67 INESAP Information Bulletin No.26, June 20066767676767

Satellite, Space News, April 22, 2005.4 This is a preliminary conclusion; a Mishap

Investigation Board was formed by NASAafter the accident with a mandate to return areport within 75 days. Today, the report re-mains “under review” at NASA headquar-ters. Kim Newton, Marshall Flight Center,phone conversation, January 9, 2006.

5 Theresa Hitchens, Future Security in Space:Charting a Cooperative Approach, Centerfor Defense Information, September 2004,p. 31.

6 Leonard David, Military Micro-Sat ExploresSpace Inspection, Servicing Technologies,Space.com, July 22, 2005; www.space.com/businesstechnology/050722_XSS-11_test.html.

7 Jeffrey Lewis, Autonomous Proximity Oper-ations: A Coming Collision in Orbit?, Uni-versity of Maryland, March 11, 2004.

8 Brian Berger, NASA Proposes $300 MillionTug To Deorbit Hubble, Space News, No-vember 24, 2003.

9 David Portree, Mir Hardware Heritage,NASA Reference Publication 1357, JohnsonSpace Center, March 1995, p. 3.

10 Automated Transfer Vehicle, EuropeanSpace Agency, December 7, 2005;www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/index.html.

11 Snap, Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd.,http://zenit.sstl.co.uk/index.php?loc=47.

12 Jeffrey Lewis, op.cit.13 Matt Bille, Robyn Kane, and Mel Nowlin,

Military Microsatellites: Matching Require-ments and Technology, AIAA-2000-5186,

September 19-21, 2000, p. 9.14 For more on the concept of “space assur-

ance” see Michael Krepon with ChristopherClary, Space Assurance or Space Domi-nance? The Case Against WeaponizingSpace, Henry L. Stimson Center, 2003.

15 Michael Krepon, Ground rules for Space,Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June2005, p. 68.

16 Incidents at Sea Agreement, US State De-partment, Bureau of Arms Control;www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4791.htm.

17 The full text of the Model Code of Conductcan be found at www.stimson.org/space.

18 Space-Track.org, Air Force Space Com-mand at www.space-track.org and TheresaHitchens, op.cit., p. 26.

19 J.-C. Liou and N.L. Johnson, Risks in Spacefrom Orbiting Debris, Science, Vol. 311,January 20, 2006, p. 340.

20 Donald Kessler and Phillip D. Anz-Meador,Critical Number Of Spacecraft In LowEarth Orbit, presented at the Third Euro-pean Conference on Space Debris, March2001; http://webpages.charter.net/dkessler/files/CriticalNumberofSpacecraftinLow.pdf.

21 Guidelines and Assessment Procedures forLimiting Orbital Debris, NASA SafetyStandard 1740.14, August 1995.

22 Theresa Hitchens, op.cit., p. 33.23 Code Of Conduct For Space Debris Mitiga-

tion, CNES Press Release, December 1,2004; www.cnes.fr/html/_455_465_3018_.php. The text of the code can be found atwww.stimson.org/wos/pdf/eurocode.pdf.

24 See A. Kato, Debris Mitigation activities inNASDA, Advances in Space Research, Vol.23, Issue 1, 1999, pp. 227-230, and IADCSpace Debris Mitigation Guidelines, IADC02-01, Inter Agency Debris CoordinationCommittee, October 15, 2002.

25 For more on the ITU see www.itu.int/ITU-R/.26 Currently, there is no agreed upon definition

for a space weapon. For the purposes of theModel Code, the Stimson Center has adopt-ed one that defines space weapons as directattacks on satellites from other satellites orfrom Earth, and attacks on earth from dedi-cated satellites in space. Implicitly absentfrom this definition is military equipmentdesigned to jam communications betweensatellites and ground stations since these areattacks on the communications links as op-posed to the satellites themselves. For moreon this definition, see Michael Krepon withChristopher Clary, op.cit, p. 29.

27 For an analysis of how the main effect ofany US space weapons plans would be an in-crease in proliferation, see Michael Kreponwith Michael Katz-Hyman, Space Weaponsand Proliferation, Nonproliferation Review,Monterey Institute for International Stud-ies, Volume 12, No. 2, 2005.

Michael Katz-Hyman is a Research Assistantat the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washing-ton, DC; mkatzhyman@stimson.org.

by Detlev Wolter

As long as the US government is fun-damentally challenging internationallaw, it appears hopeless to call for itsand the peaceful use of outer space.With his comprehensive study Com-monSecurity in Outer Space and In-ternational Law, Detlev Wolter hascreated a compendium for interna-tional space law which facilitates theaccess to a wealth of literature and en-ters conceptual new ground.

Wolter’s historical perspectiveshows that during the Eisenhower erain 1957, the USA submitted a memo-randum on arms control in space tothe UN to ensure that outer spacewould be used exclusively for peace-ful purposes. Despite the Outer SpaceTreaty, the military use of space con-tinues until today but a weaponiza-tion of space can still be prevented.Against the imperatives of power andparticular interests, Wolter’s focus is

the “Common Heritage ofMankind.“ He emphasizes the appli-cation of the concept of “CommonSecurity” developed by Egon Bahrand Dieter Lutz, then assesses alter-native proposals by governments andnon-governmental organizations, in-cluding those for a space weapons banby US and German scientists.

The legal standards and criteriapresent the basis for an evaluation ofthe missile defense plans of the BushAdministration which contributed tothe abrogation of the Anti-BallisticMissile Treaty in 2002. With the threatscenarios of a Pearl Harbor in spaceand the quest of the US Space Com-mand for space dominance, the OuterSpace Treaty is at stake. As an alterna-tive, Wolter substantiates the commonsecurity interests as a chance for a co-operative strategy change which in-cludes: “the prohibition of active mili-tary uses of a destructive nature in thecommon space; a comprehensive

package of confidence-building meas-ures with multilateral satellite moni-toring and verification systems as wellas a protective regime for peacefulspace objects based on immunity rulesfor satellites, such as a ‘rules of theroad’ and a ‘code of conduct’.” Hesuggests the negotiation of a multi-lateral “Treaty on Common Securityin Outer Space,” accompanied by theestablishment of an International Or-ganisation which will monitor the im-plementation of the agreement.

It is desirable that this approachfinds its way into the negotiations atthe Geneva Conference on Disarma-ment on the Prevention of an ArmsRace in Space which has been blockedfor many years. The general aims areshared by many states.

Jürgen Scheffran

United Nations Institute for DisarmamentResearch (UNIDIR), Geneva, 2006, ISBN9-789290-451778, US$ 32

Proximity Operations in Space

Common Security in Outer Space and International Law