.png)
The significant achievement of Apollo was demonstrating that humanity is not forever bound to this planet. Our aspirations extend far beyond it, and our opportunities are limitless -Neil Armstrong
It is safe to say that humanity is at a critical juncture in its history. What was once considered science fiction is fast becoming a reality. Man is set to leave the cradle of his home planet and explore the far reaches of space. Countries like India, as well as several other Southeast Asian Nations, such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines, are entering the fray that was once exclusive to leading space faring nations such as the US, China, Japan, and Canada. Private companies such as Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman, and Sierra Space Corporation have entered Space Act Agreements with NASA that allow for collaboration and technology exchange with the aim of developing a robust Low Earth Orbit Economy. (The Low Earth Orbit Economy is an economy that lies anywhere between 400km to 800km from the earth’s surface.) It “involves the production, distribution, and trade of goods and services in this region of space.” Among these are space tourism cargo, transport, research and development, as well as communications and information technology. With the increasing number of actors participating in the exploration and development of space and its resources comes the inevitable rise of conflict. The Artemis Accords and the Outer Space Treaty aim to manage friction among these parties.
Overview of the Space Treaty
The Outer Space Treaty, more formally known as the “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies”, provides the foundational framework on international space law. It lays down the core principles that should be observed in the exploration of space, as well as in the utilization of its resources. Since 1967 to the present, there have been 115 countries party to the treaty, whilst 22 countries serve as signatories.
The Outer Space Treaty lays out a guiding philosophy in space exploration. First, the treaty states that space is the “province of all of mankind” and is subject to “exploration and use by all… irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development” (Article I). Hence, States are precluded from claiming sovereignty over any celestial body or any part of space (Article II).
Another key provision of the Outer Space Treaty is that astronauts are considered envoys of mankind (Article V). Hence, they shall be given “all possible assistance” in times of duress (Articles IV). However, the same treaty reinforces the principle that governments are liable for the actions of their nationals as well as answer for damages caused by said persons (Article VI).
The treaty goes on to state that space is to be utilized for peaceful purposes (Article IV). However, even prior to the negotiation and eventual enactment of the Outer Space Treaty, two of its three depository governments, namely the United States of America and the Soviet Union had “already engaged in substantial military space activity.” Thus, the definition of the words “peaceful purposes” is still being debated. During the course of deliberations, however, it was recognized that military space systems may be used for peacekeeping roles. Thus, peaceful activities came to be defined as those that are “non-aggressive” in nature.
Peaceful military space missions have led to technological advancements that have been utilized by both the public and private sectors, especially in the development of satellite technology. Military space initiatives gave rise to the Global Positioning System (GPS), a space-based navigation system owned and operated by the United States Air Force (USAF). GPS technology has a wide range of applications in the commercial sector, particularly in mobile phone development, farming, surveying, and package delivery. It also serves as the backbone of major communication networks that support banking systems, power grids, and commercial markets, to name a few. Additionally, GPS technology has applications in humanitarian and rescue efforts, such as weather forecasting, earthquake monitoring, and environmental protection, among others.
Peaceful Purpose
It is important to note that the Treaty was established during the Cold War—a time when the Soviet Union and the US were engaged in a race for space. This conflict involved not only direct confrontations but also a struggle for dominance in space but also the race for development of weapons and armaments. During World War II, both the US and USSR recognized that rocketry would shape modern warfare. The arms race included the development of the United Nations' efforts to secure an arms control agreement, which ultimately led to the Space Agreement. One of the contentions during the negotiation of the Space Agreement was its language, specifically the term “peaceful purpose,” particularly between the US and the Soviet Union. The root of the discussion can be gleaned from the ideological differences between the two nations. The goal of the US during the space race was to influence countries in Western Europe to be more receptive to American freedom and capitalism, whereas the Soviet Union sought to cement its influence in the East on matters of spaceflight and technology, and more importantly, to outdo the US in the race for space. Both countries aimed to increase and solidify their sphere of influence on the world stage.
