanitarian War: Military Intervention and Human Rights” 69(3) International Affairs 429 (1993).

  66. 66.

    See Ole Weaver, “Peace and Security: Two Evolving Concepts and Their Changing Relationships” in Hans Brauch, Ed., Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace Vol. 3: Globalization and Environmental Challenges (New York: Springer, 2008) at 99–112.

  67. 67.

    See Immi Tallgren, “The Sensibility and Sense of International Criminal Law” 13(3) European Journal of International Law 561 (2002) at 567. See also, U.N. Security Council Resolutions S/Res/808 (1993) and S/Res/827 (1993) on the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

  68. 68.

    See Paul Taylor, “The United Nations in the 1990s: Proactive Cosmopolitanism and the Issue of Sovereignty” 47(3) Political Studies 538 (1999).

  69. 69.

    For example, the UN Security Council has passed a number of resolutions supporting this proposition. See UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1267 (1999) [Establishing the “Al-Quida and Taliban Sanctions Committee”]. See also, UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1769 (2007) [“Authorizing a Peacekeeping Mission in Darfur”]. See also, UN Security Council Resolutions S/RES/808 (1993) and S/RES/827 (1993) [“Establishing an International Criminal Tribunal for Violations of International Humanitarian Law in Yugoslavia”].

  70. 70.

    See also, UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1769 (2007) [“Authorizing a Peacekeeping Mission in Darfur”], Consider that this peacekeeping mission is primarily with regards to an internal State matter with only direct regional impact on neighboring States.. See also, UN Security Council Resolutions S/RES/808 (1993) and S/RES/827 (1993) [“Establishing an International Criminal Tribunal for Violations of International Humanitarian Law in Yugoslavia”], Consider that this Tribunal is for an intra-state/regional conflict.

  71. 71.

    See Ian Brownlie, “The Maintenance of Peace in Outer Space” 40 British Year Book of International Law 1 (1964). In this illustrative article, Sir Ian Brownlie examined what he believed were the primary challenges facing the international community with regards to the maintenance of international peace and security in outer space. In accord with the conceptions and concerns of his time, Brownlie wrote on the “the boundary question (of airspace and outer space),” “trespass,” “the law of armed conflict,” “aggression,” “demilitarization,” “military use,” and “testing of weapons.” It is important to note though that Mr. Browlie also had the foresight to address the possibility of relations with other intelligences and the extremely current issue of space assets, the law of armed conflict, and neutrality. See also, Robert Jarman, The Law of Neutrality in Outer Space [Unpublished LLM Thesis, McGill University Faculty of Law, 2008]. Major Robert Jarman’s thesis is an example of the evolution of the traditional inter-state conflict concerns to contemporary issue of space assets and their legal status under the law of armed conflict and neutrality. See also, Michel Bourbonniere, “National Security Law in Outer Space: The Interface of Exploration and Security” 70 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 3 (2005) at 55, in which the prevention of an arms race in outer space is addressed – an issue of international peace and security since the 1950s.

  72. 72.

    G.A. Resolution 64/28 Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (2 December 2009), Preamble.

  73. 73.

    G.A. Resolution 64/28 Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (2 December 2009), Para. 2. GA res. See also Michael Mineiro, “The United States and Legality of Outer Space Weaponization: A Proposal for Greater Transparency and Effective Dispute Resolution Mechanisms” XXXIII Annals of Air and Space Law 441 (2008). See also Jinyuan Su, “Towards an Effective and Adequately Verifiable PPWT” 26(3) Space Policy 152 (2010).

  74. 74.

    See Report of the 2009–2010 Montreal-Cologne International Interdisciplinary Congress on Space Debris [Unpublished but currently being edited by McGill University Institute of Air & Space Law for publication in 2011].

  75. 75.

    See V. Garshnek et al., “The Mitigation, Management, and Survivability of Asteroid/Comet impact with Earth” 16 Space Policy 213 (2000). See also Jessica Tok, Ed., Asteroid Threats: A Call for Global Response (ASE Report: 2008), available online at: <http://www.space-explorers.org/committees/NEO/docs/ATACGR.pdf>.

  76. 76.

    See John Remo, “Policy Perspectives from the UN International Conference on Near-Earth Objects” 12(1) Space Policy 13 (1996). See also K. Sweet, “Planetary Preservation: The Need for Legal Provision” 15 Space Policy 223 (1999).

  77. 77.

    See United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Human Development Report 1994 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), Chapter 2 of the report “New dimensions of human security” 22–47. See also Kanti Bajpai, “Human Security: Concept and Management” (Kroc Institute Occasional Paper #19, 2000).

