[Interview/Observer Network Li Jersey]
From September 12 to 16, the second session of the Open Working Group of the United Nations "Responsible Code of Conduct for Outer Space" was held in Geneva, Switzerland. "Preventing the Outer Space Arms Race" became the most eye-catching topic of the conference.
generally believes that space is space with an altitude of more than 100 kilometers. In recent years, as governments and enterprises in various countries have expanded their satellite launch frequency, the earth's orbit has become increasingly crowded; some countries have established " Space Force ", and some countries have even declared that space is the "battlefield", and space militarization has become increasingly fierce. More and more people are worried that the series of UN conventions such as the Outer Space Treaty formulated in the 1960s and 1970s will not be enough to control the risk of military conflict in space.
Russian representative Konstantin Vorontsov even bluntly stated at the meeting that the "situation in Ukraine" highlights the practice of the United States and its allies to use "civil space facilities" to achieve military goals. These "quasi-civilian facilities" that "indirectly participate in military conflicts" will be regarded by Russia as "reasonable targets for strikes."
Wang Guoyu, Director of the School of Space Policy and Law, Beijing Institute of Technology, was invited by the United Nations to make a keynote speech entitled "How to Identify Space Threats" at the conference, introducing the legal background of space security, arms control issues and the views of various countries. He has also participated in the negotiation and drafting of international space rules on behalf of China many times, and has served as the space security consultant for the UN Disarmament Institute.
Recently, Dean Wang Guoyu accepted an exclusive interview with Observer.com and shared his views on issues such as the initiatives and positions of various countries to solve space security issues, the threat of "scratch guns and fires", the " space garbage " issue, and the impact of NASA on the 27th.
The following is the transcript of the interview:
Observer Network: You recently participated in the meeting of the United Nations Open Working Group on "Responsible Outer Space Act" and introduced the different understandings of space security among countries. Can you share and talk about the relevant legal background?
Wang Guoyu: The basic legal basis for space security governance is still a series of United Nations outer space treaties formulated in the 1960s and 1970s, especially the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and related general international law, such as the United Nations Charter . However, no new outer space treaty has appeared until now.
The Outer Space Treaty was signed in 1967 (Photo source: AP)
The international community believes that outer space security faces more and more challenges and threats, and its demands for international rules are becoming stronger and stronger. Against this background, China and Russia proposed the draft "Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Use or Threat of Use of Force on Objects in Outer Space" (PPWT) in 2008, and in 2014, a new text of PPWT was proposed. However, this draft has been obstructed and opposed by the United States and has not been adopted at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament . If passed, this will be an innovation and development of international law. existing international space law only prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons and any other types of weapons of mass destruction in outer space, but does not prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons . The adoption of PPWT will provide a fundamental legal basis for preventing an arms race in outer space and preventing the weaponization of outer space. It also emphasizes the applicability of the principle of non-use of force in outer space, which is of great significance to the interpretation of traditional international law.
The understanding of space security among countries has a broad and narrow sense. I believe that countries should adopt a narrow concept of space security, which will help promote the effective governance of space security, which is to ensure that the country's space assets, space activities, and space rights and interests are protected from human intentional destruction, damage, interference, etc., and to maintain this state.
Is the existing understanding of various countries different from the above definitions? Some countries believe that the space security we are going to discuss includes not only human intentional factors, but also human negligence factors. I don't think this is correct.When a collision risk occurs between normally operating in-orbit satellites, the international community should consider how to coordinate, avoid, and avoid the occurrence of space debris. These are not concerns about military or national security, but concerns about safety in normal activities, and therefore are not issues that arms control should discuss. Some countries have broaderly defined the scope of space security, including natural causes, such as asteroid impacts and risks brought by space weather. I don't think these fall within the scope of arms control.
The narrow concept of space security can effectively avoid overlapping with other matters discussed by the United Nations or international platforms, save diplomatic resources from various countries, and better focus on important and urgent issues in the field of arms control.
Wang Guoyu delivered a speech at the UN Open Working Group meeting of the "Code of Conduct for Responsible Outer Space"
Observer Network: Why should the United States oppose the draft proposed by China and Russia?
