On January 27, 1967, the United States, United Kingdom and then-Soviet Union, signed the Outer Space Treaty. The short, 17-article document serves as a “constitution” for the worlds beyond Earth’s atmosphere. It was ratified October 10 of the same year, which places us in the midst of a yearlong 50th anniversary celebration. To date, 105 countries have since signed it.
The treaty boasts a half-century of success, but with countries expanding and intensifying their exploration missions, private companies commercializing space travel, and an increasingly hostile international political environment, can humanity be trusted to continue a peaceful co-existence in outer space?
This question was recently posed by Jill Stuart, a fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science, in an op-ed for The Conversation. She suggested the treaty needs updating and certain clarifications in order to adequately address the inevitable challenges future centuries will face.
Similar to the international laws that govern the high seas, or Antarctica, there’s technically no one who holds the authority to enforce the treaty. The success solely lies in the signatories’ respect of the treaty’s purpose. Apart from sanctions, a country (or person or private company) could hypothetically break it without consequences. And, as with all laws, OST’s articles are open to interpretation.
As it stands, the OST states that no country can colonize, or claim sovereignty of the moon, or any other planet or galactic object. States can’t dump trash or crash into another country’s satellite or space station, and must take responsibility if they do. States are not allowed to launch weapons of mass destruction off of satellites. Most importantly, the treaty says (in Article I) that galactic exploration must be for the good of mankind.
“There’s certainly this idea that as we get more advanced and more complex space activities, that the limits of the Outer Space Treaty, or the vagaries in it will really be tested and pushed.” said Christopher Johnson, a space law adviser at the Secure World Foundation, a foundation that promotes the peaceful use of outer space.
Activities like asteroid and moon mining could be challenged at some point, since the OST isn’t exactly applicable to either. Recently, the founder of Moon Express— the first private company given permission to leave Earth’s orbit — said the startup plans to land on the moon this year and begin mining for natural resources.
Moon Express wants to mine Helium 3 (He-3), a sustainable form of energy that could potentially be used in nuclear fusion. The earth doesn’t have any, but the moon has tons. Other scenarios like satellite servicing, or commercial space stations could equally provide a need for new agreements.
But Johnson explained that we would really only need some type of police force if countries decided to sovereign in space — which is currently prohibited under Article II of the treaty. The boundaries of international law have a limit and “we haven’t developed there as a civilization,” Johnson told The Post. Space has no governor, so it can’t be governed.
Furthermore, space exploration remains so risky that countries still have to rely on one other if they want a rewarding mission. Research and data needs to be shared with absolute transparency in order for any country’s space program to have success.
On December 7, 2016, in anticipation of the treaty’s 50th anniversary, the State Department issued its first statement on OST in 30 years, pledging the United States’ dedication to the treaty’s framework for the next 50 years and beyond.
“As a place that has no police force,” said Johnson. “[Space is] a place we’ve seen, by and large, 50 years of really great cooperation.”
So if the idea of space police sounds like a futuristic, science fiction trope, or an out-of-this-world buddy cop comedy, it pretty much is — at least for now.
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