  78. 78.

    See Janne Nolan, Ed., Global Engagement: Cooperation and Security in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1994) at 10.

  79. 79.

    See George Brown, “International Cooperation in Outer Space: Enhancing the World’s Common Security” 3(3) Space Policy 166 (1987). Although an older article, Mr. Brown was far ahead of his time, calling for international space cooperation to advance global security.

  80. 80.

    These articles illustrate only a few of the many practical space-based applications in the fields of natural resource management and environmental monitoring. See W. Balogh, L. Canturk, S. Chernikov, T. Doi, S. Gadimova, H. Haubold, and V. Kotelnikov, “The United Nations Programme on Space Applications: Status and Direction for 2010” 26(3) Space Policy 185 (2010). See also, M.K.V. Sivakumar and Donald Hinsmen, “Satellite Remote Sensing and GIS Applications in Agricultural Meterology and WHO Satelltite Activities” in Proceedings of a WMO Training Workshop held July 7–11th in Dehru Dun, India (AGM-8, WMO/TD-No.1182) (Geneva: WMO, 2004). See also, K.D. McMullan, M. Martin-Neira, A. Hahne, and A. Borges, “SMOS-Earth’s Water Monitoring Mission” in Philip Olla, Ed., Space Technologies for the Benefit of Human Society and Earth (Springer, 2009).

  81. 81.

    Communication is fundamental to the human condition. Space-based communication and information technologies provide a variety of uses to human society that benefit global security. See Phillip Olla, “The Diffusion of Information Communication and Space Technology Applications into Society” in Phillip Olla, Ed., Space Technologies for the Benefit of Human Society (Springer, 2009). See Joseph Pelton, “The Economic and Social Benefits of Space Communication: A Global Overview – Past, Present, Future” 6(4) Space Policy 311 (1990).

  82. 82.

    The first meteorological satellite was launched on April 1, 1960. Since that time, space-based meteorological applications have significantly improved the security and condition of humanity. Today, meteorological applications are being synergized with other applications for additional human benefit. See Avery Sen, “The Benefits of Remote Sensing for Energy Policy” 20(1) Space Policy 17 (2004). This article examines the use of meteorological and remote sensing satellites to improve energy policy for the public welfare.

  83. 83.

    See Jesus Gonzalo, Gonzalo Martin-de-Mercado, and Fernando Valcarce, “Space Technology Disaster Monitoring, Mitigation and Disaster Management” in Philip Olla, Ed., Space Technologies for the Benefit of Human Society and Earth (Springer, 2009). See also UNOOSA Space Technology & Disaster Management, available online at: <http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SAP/stdm/index.html>.

  84. 84.

    For example, the non-binding Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) Mitigation Guidelines describe existing practices that have been identified and evaluated for limiting the generation of space debris in the environment. These guidelines have been developed because the international space-faring community is the process of recognizing the serious threat space debris poses to the continued peaceful utilization of outer space. These guidelines are political, not legal, and therefore carry no binding force of international law. See IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines (IADC-02-01, Revision 1, September 2007), available online at IADC Website: <http://www.iadc-online.org/index.cgi?item=docs_pub>.

  85. 85.

    Consider the work of the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety (IAASS) (a non-profit organization “dedicated to furthering international cooperation and scientific advancement in the field space safety systems”). See IAASS Website: <http://www.iaass.org/About.aspx>. The IAASS is in favor of conformity and harmonization of technology standards amongst space-faring States engaged in human space exploration in order to support essential astronaut systems, such as life support, emergency systems, and collision avoidance. See Gary Musgrave, Axel Larson, and Tommaso Sgobba, Safety Design for Space Systems (Oxford: Elsevier, 2009).

  86. 86.

    See Paula A. DeSutter (U.S. Assistant Secretary for Verification, Compliance, and Implimentation), Is an Outer Space Treaty Verifiable? (Remarks to the George C. Marshall Institute Roundtable at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, 4 March 2008), available online at: <http://www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/dos/dos030408.pdf>. See A. Lukaszczyk, Laurance Nardon, and Ray Williams, Towards Greater Security in Outer Space: Some Recommendations (Secure World Foundation/Note de I’lfiri: November 2009) at 23, available online at: <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org/siteadmin/images/files/file_380.pdf>.

  87. 87.

    For example, identifying, tracking, and remedying NEO collision threats require a global response. See Jessica Tok, Ed., Asteroid Threats: A Call for Global Response (ASE Report, 2008), available online at: <http://www.space-explorers.org/committees/NEO/docs/ATACGR.pdf>.

  88. 88.

    See Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1971).

  89. 89.