Wang Guoyu: The reasons proposed by the United States are as follows: First, the concept of outer space weapons is difficult to define. Second, there is a lack of a verification mechanism. Third, the draft treaty only prohibits the placement of weapons in outer space, but does not prohibit ground-based weapons. Here, the United States mainly refers to ground-based kinetic energy anti-defense weapons.
In fact, these reasons are unconvincing. The fundamental reason is that the United States' outer air offensive and defensive capabilities have developed the fastest. Of course, it does not want the development of this offensive and defensive capabilities to be restricted by treaties, and it is also unwilling to be dominated by China and Russia to speak in international governance of outer space security.
Observer Network: In addition to the United States, China, Russia, have countries in Europe and other places put forward some relevant proposals?
Wang Guoyu: PPWT is supported by most countries, only a few countries such as the United States oppose it, while European countries generally hold a neutral position.
In 2008, EU proposed the initiative of the International Code of Conduct for Outer Space (ICOC), but it was not proposed within the framework of the United Nations, but "starting a new beginning". In addition, its provisions on the right to self-defense in outer space are also suspected of "opening" the unilateral abuse of force. In the end, it ended in vain under the opposition of China and Russia and many developing countries in .
In 2020, the UK launched an initiative of "Responsible Outer Space Act", trying to reduce threats to the space system by formulating norms, rules and principles. Some European countries such as the United States are the republics of this initiative. Judging from the voting results, this initiative has indeed received support from most countries, but more than a dozen countries, including China and Russia, voted against it. The United Nations Open Working Group for "Responsible Outer Space Act" established based on the initiative has organized two rounds of discussions in 2022, and is expected to end its work in August 2023.
Observer.com: What are the main differences between the several drafts you mentioned?
Wang Guoyu: First of all, from the name of the PPWT treaty, its core meaning is very clear, to prevent the deployment of weapons in outer space, and to prohibit the use of force or threatening the use of space objects. It attempts to fundamentally address outer space security issues in the form of a legally binding treaty, and the EU and UK initiatives do not have such clear goals.
Sky Weapons Concept Diagram
EU's proposal emphasizes more on mitigating the threat of space debris and establishing some mechanisms for international consultation, but does not propose any measures to prevent weaponization of outer space. In addition, as mentioned earlier, the EU bypassed the UN mechanism, and the relevant discussions did not have the authorization of the UN.
The "responsible outer space behavior" initiative proposed by the UK first needs to identify what threats the space system faces, sort out the offensive and defensive measures of outer space, including four scenarios (proposed by the United States) of ground-to-earth, earth-to-earth, sky-to-earth, and sky-to-earth) scenarios, and then define which are responsible behaviors and which are irresponsible behaviors. It does not mention preventing the deployment of weapons in outer space, and its goal is not to clarify what should be restricted or prohibited from a legal perspective, but to determine the standards for space behavior from an ethical perspective.
Observer.com: So that's why China, Russia and other countries oppose this initiative?
Wang Guoyu: Regarding China's specific position, please refer to the position document submitted by China to the United Nations in May 2021.First of all, China questioned the dichotomy of "responsible/irresponsible". The formulation of international rules generally does not use this dichotomy as the logical basis or main line. The "responsible/irresponsible" dichotomy has a strong political, emotional and subjective color, which is not conducive to reaching consensus among countries on effective regulatory measures with specificity. In addition, if Britain, the United States and other countries really have sincerity to promote the international governance process of outer space security, they can also make perfect suggestions based on the PPWT text proposed by China and Russia without starting a new foundation.
From a deeper perspective, this is related to the US commitment to no longer conducting destructive, helicopter anti-soldier missile tests made on April 19.
Currently, the anti- satellite methods and capabilities of the United States are diverse. In addition to the foundation helicopter kinetic energy means, its non-kinetic energy means are also very mature and very diverse. From the perspective of space deterrence, the United States has enough alternatives, or even better options. The United States now wants to close the door to conduct such anti-defense experiments (with the help of the British initiative and its own commitment).