The context of the term “peaceful purpose” in the context of Article IV of the Space Treaty is still being discussed. The erstwhile term however has been equated by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOOS) to the phrase international cooperation. Hence, peaceful purposes can be construed as founded on the premise that nations should engage in collaborative efforts rather than military competition, the aim of which is to foster an environment where scientific exploration and mutual assistance can thrive and develop. This can lead to joint initiatives not only between governments but also with commercial entities. This is especially relevant as the commercial development of space is now underway. Examples of commercial applications in space include SpaceX, an Elon Musk-owned aerospace company. These various Musk-led initiatives include Starlink, which is a constellation of low-orbit satellites that provide internet worldwide, even in remote locations. Musk has also announced plans to develop reusable rockets that will facilitate not only the transport of people and cargo to the moon but also to Mars.
The importance of the Outer Space Treaty to the development of modern international space law cannot be understated. It establishes the basic principles that will serve as the basis for succeeding instruments and agreements concerning international space law. However, half a century has passed since the treaty was enacted during the Cold War. Based on the previously elucidated developments, it could be said that geopolitics have changed significantly in the last 50 years. This change in world affairs was echoed during a 2018 meeting of the UN Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE), which identified limitations of the Outer Space Treaty, namely: (1) The definition of “peaceful use” in today’s context and of (2) the increasing commercial exploration of space by private entities whose motivations may conflict with existing provisions of international law and other related treaties -particularly the Res Communes principle or the “common heritage of mankind doctrine” enshrined in Article I the Outer Space Treaty. Further, developments in counter-space capabilities and electronic and cyber warfare need to be considered. The Artemis Accords aim to address these inequities.
The Artemis Accords
On October 13, 2020, The Artemis Accords were signed by eight countries, namely Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The said agreement includes a set of thirteen provisions that strive to promote international collaboration on sustainable endeavors of human exploration, particularly in outer space. The Accords serve as a wider part of the Artemis Program. In a nutshell, the program consists of a series of space missions aimed at the eventual return of humans to the moon. Named after Artemis, the Greek goddess of the moon, it symbolizes the renewed interest in the Earth's only lunar body. The Artemis Missions will strive to explore the moon’s surface in preparation for a more ambitious goal – sending a manned mission to Mars. The program also aims to land the first woman and first person of color on the moon.
As indicated in its preamble, the Artemis Accords aim to implement the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty as well as other pre-existing international instruments of space law, which include: (1) The Moon Treaty, formally known as the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, adopted by the United Nations in 1979 to establish a framework for the use and exploration of celestial bodies. The Lunar Agreement emphasizes that the Moon and other celestial bodies are the common heritage of mankind, calling for an international regime to govern the utilization of space resources; (2) The Rescue Agreement of 1968, which mandates the rescue and return of astronauts as well as objects launched into outer space; (3) The Liability Convention of 1972, which establishes that states are liable for damages caused by their space equipment; (4) The Registration Convention of 1976, which calls for increased transparency in the use of outer space by registering space-related equipment with the United Nations.
The Artemis Agreements, rooted in prior instruments of space law, are designed to promote “political understanding for the mutual benefit of the participating nation-states in the future exploration and use of outer space.” They seek to establish guidelines based on the best principles for space exploration, particularly: (1) peaceful uses of outer space, (2) registration of space objects, (3) release of scientific data, (4) preservation of space as a common heritage, (5) utilization of resources in space, (6) deconfliction of space activities, and (7) sustainable utilization of outer space. The aforementioned tenets of space exploration aim to foster responsible cooperation, creating an environment of collaboration, mutual benefit, and safety.
Further, the inherent provisions of the Artemis Accords may be grouped into three categories: The first category transforms the principles laid out by the Outer Space Treaty by way of the textual provisions of the Artemis Accords. The former builds on the principles laid out by the space treaty by promoting sustainable exploration and responsible utilization of space resources and transparency in space operations. The second category serves to implement the Outer Space Treaty by detailing and clarifying rights and obligations mentioned in its principles. The third category introduces novel concepts, one of which is to ensure the interoperability infrastructure to be used by the different entities, both public and private, that engage in the exploration of space.