    For emergent threats that rise to the level of global concern, it is quite possible that the international community, as represented in the G.A. of the United Nations, will pass a resolution calling for States to work collectively in a global fashion, thereby supplanting ad-hoc agreements/arrangements.

  90. 90.

    G.A. Res 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (24 October 1970).

  91. 91.

    Article III, Outer Space Treaty.

  92. 92.

    Article I, para.3, Outer Space Treaty: “There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation.”

  93. 93.

    Article X, Outer Space Treaty: “In order to promote international co-operation in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, in conformity with the purposes of this Treaty, the States Parties to the Treaty shall consider on a basis of equality any requests by other States Parties to the Treaty to be afforded an opportunity to observe the flight of space objects launched by those States.”

  94. 94.

    Article XI, Outer Space Treaty: “In order to promote international co-operation in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, States Parties to the Treaty conducting activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, agree to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable, of the nature, conduct, locations and results of such activities.”

  95. 95.

    See Aldo Cocca, “The Advances In International Law through the Law of Outer Space” 9 Space Law 13 (1981) at 18; “international cooperation is a legal obligation arising from the Outer Space Treaty, an obligation conditioning the lawfulness of space activities.”

  96. 96.

    See Henri A. Wassenbergh, “The International Regulation of an Equitable Utilization of Natural Outer Space Resources” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space at 138 (New York: AIAA, 1996). (“Principles [governing the Global Commons] are formulated in such a way that they remain completely non-committal, open-ended and merely reflecting the good intentions of the States.”).

  97. 97.

    See Andrew Haley, “Basic Concepts of Space Law” 26 Jet Propulsion 951 (1956).

  98. 98.

    GA Res 1348 (XIII), Question of the Peaceful use of Outer Space (13 December 1958).

  99. 99.

    GA Res 1472 (XIV), International Cooperation in Outer Space (12 December 1959).

  100. 100.

    GA Res 1721 (XVI), International Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (20 December 1961).

  101. 101.

    Outer Space Treaty.

  102. 102.

    In this State-centric context the mankind provisions are subject to several different interpretations. See G. Robinson and H. White Jr., Envoys of Mankind – A Declaration of First Principles for the Governance of Space Societies (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute, 1986). See R. Dekanozov, “Judicial Nature of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” in Proceedings of the 17th IISL Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (New York: AIAA, 1974). See A. Bueckling, “The Strategy of Semantics and the Mankind Provisions of the Space Treaty” 7 Journal of Space Law 15 (1979). See J. Gabrynowicz, “The Province and Heritage of Mankind Reconsidered: A New Beginning” NASA Johnson Space Center, The Second Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century, Volume 2 (1992) 691–695.

  103. 103.

    Aldo Cocca, “The Advances of International Law Through the Law of Outer Space” 9 Journal of Space Law 13 (1981).

  104. 104.

    Aldo Cocca, “The Advances of International Law Through the Law of Outer Space” 9 Journal of Space Law 13 (1981).

  105. 105.

    See Aldo Cocca, “The Common Heritage of Mankind Doctrine and Principle of Space Law” in Proceedings of the 29th IISL Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (New York: AIAA, 1986).

  106. 106.

    Stephen Gorove, “The Concept of ‘Common Heritage of Mankind’: A Political, Moral, or Legal Innovation?” 9 San Diego Law Review 389 (1972) at 393 & 402.

  107. 107.

    Stephen Gorove, “The Concept of ‘Common Heritage of Mankind’: A Political, Moral, or Legal Innovation?” 9 San Diego Law Review 389 (1972) at 394.

  108. 108.

    Ernst Fasan, “The Meaning of the Term ‘Mankind’ in Space Legal Language” 2 Journal of Space Law 125 (1974).

  109. 109.

    Id. at 131.

  110. 110.

    Id. at 131. See also Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, 14 April 1949) at 8. The Court states: “The subjects of law in any legal system are not necessarily identical in their nature or in the extent of their rights, and their nature depends upon the needs of the community. Throughout its history, the development of international law has been influenced by the requirements of international life, and the progressive increase in the collective activities of States has already given rise to instances of action upon the international plane by certain entities which are not States.”

  111. 111.

    Ernst Fasan, “The Meaning of the Term ‘Mankind’ in Space Legal Language” 2 Journal of Space Law 125 (1974) at 131.

  112. 112.

    See R.V. Dekanozov, “The CHM in the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of the States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” in Proceedings of the 24th IISL Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (New York: AIAA, 1981).

  113. 113.

    See K. Tatsuzawa, “Political and Legal Meaning of the CHM” in Proceedings of the 29th IISL Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (New York: AIAA, 1986).