From a strategic and military perspective, the United States' move is smart. On the surface, it focuses on space environmental protection, but in fact it is based on the needs of competition between great powers, and it also effectively restrains allies. The US-Spain League is not a solid piece, but in fact each has its own goals. Although the United States has many allies, deep down in the hearts of these allies, I definitely hope to develop an independent system of ability to maintain their own space security and national security. However, the "boss" of the United States does not allow or restrict the development of their allies' capabilities in this regard. I will provide you with any protection you need.
After the United States made its promise, it basically followed up in countries that do not have the ability to (ground anti-defense) or allies with special relations with them. The former is such as Canada, New Zealand , and the latter is such as Japan, which is restricted by the Peace Constitution, and Germany. It was somewhat beyond my expectations that Germany followed up so quickly and made a promise. As one of the core countries of the EU, it should have taken a relatively balanced position on various international affairs. I think this may be related to recent political changes in Germany, and the newly-entered forces have expressed their tough attitude towards China. So it's very interesting. Two ( World War II ) defeated the country, Japan and Germany, followed the United States first.
The biggest demand of the United States in its new initiative is to hope that the international community will reach a consensus: it is irresponsible to carry out such ground-based missile tests that produce space debris. Among them, the earth to earth, the sky to earth, etc. are actually not the core concerns of the United States, because the United States is vigorously developing relevant offensive and defensive capabilities and it does not want to be restricted. In contrast, we want to promote a specific earth-to-sky rule to re-realize its strategic advantage in space.
anti-sate missile (Photo source: Sina Military)
International law is the result of a balanced game of interests. The development of international law cannot and should not be completely reversed to one of the two sides. As Ambassador Li Song pointed out at the second session of the United Nations Open Working Group for "Responsible Outer Space Act", "The US initiative did not mention the research, development, production, deployment, and use of such weapons, nor did it mention other activities that threaten or disrupt the normal operation of satellites, which is not enough to solve all aspects of the problems faced in the field of outer space." Therefore, the international community should not consider the formulation of relevant anti-defense ban treaties at this stage, but should seek a comprehensive space arms control treaty that can better balance the interests of all parties from the perspective of comprehensive governance. PPWT provides a good negotiation foundation, and countries should continue to promote international governance of space security from the perspective of improving and developing the draft PPWT articles. This is more realistic.
Observer Network: Will each country establish its own laws in the future, thereby increasing the risk of accidental fire during their own execution?
Wang Guoyu: Everyone does their own business and takes their own rules, which is definitely not conducive to the governance of space security.
But on the other hand, I think it is allowed to express different views and take different approaches. The formulation of international rules will inevitably be reflected in the development path of "from differentiation to unity, then to differentiation, and then unification".
However, one principle must be grasped, that is, must use the United Nations as the most authoritative platform for space governance. Although it has its own limitations, such as the politicization of discussion, even so, it is still the best mechanism for global governance that human wisdom has invented so far.
Some of the United States believe that it should be de-UNationalized, and that the United Nations is too inefficient and that international space governance needs to start a new stage. This is to be vigilant, because the rules issued in this way will be mixed and increase the uncertainty and fragmentation of the international rule system. For example, for commercial entities, they urgently need the stability and certainty of rules to ensure their commercial interests, but commercial interests are only one of the many elements that international space governance needs to be considered. When formulating rules, commercial space entities find it difficult to consider or accurately consider the impact of these rules on major power relations.
As for the "risk of firefighting in space", although geopolitical relations between major powers are becoming increasingly tense, I am still willing to be optimistic about the space situation. The space environment determines "all losses" and rational people should reject the "game of throwing stones from each other in glass houses", which determines that the overall strategic relationship between major powers in the space field is still stable. Strategic stability means a kind of centripetal force and self-repair ability, which means that small actions of individual countries will not affect the overall situation.
In simple terms, has no real willingness to "get out of fire" in space , and countries should not "try to" create "get out of fire" in space for excuses to fight space wars . is just like China has been calling for the international community, and it is impossible to fight or win the space war.
However, we cannot be too optimistic, because the space decision-making chains of different countries are different, and there are many uncertain factors here. If the two sides of the game still lack a way to communicate and dialogue in a timely manner, then once misunderstandings and misjudgments occur, the result of space force conflicts cannot be ruled out.
