National Incentives for
International Governance of Space
Applications
Gilles Doucet
Institute of Air and Space Law
Faculty of Law - McGill University
Problem: Safety & Sustainability of Outer
Space Increasingly at Risk
• Outer space is an international environment,
but international governance has lagged
technology and commercial innovations.
– Space environment changed since 1967 (OST)
– More actors, different actors, news applications,
new threats to safety and sustainability
• Four decades of:
– International soft law measures
– Some national regulations (variable, inconsistent)
Why is that?
• States act in their perceived best interests.
– States are generally motivated to enter into
international agreements by national incentives
• Not the greater good of humankind
– Governments tend to have a short term view
• National incentives for international
agreements have been illusive in outer space
due to the international character of the
environment (non-sovereign nature)
Non-Space Model: Non-Proliferation Treaty
• Key provisions
– Weapon States agree to not proliferate. (art I)
– Non-weapon States renounce nuclear weapons. (art II)
– States share nuclear technology for peaceful use (art V)
• “Bargain”: States agree to limits on their national actions in
exchange for cooperation (under a verification regime)
• Has been generally successful
– 190 states parties
– 4 nuclear states outside the regime
– Numerous states with nuclear potential have refrained
• What would the world look like without the NPT?
Non-Space Model: Chemical Warfare Convention
• States agree to:
– destroy their weapons & production facilities (art IV, V)
– allow international verification (art IV) and
– facilitate cooperation for peaceful chemistry applications (art XI)
• “Bargain”: States agree to limits on their national actions in
exchange for cooperation (verification regime)
• Has been generally successful
– 192 states parties
– only 4 UN states outside the regime
• Imagine if Chemical weapons were part of all countries’ arsenals
Non-Space Model: Chicago Convention
• Regulatory pillar enabling the international civil aviation industry (1944)
– Comprehensive Treaty; established ICAO
• One key element:
– States agree to recognize licenses & certificates issues by other States,
provided that they meet or exceed mandated standards. (art 33)
– States should adhere to uniform standards and recommended practices
(SARPs). (art 37)
• “Bargain”: States agree to limits on their national sovereignty in exchange
for the cooperation of other States
• SARPs are adopted by the ICAO Council (art 55)
– Developed by the Air Navigation Commission
– Not part of the Chicago Convention treaty (SARPs are Annexes)
• SARPs have kept pace with technology
Proposal: National Incentives for Outer
Space Governance
• Adopt proven model from successful treaties
– “Bargain”: States agree to certain restrictions in return for
cooperation of other States
• Applicable to civil and commercial activities
– Military activities excluded (unrealistic at this time)
• Chicago Convention model is most applicable to space
– New Convention based on Outer Space SARPs (as annexes)
– States to comply with the SARPs in order to receive
cooperation from other States (national incentive)
Potential Areas for Outer Space SARPs
(focus on safety & sustainability)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Space Debris Mitigation Standards
Space Traffic Management
Passenger Services (Space Tourism)
Registration Requirements for Space Objects
Active Debris Removal ?
Orbital Servicing ?
Resource extraction ?
……
What types of cooperation?
• Examples are:
– Exports of space technologies
– Provision of space launches
– Distribution of space remote sensing products
– Ground station services (TT&C, data reception)
– Licensing of communication services
• (national spectrum allocations)
• Nationally regulated activities
– Existing mechanisms in many countries
Why would anyone agree?
• Most nations
– Need cooperation of other States in order to conduct
space activities
• Major space-faring nations
1. Derive greatest benefits from space; have the most
at risk if space activities become unsustainable
2. Will likely have the most influence on the SARPs
• Commercial actors
– More certainty, lower risk, level playing field
• No incentive for “jurisdiction shopping”
Everything happens for a reason,
and that reason is usually physics!
Gilles Doucet
Space Security Consultant
613-794-4744
[email protected]