The Artemis Accords and The Outer Space Treaty: In Harmony or Conflict?
Critics of the Artemis Accords question their harmony with the principles set by the Outer Space Treaty, particularly on the debate whether resources found in outer space is subject to private ownership. The United States, from the onset, has posited that resources in space are subject to private ownership; running contrary to the contention of other states. The prevailing view of the United States is reflected in its federal law, specifically under H.R. 2262 or the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015, that a United States citizen engaged in the commercial recovery of an asteroid resource or other space resources shall be entitled to the same, including the right to possess, own, transport, use, and sell said resources. The Trump Administration also issued Space Policy Directive 1 which calls for “an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities.” Other countries, such as Russia, contend that this attempt to privatize the moon or other celestial bodies runs contrary to international law, particularly the Moon Agreement, which is considered suppletory to the Outer Space Treaty. Article 11 of the Moon Agreement, particularly, states that the moon as well as other celestial bodies are the “common heritage of mankind.”
Furthermore, critics of the Artemis Accords assert that said agreement undermines international law. Groups contend that the said accords are US-centric. Dmitry Rogozin, the director general of Rocosmos (Russia’s space agency), went as far as stating that “the principle of invasion is the same, whether it be the Moon or Iraq.” Pundits also posit that the Artemis Accords serve as a way for the US to circumvent preexisting international treaties.
For a fuller picture of the contentions for and against the Artemis Accords we must compare the differences with the Outer Space Treaty, especially in their key provisions. These could be categorized into the following:
Purpose and Scope (p. 3)
The Space Treaty establishes the fundamental principles of Space Law, emphasizing peaceful exploration and the benefit of mankind. The Artemis Agreements focus specifically on lunar exploration and collaboration among party nations. The Accords aim to develop a framework for sustainable exploration and utilization of lunar resources.
Sovereignty and Territorial Claims (p.6)
The Outer Space Treaty prohibits sovereign claims over celestial bodies, underscoring the concept that outer space is not subject to appropriation. The Artemis Agreements, on the other hand, encourage the sustainable use of resources but do not provide specifics or mechanisms for managing claims to rights over resources extracted from space activities.
Resource Utilization (p.8)
The Space Treaty does not explicitly address the extraction or utilization of space resources. In contrast, the Artemis Accords advocate for the use of space resources.
Safety and Coordination (p.4)
The Space Treaty does not provide detailed provisions on operational safety or conflict resolution between nations during space exploration. The Artemis Agreements, meanwhile, introduce the concept of safety zones during lunar operations, ensuring the safety of personnel operating on the lunar surface.
Interoperability and Collaboration (p.2)
The Space Treaty encourages international cooperation but does not mandate interoperability of equipment between spacefaring nations. In contrast, the Artemis Agreements specifically promote interoperability of technology among signatory nations.
Transparency and Sharing of Information (p.2)
The Outer Space Treaty calls for cooperative space exploration but does not specify details regarding data sharing. The Artemis Agreements, however, emphasize data sharing among nations to foster an environment of cooperation and collaboration.
Long Term Sustainability (p.10)
The Space Treaty mentions the need to avoid harmful contamination but is vague on practices for long-term sustainability. The Artemis Agreements, on the other hand, place significant emphasis on encouraging nations to promote sustainable practices and the importance of minimizing impact when harnessing resources from celestial bodies.
Liability for Damage (p.5)
The Outer Space Treaty states that nations are liable for damage caused by space objects owned by them and are required to compensate injured parties. Similarly, the Artemis Accords did not create new liability provisions but emphasized cooperative problem-solving during space missions to mitigate risk.
Final Thoughts
Indubitably, it can be said that mankind is about to embark on its greatest adventure – the exploration of outer space. This undertaking is no longer confined to nation-states, as private enterprises seek to participate in this endeavor. This forces us to examine questions pertaining not only to matters concerning the ownership, extraction, and utilization of space resources by private entities, but also to the promotion of cooperation among different stakeholders. We must aim to develop a framework to govern and balance both public and private interests. The Artemis Accords with its apparent gaps is still far from perfect, but it is at least a first step in the right direction.
Comments