Therefore, the biggest threat facing the international community is not the vulnerability of space, but the vulnerability of relations between major powers in space. First, the situation in space is happening, and countries cannot obtain accurate and symmetric objective information at the first time. Second, there are too many misunderstandings and misjudgments in information transmission among countries. Both media and think tanks should assume the responsibility of accurately transmitting information. How to remove false information from the vast amount of information is a great challenge for decision makers in various countries. Third, there is a lack of dialogue mechanism. The information asymmetry and misunderstandings I mentioned earlier all need to be effectively resolved or avoided through dialogue.
Observer Network: At the first meeting in May you participated in, Ambassador Li Song of China mentioned the blurring of the boundaries of military and civil activities. Commercial space departments in some countries have participated in large quantities in military space activities, objectively accelerating the expansion of outer space military preparations. How should we distinguish between the two?
Wang Guoyu: fuzzification will indeed be more common, and countries will definitely support projects similar to Musk Starlink in the future. At the same time, this will inevitably be bound to some national security considerations.
Ambassador Li Song delivered a speech
Space activities dual-use military and civilians is its natural attribute and is difficult to distinguish, but this does not mean that the problem cannot be solved. The point I have always mentioned is called post-judgment. It is not necessary to define what a weapon is first, but to look back and determine the properties of an object based on the specific event that occurs. For example, if a country uses commercial satellites to conduct suicide attacks on satellites in other countries, then the commercial satellite can be defined as a space weapon. Similarly, if Musk's satellite intervenes in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, then the activities it provides are not commercial communications but military communications.
Observer Network: At the second session of September where you participated, the Russian representative said that the "quasi-civilian facilities" of the West "indirectly participate in military conflicts" were "reasonable targets for strikes." Do you think Russia’s position is a reasonable response to the situation?
Wang Guoyu: Russian statement has a certain basis in international law.The Law of Armed Conflict defines a military objective as an object that provides an express military interest due to its nature, location, purpose or purpose, and which, in the event of the time, can effectively contribute to military operations, and which, in whole or in part, destroy, seize or lose its utility, can provide a clear military interest. This definition is accepted by the military manuals of many countries and is considered to be customary international law. But international law also provides restrictions on the strike against such targets, such as requiring proportional and matching between means and expected military interests. The Russian side's view itself is fine, but whether the potential crackdown is in line with international law still needs to be measured based on specific scenarios.
Observer Network: On the 27th, NASA successfully tested the impact of the asteroid. How much do you think this test is meaningful?
Wang Guoyu: This is an important progress in the field of near-earth celestial body defense, and it also verifies the United States' precise space situational awareness and remote measurement and control capabilities. From a military perspective, this also effectively conveys deterrent signals, because the military capabilities implicitly speak for themselves.
From the perspective of near-earth celestial body defense, this actually verifies the initial link, that is, whether it can be hit. As for what to hit, it still needs to be considered separately based on the size and kinetic energy of the target asteroid.
The success of this experiment does not mean that there is no need to be afraid of the risk of impact of asteroids from now on. To impact larger planets, spacecraft with larger volumes, more fuel, and stronger impact (blasting) capabilities are required. This endurance can only be achieved by nuclear power sources.
NASA hit the asteroid on the 27th. In order to avoid misunderstandings and misjudgment and effectively control risks, these projects should still be carried out in cooperation among countries, especially nuclear issues. They should not form small circles, otherwise it will aggravate the current tension in space.
Observer.com: Orbital orbit is becoming more and more crowded. How should countries and enterprises coordinate the rational use of space orbit ?
Wang Guoyu: First of all, from the perspective of spectrum resources, the governance platform is International Telecommunications Union , and its existing "first come first served" rules should be appropriately modified. Everyone criticized Musk for seizing a large number of high-quality frequency track resources. This is indeed not legally prohibited, but the law should make appropriate and reasonable adjustments.
The effort made by the UE is just to ensure that you have first served and lose it without using it, requiring that a certain percentage of the number of satellites that are applied for at that time must be actually launched within a few years. This is not a substantial change, but will aggravate the imbalance and unreasonable possession of this frequency track.
I have proposed that the resource allocation of low-tracks can also be considered to refer to the reserved share system in the Civil Law, that is, to reserve a certain share of the frequency track for latecomers. This is the only compromise I can see now. A completely selfish plan cannot and should not become an international rule plan.