  114. 114.

    Gyula Gal, “Some Remarks to General Clauses of Treaty Space Law” 1(1) Miskolc Journal of International Law 1 (2004).

  115. 115.

    A.A. Cancado Trindade, International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium – Hague Academy of International Law General Course on Public International Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006) at 368.

  116. 116.

    See Article 11(1), Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (“Moon Treaty”), signed 18 December, 1979, entered into force 11 July 1984, 1363 UNTS 3.

  117. 117.

    Article 11(5), Moon Treaty.

  118. 118.

    Article 11(7), Moon Treaty.

  119. 119.

    See UN Office for Outer Space Affairs website for up-to-date information, <http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosatdb/showTreatySignatures.do>. Several states are signatories but have not ratified the Treaty. See also, U.N. Document ST/SPACE/11/Rev.2/Add.3 Status of International Agreements relating to Activities in Outer Space as of 1 January 2010.

  120. 120.

    See Article 5, Outer Space Treaty. See also, Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts, and the Return of Outer Space Objects Launched into Space, entered into force 3 December 1968, 672 UNTS 119.

  121. 121.

    See Molly Macauley and J. Shih, “Satellite Solar Power: Renewed Interests in the Era of Climate Change?” 23(2) Space Policy 108 (2007). See also, R. Bryan, J. Grey, and N. Kaya, “International Coordination of Space Solar Power Related Activities” 16(2) Space Policy 123 (2005).

  122. 122.

    See A.A. Cancado Trindade, International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010) at 275. “It is not suggested here that, at the present stage of evolution of International Law, humankind is replacing States as a subject of international law. What is here asserted is that State are no longer the sole subjects of International Law, with international organizations and individuals and groups of individuals; and, moreover, humankind as such had also emerged as a subject of International Law.”

  123. 123.

    The emergent of universal legal rights associated for all persons has a strong correlation to a broader conception of certain rights residing in humanity as a whole. See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A/Res/3/217 (10 December 1948). See also A.A. Cancado Trindade, International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010) at 286. “Recourse to the very notion of humankind as subject of International Law promptly brings into the fore, or places the whole discussion within, the human rights framework… .”

  124. 124.

    The concept of intergeneration justice and common patrimony within international environmental law has considerable recognition of mankind, including future generations of mankind, as distinct holders of international legal rights. See Janna Thompson, Intergenerational Justice: Rights and Responsibilities in an International Global Polity (New York: Routledge, 2009). See also E. Brown Weiss, In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony and Intergenerational Equity (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers, 1989). See also D. Clayton Hubin, “Justice and Future Generations” 6(1) Philosophy and Public Affairs 70 (1976).

  125. 125.

    See Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. Ltd. (Belg. v. Spain), 1970 I.C.J. 3, 32 (Feb. 5). “Such obligations derive, for example, in contemporary international law, from the outlawing of acts of aggression, and of genocide, as also from the principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person, including protection from slavery and racial discrimination. Some of the corresponding rights of protection have entered into the body of general international law (Reservations to the Convention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 23); others are conferred by international instruments of a universal or quasi-universal character.” See also Cherif Bassiouni, “International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes” 59 (4) Law and Contemporary Problems 63 (1997). “Certain crimes affect the interests of the world community as a whole because they threaten the peace and security of humankind and because they shock the conscience of humanity.”

  126. 126.

    The author of this thesis forecasts that States will eventually establish an international organization specific to space-related matters. The evolution of State practice towards the establishment of a WSO may be preceded by other forms of agreement and/or arrangement, such as informal inter-agency consultation arrangements, standing committees within the current U.N. institutional structure, and other ad-hoc arrangements. Examination of these intermediary agreements/arrangements is beyond the scope of this thesis. However, as is noted at the end of this thesis, further research is needed in this area (See Epilogue: Future Areas of Research).

  127. 127.

    See Phillip Jessup and Howard Taubenfeld, Controls of Outer Space (New York: Colombia University Press, 1959) at 275–280. In this book, Jessup and Taubenfeld explored the possibilities of international order in outer space beyond the “strictly functionalist approach.” Jessup and Taubenfeld identify three forms that international control could be administrated in space: (1) a “quasi-international” approach that would include demilitarization and the establishment of a trusteeship, (2) an international regime that is an intermediate between a trusteeship system and direct international administration, and (3) the establishment of an international organization “for the advancement of the welfare of all men through activities in outer space.” While their first two proposals have fallen aside due to the legal-historical development of human activity in outer space, their third proposal, the idea to establish an international space organization, still generates interest and may have a legitimate and justified claim for the international community to consider.

  128. 128.

