Perhaps soon the universe will no longer belong to all of us
According to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, outer space is a peaceful zone, the use or deployment of weapons of mass destruction is prohibited in it, and space is considered as "the property of all mankind". Currently, more than 100 countries, including the United States and Russia, are parties to the treaty. However, times are changing.
Jessica Green
The Russian government has announced that it will leave the International Space Station "after 2024." Instead of choosing multilateral cooperation, it plans to build its own station and send astronauts there to continue work on space exploration and exploration.
Russia's statement sounds ominous. But this step, which is an element of a more general trend away from the principles of multilateralism in international space law, is only one of the recent signals indicating the weakening of international space cooperation. The other was the Artemis Agreement, a legal framework designed to potentially regulate future commercial activities in outer space that was created under the Trump administration and supported by the Biden administration. Such actions threaten the multilateralism of relations beyond the Earth and portend a future in which space may no longer equally belong to all people.
Outer space is regulated by a number of treaties concluded under the auspices of the United Nations, and these international rules are supported by strict legal norms. The fundamental agreement is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which sets out the principles governing outer space, the Moon and other celestial bodies. This treaty, signed at the height of the Cold War, became a symbol of the triumph of science over politics: states could cooperate in space, even when the prospect of mutual destruction loomed on Earth.
According to the treaty, outer space is a peaceful zone, the use or deployment of weapons of mass destruction is prohibited in it, and space is considered as "the property of all mankind". Currently, more than 100 countries, including the United States and Russia, are parties to the treaty. States cannot claim sovereignty or the relevant territory. The Treaty also calls for scientific cooperation between States, it expresses confidence that such cooperation will contribute to "friendly relations" between countries and their peoples. In short, the document assumes that all countries benefit from any activity carried out in space.
The symbolic meaning of the treaty is obvious: when astronauts are in space, nationality and citizenship recede into the background. But in addition, it will establish standards, procedures and methods of work to prevent pollution of the environment of the Moon and other celestial bodies. The Agreement facilitates the exchange of data, including on many objects, such as satellites and spacecraft launched into space, which helps to avoid collisions. And the norms enshrined in it, providing for the common heritage of mankind, peaceful use and scientific cooperation, contribute to the preservation of multilateral relations, despite the fact that States deviate from these norms.
But the looming prospect of the commercialization of space has begun to test the strength of international space law. In 2020, NASA single-handedly prepared the Artemis Agreements, which contradict the fundamental principles of multilateralism of previous space agreements. These are rules developed primarily by the United States, which are now being adopted by other countries. This is not the result of joint multilateral rulemaking, but rather the export of US laws abroad for adoption by a coalition of willing.
The agreements take the legal form of a series of bilateral agreements with 21 foreign countries, including Australia, Canada, Japan, the UAE and the UK. These are not just rudiments of the anti-globalist rhetoric and policies of the Trump administration. Just two weeks ago, during President Biden's visit, the Artemis Agreements were signed by Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, the agreements open up the possibility of mining resources on the Moon or other celestial bodies. They create "security zones" where States can extract resources, although the document says that this activity should be carried out in accordance with the Outer Space Treaty. Legal experts note that these provisions of the agreements may violate the principle of non-appropriation, which prohibits countries from declaring parts of outer space their sovereign territory. Others state that it is important to keep up with the changing technological landscape. They argue that by the time mining on the moon becomes possible, there should already be rules governing such activities. Failure to comply with this requirement may lead to a crisis, similar to the crisis associated with mining on the seabed, which is about to begin, although the UN rules have not yet been finalized.
Although the norms of cooperation are clearly enshrined in international laws, they are firm just as much as the state policy and activities that ensure their implementation are firm. When countries, especially powerful ones, impose rules that contradict these norms, multilateral institutions can collapse or, even worse, lose their significance. As a result of this disruption, there may be opportunities to update rules that better reflect changes in global politics and technology. But it can also lead to the creation of a less just institution that favors powerful countries and gives them an unfair opportunity to reap economic benefits. For this reason, developing countries have long been staunch supporters of the "heritage of all mankind" as a way to contrast it with the power of richer countries and secure the right to receive financial benefits from the extraction of global resources.
Ultimately, Russia's withdrawal from the ISS is just one of a number of unresolved problems in space management. Russia and the United States — powerful space powers — are taking steps that call into question existing rules and regulations. Russia alone cannot nullify collective efforts to preserve space as a peaceful zone for scientific research and exploration. But the current system has found itself in a difficult position and, probably, it will be replaced by American rules that create opportunities for the future commercialization of space. This future poses a real threat to multilateral relations and the rights of mankind to the "last frontier" (the universe).
Dr. Green is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto.