In addition, it is a traffic coordination issue. How to avoid space traffic accidents? In light of the incident where Musk satellites are approaching the Chinese space station, I have proposed five major collision avoidance principles (" Guangming Daily " International Education and Culture Edition, January 13, 2022).
All countries should reach an agreement on the principle of collision avoidance, just like who has the priority on ground traffic road rights . Ideally, reach agreement within the framework of the United Nations. Take a step back and at least build the rules through bilateral and multilateral agreements.
Another path is from bottom to top; it is not impossible to propose rules and initiatives by commercial aerospace entities themselves, but they need to be clear about the relevant considerations and concerns of various governments.
The second is to establish a dialogue mechanism. If you feel that the rules are not clear, leave your phone number so that everyone can contact you at critical moments and then discuss and coordinate each matter. This mechanism also has a dangerous trend, such as commercial aerospace companies in the United States attempt to build a separate hotline with relevant Chinese departments or enterprises and institutions. I told people from the US State Department that it is risky to release Musk and others and connect with our relevant departments; if something happens to Musk, don’t think you can leave it aside.
Starlink 2019 trial satellite map (Photo source: SpaceX)
outer space law explains it very clearly that the consequences of all outer space actions belong to the state, that is, any commercial company's outer space activities should bear international responsibility by its jurisdiction, which is unique to the outer space field.
Observer Network: When space develops to a certain scale, can this legal characteristic of space be changed?
Wang Guoyu: I think aerospace is still special. The country cannot claim sovereignty over space. This is different from airspace and aviation activities. The birth of aerospace activities is born with military deterrence and military use, which is different from navigation. Therefore, no matter what scale the space, especially commercial space activities develop, cannot change the military and security attributes of space as a "high frontier" of national security, nor should it change the legal principle that the state bears relevant international responsibilities.
Observer Network: The increase in human activities inevitably increases the amount of space garbage. The worst possibility is that space junk is so dense that humans cannot launch satellites safely. How likely is this, and how can we reduce its risks and negative impacts?
Wang Guoyu: The problem of space fragmentation in has been deliberately exaggerated to some extent, and some are to restrict military strikes that can produce fragments in rules.
Only when there is an accident or a military conflict can the situation you mentioned occur, so we must first prevent an outer space arms race and form an effective check and balance.
Observer Network: But some people assume that accidents or conflicts must occur, so they need to worry about potential problems of space debris in advance.
Wang Guoyu: From a military perspective, all countries should consider how to rely on alternative means to maintain national security and military security once such a thing happens. If the problem of space debris continues to intensify, then countries seem to consider how to reduce their dependence on space.
We are not helpless either. Some people emphasize the threat of space debris, and their real purpose is to promote the active removal of space debris, launch a satellite to collect a pile of garbage; Europe has been developing such projects. But the premise is that there is a good relationship between major powers, because it is impossible to just eliminate one's own. If there is no cooperation between major powers, this will become a verification of military offensive and defensive capabilities.
Space debris removal renderings (Photo source: European Space Agency )
Observer Network: What do you think of the question "Why do you need to go to space instead of focusing on solving problems on the earth?"
Wang Guoyu: Looking up at space is often to solve problems on the earth. For example, once the earth's resources are exhausted, the future development and exploitation of space resources will ultimately serve mankind and the earth. From the perspective of pragmatism and survival and development, the importance of space is unquestionable.
and curiosity. No matter what differences exist in Chinese and Western cultures, they are generally the same in the desire to seek knowledge and explore. This exploration spirit is the most fundamental driving force that supports human beings to move forward. If you lose even the courage and curiosity of this exploration, human beings can also draw a talisman. Under the ideal state, human beings should emphasize the exploration of unknown functions of space and the functions of serving the economy and society, and appropriately downplay and weaken its military significance.
I still support Musk in some aspects. For example, in the long run, space immigration to is also very meaningful. Perhaps space is the ultimate destination of mankind.
This article is an exclusive article by Observer.com. The content of the article is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's opinion. It may not be reproduced without authorization, otherwise legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow Observer.com WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