    See Simon Courtelx, “Is It Necessary to Establish a World Space Organization?” in Proceedings of the 36th IISL Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (New York: AIAA, 1999). See Stephen Doyle, “International Space Plans and Policies: Future Roles of International Organizations” 18 Journal of Space Law 123 (1990). See V. Vereschetin and E. Kamenetskaya, “On the Way to a World Space Organization” 12 Annals of Air & Space Law 337 (1987). See Chukeat Noichim, “International Cooperation for Sustainable Space Development” 31 Journal of Space Law 315 (2005). See Kenneth Pederson, “Is It Time to Create a World Space Agency?” 9 Space Policy 89 (1993). See A.S. Piradov, “Creating a World Space Organization” 4 Space Policy 112 (1988). See K.B. Serafimov, “Achieving Worldwide cooperation in Outer Space” 5 Space Policy 111 (1989). See Yun Zhao, “An International Space Authority: A Governance Model for a Space Commercialization Regime” 30 J. Space L. 277 (2004).

  129. 129.

    International Co-Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space: Note by the Soviet Socialist Republics, A/AC.105/407 (1988). See also, Charter of a World Space Organization: U.S.S.R. Working Paper, A./AC.105/L.171; Supplement No.20 (A/43/20) 43rd Session U.N.G.A. (1988).

  130. 130.

    In alphabetical order: ASI (Italy), BNSC (United Kingdom), CNES (France), CNSA (China), CSA (Canada), CSIRO (Australia), DLR (Germany), ESA (European Space Agency), ISRO (India), JAXA (Japan), KARI (Republic of Korea), NASA (United States of America), NSAU (Ukraine), Roscosmos (Russia). “Space Agencies” refers to government organizations responsible for space activities.

  131. 131.

    Global Exploration Strategy: Framework for Coordination (May 2007) at 5, available online at NASA Website: <http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/178109main_ges_framework.pdf>.

  132. 132.

    National Space Policy of the United States (28 June 2010) at 7, available online at Whitehouse Website: <http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf>.

  133. 133.

    Draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects, CD/1839 (29 February 2008).

  134. 134.

    National Space Policy of the United States (28 June 2010).

  135. 135.

    Kenneth Abbott and Duncan Snidal, “Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations” 42(3) Journal of Conflict Resolution 3 (1998) at 29.

  136. 136.

    Id. at 8.

  137. 137.

    See W. Duncan, B. Janice-Webster, and B. Switky, World Politics in the 21st Century (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2009) at 165–170.

  138. 138.

    Kenneth Abbott and Duncan Snidal, “Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations” 42(3) Journal of Conflict Resolution 3 (1998) at 10–17.

  139. 139.

    Id. at 17–23.

  140. 140.

    See Richard Dal Bello, “Commercial Management of the Space Environment” (Paper Presented at the 2009 Interdisciplinary Space Debris Congress at McGill University: May 7th–May 9th, 2009), available online at: <http://www.mcgill.ca/files/iasl/Session_4_Richard_DalBello_Paper.pdf>. See also Tommaso Sgobba and Ram Jakhu, Eds., ICAO for Space (IAASS White Paper, 2008).

  141. 141.

    See William Broad, “Debris Spews into Space After Satellites Collide,” New York Times (11 February 2009) at A28. See also, Report of the 2009–2010 Montreal-Cologne International Interdisciplinary Congress on Space Debris [Unpublished but currently being edited by McGill University Institute of Air & Space Law for publication in 2011].

  142. 142.

    See Lt. General Larry D. James, Statement of Commander Joint Functional Component for Space and 14th Air Force (U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, 10 March 2010).

  143. 143.

    Paul Dempsey and Michael Mineiro, “ICAO’s Legal Authority to Regulate Suborbital Flight” in Ram Jakhu and Joseph Pelton, Eds. Space Safety Regulations and Standards (London: Elsevier, 2010). Paul Dempsey and Michael Mineiro, “Suborbital Aerospace Transportation and Space Traffic Management: A Vacuum in Need of Law” Presented at the 59th IAC, Technical Session E3.2 on Space Policies and Programs of International Organizations (Glasgow, 2008).

  144. 144.

    Id.

  145. 145.

    Consider the remarks made by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on February 5, 2003 to the U.N. Security Council regarding claims of Iraqi non-compliance with UNSC Resolutions. In these remarks, Secretary Powell presented U.S. satellite imagery. This satellite imagery was captured by, processed by, and interpreted by the United States. After the U.S. led forces invaded Iraq, it came to light that the satellite images and their interpretation by Secretary Powell were not accurate – there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq. An independent UN entity that provides satellite verification and compliance monitoring of UNSC resolutions and international arms control/disarmament agreements can avoid future reliance on national means of verification that may be subjectively presented for unilateral interests.

