The coming anarchy in outer space
New realities and rules in the exploration of near-Earth space have practically put an end to the universally recognized treaty, in which outer space is defined as "the property of all mankind," writes The National Interest. The authors of the article call the current situation a new tragedy of public resources.
Robert A. Manning, Peter A. Wilson
We are entering a new space age with a full set of vices of the great powers: ambition, fear and greed.
From the point of view of Elon Musk – the founder of the extremely successful company for the production of space launch vehicles and communication satellites SpaceX - colonization of the Moon and Mars and the transformation of humanity into a "multi–planetary species" are associated with both profit and vital necessity. NASA approved this large-scale vision of space exploration and organized close cooperation between the Artemis moon exploration program and SpaceX for the imminent commissioning of the lander, created on the basis of the high-performance design of the Starship spacecraft.
From the Pentagon's point of view, the dominance of the United States in the space sphere plays a key role in matters of national defense. This militarized aspect was legitimized thanks to the creation of the United States Space Forces (USSF) by the Trump administration. They will significantly improve the situational perception of human activity in the circumlunar space. The problem is the prospect of the USSF using force in outer space – a new, vast and controversial area.
It is obvious that we are entering the new space age with a full set of vices of the great powers: ambition, fear and greed.
The bipolar rivalry between the United States and China is intensifying, and the time-tested space powers represented by Russia, the EU, Japan and India are playing a secondary role, leaning one way or the other. Thus, the ground-based competition between Washington and Beijing generates new realities and rules for the direction of the relevant space policy and the policy of commercial entities, overshadowing the generally recognized principle of the Outer Space Treaty, where outer space is defined as "the heritage of all mankind". Let's call it a new tragedy of public resources.
The main paradox of the current unpredictable era lies in the growing importance of outer space in the framework of the preservation of civilization – from GPS, global television and the Internet to the system of military command and control – however, the unfolding human activity in space is exposed to maximum danger right now. 2021 marked the achievement of a new peak in the field of space exploration: billionaires lined up, to become the next space tourists; the US and China have successfully landed rovers on the red planet; and NASA has launched the $10 billion Webb Telescope to study questions related to the mystery of the origin of the universe.
The commercial space industry is growing by leaps and bounds, including the programs of Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and Richard Branson's Virgin Orbit, whose presence in space may soon compete with and even surpass the functions of governments, which are still solely responsible for the actions of the private sector. But there are clearly not enough global rules for regulating the behavior of space powers.
The current situation is best illustrated by the test of the Russian anti-satellite system (ASAT) last November, when one of its own non-functioning military satellites exploded, resulting in a cloud of more than 1,500 fragments of space debris. Due to the speed of 27 thousand km per hour, even small fragments can cause serious damage to satellites and disrupt the space infrastructure, which has become a kind of "nervous system" of modern life. The risk of a collision forced the astronauts on board the International Space Station (ISS) to take emergency safety measures.
The Russian test followed the equally dangerous Chinese and American ones in 2007 and 2008, respectively (although the latter was intended to minimize the amount of debris in orbit). Most recently, China protested against SpaceX's launch of cubesats (cubesat), small satellites the size of a shoebox, to create a network of global broadband Internet access as part of the Starlink project. One of them came so close to the Chinese space station that its crew had to take evasive measures, and Beijing was forced to appeal to the UN. Currently, the Starlink grouping includes about 1,600 small satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO), but Musk has set himself a goal of 40,000.
The rapid development of private business in the space sector, starting with the launch of satellites and reusable spacecraft and ending with the search for minerals on asteroids and other planets, blurred the line between civil and military activities before the appearance of at least some thoughtful regulations on an international scale. However, the most promising area of cooperation is the fight against space debris.
Currently, there are 4,550 active satellites in low Earth orbit from about eighty countries, and almost half of them are commercial and US government/military satellites. They are necessary for many needs, including command and control of nuclear forces, climate change monitoring, GPS, Internet, streaming video services and ATM operation. The situation in the already crowded near-Earth orbit is getting worse. The private sector has become the driving force of a new space economy based on new technologies of satellite miniaturization based on the principle of the aforementioned cubesats. In this decade, Elon Musk's Google and SpaceX alone plan to launch about 50,000 such satellites.
All this is an alarming sign of anarchy in space against the backdrop of the unfolding fierce struggle for space resources and the full-scale militarization of space, which has become one of the ill-conceived aspects of the unrestrained arms race in the current era of great-power competition. The tendencies towards the revival of the bifurcal international system are increasing. The problem lies in the lack of rules for behavior in space, which, like the sea, air and cyberspace, is the property of all mankind. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty is the only fundamental agreement signed by all major space Powers (111 in total). They all agreed with the principles set out in articles I and II:
"The exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, are carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, regardless of their degree of economic or scientific development, and are the property of all mankind…Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation either by proclaiming sovereignty over them, or by use or occupation, or by any other means."
In the real world, the treaty, unfortunately, is outdated in terms of both technology (as tests of anti-satellite systems show) and politics, since the United States and China are planning to build bases on the Moon, and many other countries are passing laws granting private companies the right to mine minerals on asteroids. The treaty contains little guidance on collisions, the growth of the problem of space debris, intrusions and obstacles to the space assets of any country, and dispute settlement mechanisms are not spelled out at all.
Within the framework of the little-known UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, there are a number of additional legal agreements: on liability for damage caused by space objects; on the safety and rescue of spacecraft and astronauts; on the registration of space activities. In theory, there is also a Treaty on the activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, but it has not been ratified by the United States, Russia, or China. The International Telecommunication Union regulates radio communications and orbital resources (satellites), but will it manage tens of thousands of cubesat-type satellites?
In the era of populist nationalism and against the background of the struggle of major Powers for dominance, the formation of new international-scale regimes or codes of conduct in space is a truly difficult task. Luxembourg, for example, in an effort to become a European center for the development of space natural resources, adopted a law granting private companies the right to extract and develop minerals in space, created a space mining center and invested in relevant startups. The UAE has adopted a similar American law authorizing the development of minerals on space bodies (in the United States, such a law was signed in 2015 by President Barack Obama). Donald Trump went even further and in 2020 issued a decree on the commercial development of resources on the Moon and other celestial bodies, sending an unambiguous signal to the world that America does not consider space to be the common property.
Conditionally, all these laws distinguish between the possession of resources and sovereignty over them. Nevertheless, due to the fact that space belongs equally to everyone, the Space Treaty ratified by the main countries explicitly prohibits the national appropriation of celestial bodies "neither by proclaiming sovereignty on them, nor by using or occupying them, nor by any other means." How to build an inclusive rules-based order?
(To be continued)
Robert Manning is a senior fellow at the Brent Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. From 2001 to 2004, he worked as a senior adviser to the Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, was an employee of the US Department of Public Policy Planning from 2004 to 2008 and was a member of the Strategic Future group of the National Intelligence Council.
Peter Wilson is a senior national security researcher at the RAND Corporation. Currently, he teaches a course on the history of military-technical innovations at the Osher Institute of Continuing Education (OLLI).
