Space Rules Regime Seen as Inadequate, but Response Is Less Clear
Existing international space rules are clearly inadequate, but less clear is what to do about that, experts said Tuesday at a Princeton University/Stimson Center space governance conference. Instead of new treaties, the U.S. focus for years has been on implementation and interpretation of existing ones -- a focus numerous countries have echoed, forestalling any push for updating the space governance regime, said Brian Weeden, Secure World Foundation (SWF) program planning director. "It was hard enough to get the U.S. and Soviet Union to agree" on the Outer Space Treaty, and it would be impossible to get new core principles agreed upon today given how many more countries are interested in space now, he said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
While the consensus is that existing rules and norms fall short, the disagreement is how to get to something that will address issues like orbital debris and ensure nations and nonstate actors have equal access to space, said Julia Selman-Ayetey, law faculty dean at Ghana's University of Cape Coast. Existing space rules don't address emerging space actors like mega constellation operators, she said, noting a need to look at how they are held responsible for their conduct.
Multiple speakers raised concerns about the lack of rules or norms around satellites conducting uncoordinated close approaches to one another. That capability is increasingly in demand in the private sector for on-orbit inspections and repairs but also has anti-satellite military applications, said Izumi Nakamitsu, U.N. undersecretary general-disarmament affairs. That in turn can be a source of mistrust that leads to a space arms race, she said. Hampering the establishment of norms is that major space-faring nations the U.S., Russia and China all have space systems doing such operations in orbit today, while orbital mechanics issues make defining "too close" in space difficult, Weeden said.
Nakamitsu said increasing geopolitical tensions threaten to lead to an armed conflict extending into outer space or even being initiated there. Also problematic is that the tensions between major spacefaring nations can lead to their inability to cooperate on norms governing future space activities -- an example being competing efforts toward a long-term human presence on the moon, with nations differing on what principles should guide the activities, she said. Preventing an arms race in space requires an intergovernmental process that starts with voluntary measures that can be a basis for future legally binding obligations, she said.
The U.N. hopes to see more nations sign onto the U.S.-spearheaded ban on destructive anti-satellite testing, which is limited in scope but can serve as an element of broader responsible behavior norms and possibly rules, Nakamitsu said.
While all proposed satellites and constellations end up being submitted to the ITU, its database is not useful for space situational awareness efforts, said space consultant Ruth Pritchard-Kelly. ITU filings are aspirational, and operators typically submit "wish list" plans for more satellites than they intend to launch because coordination efforts will end up reducing what they can put up, she said.
Numerous nations and private enterprises are creating their own individual space surveillance and tracking networks, and they will likely stay separate instead of eventually merging into a single entity, said SWF's Weeden. That's because of distrust among different space actors about data they don't have complete control over, he said.