  146. 146.

    United Nations Charter Article 2(4).

  147. 147.

    See Article II, Outer Space Treaty.

  148. 148.

    Immanuel Kant, “Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View” in Lewis W. Beck, Ed., Kant: On History (New York: MacMillian, 1989).

  149. 149.

    Id. at 19.

  150. 150.

    Id. at 21.

  151. 151.

    Id. at 18–19.

  152. 152.

    Id. at 20.

  153. 153.

    G.A. Res 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (24 October 1970).

  154. 154.

    Article III, Outer Space Treaty.

  155. 155.

    This does not mean that States are no willing to act in multilateral interests. Rather, States first and foremost consider their unilateral interests and thereafter engage multilateralism. The question of whether States are distinct subjective personalities and whether it is appropriate to categorize States as behavioral entities is beyond the scope of this thesis. It is noted that the scholars of international relations could provide original contributions to the field of space policy vis-à-vis a study of State actions in light of space treaties and security arrangements.

References

  • Lt. General Larry D. James, Statement of Commander Joint Functional Component for Space and 14th Air Force (U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, 10 March 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Duncan, B. Janice-Webster, and B. Switky, World Politics in the 21st Century (Houghton Mifflin, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Lukaszczyk, Laurance Nardon, and Ray Williams, Towards Greater Security in Outer Space: Some Recommendations (Secure World Foundation/Note de I’lfiri, November 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tommaso Sgobba and Ram Jakhu, Eds., ICAO for Space (IAASS White Paper, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldo Cocca, “The Common Heritage of Mankind Doctrine and Principle of Space Law” in Proceedings of the 29th IISL Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (New York: AIAA, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon Courtelx, “Is It Necessary to Establish a World Space Organization?” in Proceedings of the 36th IISL Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (New York: AIAA, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Dekanozov, “Judicial Nature of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” in Proceedings of the 17th IISL Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (New York: AIAA, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  • R.V. Dekanozov, “The CHM in the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of the States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” in Proceedings of the 24th IISL Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (New York: AIAA, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ram Jakhu, “The Effect of Globalization on Space Law” in Stephen Hobe, Ed., Globalisation – The State and International Law (Franz Steiner Verlag, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst Fasan, “The Meaning of the Term ‘Mankind’ in Space Legal Language” 2 Journal of Space Law 125 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyula Gal, “Some Remarks to General Clauses of Treaty Space Law” 1(1) Miskolc Journal of International Law 1 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ram S. Jakhu, J. L. Magdelénat, and H. Rousselle, “The ITU Regulatory Framework for Satellite Communications: An Analysis of Space Warc 1985” 42(2) International Journal, The Politics of International Telecommunications (Spring, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • K.D. McMullan, M. Martin-Neira, A. Hahne, and A. Borges “SMOS-Earth’s Water Monitoring Mission” in Philip Olla, Ed., Space Technologies for the Benefit of Human Society and Earth (Springer, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillip Olla, “The Diffusion of Information Communication and Space Technology Applications into Society” in Phillip Olla, Ed., Space Technologies for the Benefit of Human Society (Springer, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Tatsuzawa, “Political and Legal Meaning of the CHM” in Proceedings of the 29th IISL Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (New York: AIAA, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • V. Vereschetin and E. Kamenetskaya, “On the Way to a World Space Organization” 12 Annals of Air & Space Law 337 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Henri A. Wassenbergh, “The International Regulation of an Equitable Utilization of Natural Outer Space Resources” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space at 138 (New York: AIAA, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard Dal Bello, “Commercial Management of the Space Environment” (Paper Presented at the International Interdisciplinary Space Debris Congress at McGill University: May 7th–May 9th, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul Dempsey and Michael Mineiro, “Suborbital Aerospace Transportation and Space Traffic Management: A Vacuum in Need of Law” Presented at the 59th IAC, Technical Session E3.2 on Space Policies and Programs of International Organizations (Glasgow, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessica Tok, Ed., Asteroid Threats: A Call for Global Response (ASE Report, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • William Broad, “Debris Spews into Space After Satellites Collide”, New York Times (11 February 2009) at A28.

