Politics of outer space

The Outer Space Treaty, formally the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, is a multilateral treaty that forms the basis of international space law. Negotiated and drafted under the auspices of the United Nations, it was opened for signature in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union on 27 January 1967, entering into force on 10 October 1967. As of February 2021, 111 countries are parties to the treaty—including all major spacefaring nations—and another 23 are signatories.^[3][4][5]

The Outer Space Treaty was spurred by the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in the 1950s, which could reach targets through outer space.^[6] The Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, in October 1957, followed by a subsequent arms race with the United States, hastened proposals to prohibit the use of outer space for military purposes. On 17 October 1963, the U.N. General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution prohibiting the introduction of weapons of mass destruction in outer space. Various proposals for an arms control treaty governing outer space were debated during a General Assembly session in December 1966, culminating in the drafting and adoption of the Outer Space Treaty the following January.^[7]

Key provisions of the Outer Space Treaty include prohibiting nuclear weapons in space; limiting the use of the Moon and all other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes; establishing that space shall be freely explored and used by all nations; and precluding any country from claiming sovereignty over outer space or any celestial body. Although it forbids establishing military bases, testing weapons and conducting military maneuvers on celestial bodies, the treaty does not expressly ban all military activities in space, nor the establishment of military space forces or the placement of conventional weapons in space.^[8][9]

Drawing heavily from the Antarctic Treaty of 1961, the Outer Space Treaty likewise focuses on regulating certain activities and preventing unrestricted competition that could lead to conflict.^[10] Consequently, it is largely silent or ambiguous on newly developed space activities such as lunar and asteroid mining.^[11][12][13] Nevertheless, the Outer Space Treaty is the first and most foundational legal instrument of space law,^[14] and its broader principles of promoting the civil and peaceful use of space continue to underpin multilateral initiatives in space, such as the International Space Station and the Artemis Program.^[15][16]

International ownership treaties
Antarctic Treaty System Law of the Sea Outer Space Treaty Moon Treaty International waters
v

The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,^[17][18] better known as the Moon Treaty or Moon Agreement, is a multilateral treaty that turns jurisdiction of all celestial bodies (including the orbits around such bodies) over to the participant countries. Thus, all activities would conform to international law, including the United Nations Charter.

It has not been ratified by any state that engages in self-launched human spaceflight (e.g. the United States, Russia (former Soviet Union), People's Republic of China) since its creation on December 18, 1979, and thus it has little to no relevancy in international law.^[19] As of January 2022, 18 states are parties to the treaty.^[20]

A post-detection policy (PDP), also known as a post-detection protocol, is a set of structured rules, standards, guidelines, or actions that governmental or other organizational entities plan to follow for the "detection, analysis, verification, announcement, and response to" confirmed signals from extraterrestrial civilizations.^[21] Though no PDPs have been formally and openly adopted by any governmental entity, there is significant work being done by scientists and nongovernmental organizations to develop cohesive plans of action to utilize in the event of detection. The most popular and well known of these is the "Declaration of Principles Concerning Activities Following the Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence", which was developed by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), with the support of the International Institute of Space Law.^[22] The theories of PDPs constitute a distinct area of research but draw heavily from the fields of SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence), METI (Messaging to Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence), and CETI (Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence).

Scientist Zbigniew Paptrotny has argued that the formulation of post-detection protocols can be guided by three factors: terrestrial society's readiness to accept the news of ET detection, how the news of detection is released, and the comprehensibility of the message in the signal.^[23] These three broad areas and their related subsidiaries comprise the bulk of the content and discourse surrounding PDPs.

Politics of the International Space Station have been affected by superpower rivalries, international treaties and funding arrangements. The Cold War was an early factor, overtaken in recent years by the United States' distrust of China. The station has an international crew, with the use of their time, and that of equipment on the station, being governed by treaties between participant nations.

In 1978 a milestone was reached in co-operation between the United States and the Soviet Union in space with the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. The project occurred during a period of détente between the two superpowers, and led in July 1975 to Soyuz 19 docking with an Apollo spacecraft.

From 1978 to 1987, the USSR's Interkosmos program included allied Warsaw Pact countries, and countries which were not Soviet allies, such as India, Syria and France, in crewed and uncrewed missions to Space stations Salyut 6 and 7. In 1986, the USSR extended its co-operation to a dozen countries in the Mir program. From 1994 to 1998, NASA Space Shuttles and crew visited Mir in the Shuttle–Mir program.

In 1998, assembly of the space station began.^[24] On 28 January 1998, the Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was signed. This governs ownership of modules, station usage by participant nations, and responsibilities for station resupply. The signatories were the United States of America, Russia, Japan, Canada and eleven member states of the European Space Agency (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom).^[25][26] With the exception of the United Kingdom, all of the signatories went on to contribute to the Space Station project. A second layer of agreements was then achieved, a memoranda of understanding between NASA and ESA, CSA, RKA and JAXA. These agreements are then further split, such as for the contractual obligations between nations, and trading of partners' rights and obligations.^[26] Use of the Russian Orbital Segment is also negotiated at this level.^[27]

In 2010, the ESA announced that European countries which were not already part of the program would be allowed access to the station in a three-year trial period.^[28]

In March 2012, a meeting in Quebec City between the leaders of the space agencies of Canada, Japan, Russia, the United States and involved European nations resulted in a renewed pledge to maintain the space station until at least 2020. NASA reports to be still committed to the principles of the mission but also to use the station in new ways, which were not elaborated. CSA President Steve MacLean stated his belief that the station's Canadarm will continue to function properly until 2028, alluding to Canada's likely extension of its involvement beyond 2020.^[29]

Space colonization has been discussed as postcolonial^[31] continuation of imperialism and colonialism,^{[32][33][34][35]} calling for decolonization instead of colonization.^[36][37] Critics argue that the present politico-legal regimes and their philosophic grounding advantage imperialist development of space^[35] and that key decisionmakers in space colonization are often wealthy elites affiliated with private corporations, and that space colonization would primarily appeal to their peers rather than ordinary citizens.^[38][39] Furthermore, it is argued that there is a need for inclusive^[40] and democratic participation and implementation of any space exploration, infrastructure or habitation.^[41][42] Critically it has been an issue in space law that regulations such as the Outer Space Treaty, which guarantees access to space, does not though secure international and social inclusiveness, particularly regarding private spaceflight.^[36]

Particularly the narrative of the "New Frontier", has been criticized as unreflected continuation of settler colonialism and manifest destiny, continuing the narrative of exploration as fundamental to the assumed human nature.^{[43][44][33][38][34]} Joon Yun considers space colonization as a solution to human survival and global problems like pollution to be imperialist,^[45] as such others have identified space as a new sacrifice zone of colonialism.^[46]

argues that not colonialism but coloniality will be carried into space if not reflected on.^[47][48]

More specifically the advocacy for territorial colonization of Mars opposed to habitation in the atmospheric space of Venus has been called surfacism,^[49][50] a concept similar to Thomas Golds surface chauvinism.

More generally space infrastructure such as the Mauna Kea Observatories have also been criticized and protested against as being colonialist.^[51] Guiana Space Centre has also been the sight of anti-colonial protests, connecting colonization as an issue on Earth and in space.^[31]

In regard to the scenario of extraterrestrial first contact it has been argued that being used to employ colonial language would endanger such first impressions and encounters.^[36]

Furthermore spaceflight as a whole and space law more particularly has been criticized as a postcolonial project by being built on a colonial legacy and by not facilitating the sharing of access to space and its benefits, too often allowing spaceflight to be used to sustain colonialism and imperialism, most of all on Earth instead.^[31]