    Google Scholar 

  • M.K.V. Sivakumar and Donald Hinsmen, “Satellite Remote Sensing and GIS Applications in Agricultural Meterology and WHO Satelltite Activities” in Proceedings of a WMO Training Workshop held July 7–11th in Dehru Dun, India (AGM-8, WMO/TD-No.1182) (Geneva: WMO, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paula A. DeSutter (U.S. Assistant Secretary for Verification, Compliance, and Implimentation), Is an Outer Space Treaty Verifiable? (Remarks to the George C. Marshall Institute Roundtable at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C.: 4 March 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Agreement Among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, The Government of Japan, The Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning cooperation on the civil international space station [ISS Agreement], (29 January 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (22 April 1968), 19 U.S.T. 7570, 672 U.N.T.S. 119. [Rescue Agreement].

    Google Scholar 

  • Charter of a World Space Organization: U.S.S.R. Working Paper, A./AC.105/L.171; Supplement No.20 (A/43/20) 43rd Session U.N.G.A. (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1108 U.N.T.S. 151 (18 May 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), 1883rd Plenary Meeting, (24 October 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  • IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines (IADC-02-01, Revision 1, September 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • GA Res 1348 (XIII), Question of the Peaceful use of Outer Space (13 December 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  • GA Res 1472 (XIV), International Cooperation in Outer Space (12 December 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  • GA Res 1721 (XVI), International Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (20 December 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  • G.A. Res 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (24 October 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  • G.A. RES/64/28 Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (2 December 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • International Co-Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space: Note by the Soviet Socialist Republics, A/AC.105/407 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, 480 U.N.T.S. 43 (5 August 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  • Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, (27 January 1967), 18 U.S.T. 2410, 610 U.N.T.S. 205 [Outer Space Treaty].

    Google Scholar 

  • U.N. Charter United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Human Development Report, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • U.N. Security Council Resolutions S/Res/808 (1993) and S/Res/827 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • U.N. Security Council Resolution S/RES/1267 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • U.N. Security Council Resolution S/RES/1769 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A/Res/3/217 (10 December 1948).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. Ltd. (Belg. v. Spain), 1970 I.C.J. 3, 32 (Feb. 5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillip Jessup and Howard Taubenfeld, Controls of Outer Space (New York: Colombia University Press, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  • Janne Nolan, Ed., Global Engagement: Cooperation and Security in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Robinson and H. White Jr., Envoys of Mankind – A Declaration of First Principles for the Governance of Space Societies (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • George Brown, “International Cooperation in Outer Space: Enhancing the World’s Common Security” 3(3) Space Policy 166 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • W. Balogh, L. Canturk, S. Chernikov, T. Doi, S. Gadimova, H. Haubold, and V. Kotelnikov, “The United Nations Programme on Space Applications: Status and Direction for 2010” 26(3) Space Policy 185 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Report of the 2009–2010 Montreal-Cologne International Interdisciplinary Congress on Space Debris [Unpublished but currently being edited by McGill University Institute of Air & Space Law for publication in 2011].

    Google Scholar 

  • A.A. Cancado Trindade, International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • A.A. Cancado Trindade, International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium – Hague Academy of International Law General Course on Public International Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenneth Abbott and Duncan Snidal, “Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations” 42(3) Journal of Conflict Resolution 3 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Bueckling, “The Strategy of Semantics and the Mankind Provisions of the Space Treaty” 7 Journal of Space Law 15 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldo Cocca, “The Advances in International Law Through the Law of Outer Space” 9 Journal of Space Law 13 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst Fasan, “Human Settlements on Planets: New Stations or New Nations” 22 Journal of Space Law 47 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Gabrynowicz, “The Province and Heritage of Mankind Reconsidered: A New Beginning” NASA Johnson Space Center, The Second Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century, Volume 2 (1992) 691–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrew Haley, “Basic Concepts of Space Law” 26 Jet Propulsion 951 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephen Doyle, “International Space Plans and Policies: Future Roles of International Organizations” 18 Journal of Space Law 123 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Bessis, J. Bequignon, and A. Mahood, “The International Charter ‘Space and Major Disasters’ Initiative” 54(3) Acta Astronautica 183 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Bryan, J. Grey, and N. Kaya, “International Coordination of Space Solar Power Related Activities” 16(2) Space Policy 123 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yun Zhao, “An International Space Authority: A Governance Model for a Space Commercialization Regime” 30 Journal of Space Law 277 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Atsuyo Ito, “Issues in the Implementation of the International Charter of Space and Major Disasters” 21(2) Space Policy 141 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joosung Lee, “Legal Analysis of SeaLaunch License: National Security and Environmental Concerns” 24(2) Space Policy 104 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael Mineiro, “The United States and Legality of Outer Space Weaponization: A Proposal for Greater Transparency and Effective Dispute Resolution Mechanisms” XXXIII Annals of Air and Space Law 441 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael Mineiro, “FY-1C and USA-197 ASAT Intercepts: An Assessment of Legal Obligations under Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty” 34(2) Journal of Space Law 321 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Theresa Hutchins and David Chen, “Forging a Sino-US Grand Bargain in Space” 24(3) Space Policy 128 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • I.A. Vlasic, “Space Law and the Military Applications of Space Technology”, in N. Jasentuliyana, Ed., Perspectives on International Law (Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam Roberts, “Humanitarian War: Military Intervention and Human Rights” 69(3) International Affairs 429 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Immi Tallgren, “The Sensibility and Sense of International Criminal Law” 13(3) European Journal of International Law 561 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul Taylor, “The United Nations in the 1990s: Proactive Cosmopolitanism and the Issue of Sovereignty” 47(3) Political Studies 538 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter Jakobsen, “National Interest, Humanitarianism or CNN: What Triggers UN Peace Enforcement After the Cold War?” 33(2) Journal of Peace Research 202 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel Bourbonniere, “National Security Law in Outer Space: The Interface of Exploration and Security” 70 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 3 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ole Weaver, “Peace and Security: Two Evolving Concepts and Their Changing Relationships” in Hans Brauch, Ed., Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace Vol. 3: Globalization and Environmental Challenges (New York: Springer, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ian Brownlie, “The Maintenance of Peace in Outer Space” 40 British Year Book of International Law 1 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  • V. Garshnek et al., “The Mitigation, Management, and Survivability of Asteroid/Comet impact with Earth” 16 Space Policy 213 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jinyuan Su, “Towards an Effective and Adequately Verifiable PPWT” 26(3) Space Policy 152 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treaty Between the United States and the Union of Soviet Republics on the Limitation of Anti-ballistic missile systems (AMB Treaty), (Entered into force October 3, 1972; rescinded by the United States in 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephen Gorove, “The Concept of ‘Common Heritage of Mankind’: A Political, Moral, or Legal Innovation?” 9 San Diego Law Review 389 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • Molly Macauley and J. Shih, “Satellite Solar Power: Renewed Interests in the Era of Climate Change?” 23(2) Space Policy 108 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph Pelton, “The Economic and Social Benefits of Space Communication: A Global Overview – Past, Present, Future” 6(4) Space Policy 311 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avery Sen, “The Benefits of Remote Sensing for Energy Policy” 20(1) Space Policy 17 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John Remo, “Policy Perspectives from the UN international conference on near-Earth objects” 12(1) Space Policy 13 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. Sweet, “Planetary Preservation: The Need for Legal Provision” 15 Space Policy 223 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gary Musgrave, Axel Larson, and Tommaso Sgobba, Safety Design for Space Systems (Oxford: Elsevier, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul Dempsey and Michael Mineiro, “ICAO’s Legal Authority to Regulate Suborbital Flight” in Ram Jakhu and Joseph Pelton, Eds., Space Safety Regulations and Standards (London: Elsevier, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert Jarman, The Law of Neutrality in Outer Space (LL.M. Thesis, McGill University Institute of Air & Space Law, 2008) [unpublished].

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Clayton Hubin, “Justice and Future Generations” 6(1) Philosophy and Public Affairs 70 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chukeat Noichim, “International Cooperation for Sustainable Space Development” 31 Journal of Space Law 315 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenneth Pederson, “Is It Time to Create a World Space Agency?” 9 Space Policy 89 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A.S. Piradov, “Creating a World Space Organization” 4 Space Policy 112 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K.B. Serafimov, “Achieving Worldwide cooperation in Outer Space” 5 Space Policy 111 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Immanuel Kant, “Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View” in Lewis W. Beck, Ed., Kant: On History (New York: MacMillian, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Brown Weiss, In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony and Intergenerational Equity (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nandasiri Jasentuliyana, International Space Law and the United Nations (Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999) at 218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherif Bassiouni, “International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes” 59(4) Law and Contemporary Problems 63 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jesus Gonzalo, Gonzalo Martin-de-Mercado, and Fernando Valcarce, “Space Technology Disaster Monitoring, Mitigation and Disaster Management” in Philip Olla, Ed., Space Technologies for the Benefit of Human Society and Earth (Springer, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Michael C. Mineiro

  2. 815 Thayer Ave, Suite 510, Silver Springs, MD, 20910, USA

    Michael C. Mineiro

Authors
  1. Michael C. Mineiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael C. Mineiro .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mineiro, M.C. (2012). Security and Global Civil Space Cooperation: Space Technology Trade and Proliferation Controls as One Part of the Larger Puzzle. In: Space Technology Export Controls and International Cooperation in Outer Space. Space Regulations Library Series, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2567-6_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation