The principle of the peaceful use of outer space has proven insufficient to regulate these activities. These launches, regardless of the purposes, can cause dangerous consequences for the activity of other states in outer space. From these analyses, we can conclude that regardless of the inadequacy of the Outer Space Treaty Article established in the case, there are other provisions of international law that we can gather that regulate military activity in Outer Space.
Through such elaborations we can clearly see that military activities can be carried out in space. Second, are there rules that protect other state interests, or rules that regulate military behavior in space? The 1967 Outer Space Treaty contains provisions that can be applied to military activities in outer space.
The United States, as one of the States Parties to the Outer Space Treaty, has been and always has defined peaceful purposes in its practice in outer space as the non-conduct of military activity that is aggressive in nature.14 The aggressive nature of military activities in outer space should be limited, not prohibited. National Space Policy we can conclude that the United States, in principle, considers peaceful purposes in terms of the restrictive "non-aggressive" nature of its military activity in space. Carrying out activities that caused harmful pollution In addition to the provision for peaceful purposes, another provision within the Outer Space Treaty that may be relevant to our interpretation is the provision in Article IX which provides that:20.
Having examined the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty, which is closely related to military activity in space, we now go.
Convention on the Military and Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Technique
Military Activities Regulated under Disarmament Related Treaties
This treaty was a bilateral effort between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, intended to end the production and testing of anti-ballistic missiles.44 This treaty is closely related to the military's aggressive activity in outer space as anti-ballistic missiles. satellite weapons are mostly developed from an anti-ballistic missile. This treaty prevented the arms race in outer space for decades before the United States had decided to withdraw from the treaty in 2001.45 Although this treaty is currently terminated, it had already laid the foundation for military activities in outer space.
STATE PRACTICES
UNITED STATES PRACTICES
- Communication
- Remote Sensing and Surveillance 58
- Navigation 59
- Kinetic Kill Weapon
- Directed Energy Weapon 67
This treaty was a bilateral effort between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, intended to end the manufacture and testing of anti-ballistic missiles.44. This treaty prevented an arms race in outer space for decades before the United States decided to withdraw from the treaty in 2001.45 Although this treaty is currently terminated, it had already formed the basis for military activities in outer space.. the blur between a means of deterrence and a form of self-defense which will inhibit and slow down any threat of force from its enemies and perform as a threat balance from the US for its potential enemies.48.
To conduct military activities in space, the United States has a "Joint Military Doctrine" in which the United States divides military activities in space into four categories of missions:49. In addition to military doctrine, the United States has a national space policy that underpins its space activities in general and its military activities in space specifically. This National Space Policy was created to ensure the sustainable use of space and only for peaceful purposes.50 This National Space Policy also shows that the US sought to increase its.
The United States considers space capabilities - including ground and space segments and support links - to be critical to the country's national interests. Next, we must see what capabilities the United States has to carry out its military activity in outer space. The US military relies heavily on its space assets to support military activities on Earth.
The United States military is also using a series of remote sensing and surveillance satellites to gather intelligence. This is one of the most important uses or activities in outer space by the United States Army. In early development, the United States Army created this GPS system to be used exclusively by the military.
However, in 1987 the US military allowed the use of these GPS satellites for civilian use.60 Currently, the US military uses a series of 25 NAVSTAR (Navigation Satellite Time and Ranging) satellites. In addition to some non-aggressive military activities in outer space, the United States has a long history of aggressive activities in outer space. It is considered by the US military to be part of the space control and space force enhancement strategy.
THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA’S PRACTICES Besides the United States, China also has its own military activity
- Remote Sensing, and Satellite Imagery
- Navigation
- Communication
- ANALYSIS
- CONCLUSION
China will continue to develop and increase its military capabilities to balance the military capabilities of other world powers, including military capabilities in Outer Space.76. China's military activity in outer space can also be divided into non-aggressive and aggressive categories. Kinetic capabilities, in which China builds and deploys conventional physical weapons systems that can cause physical damage that is permanent in nature and can create debris in outer space.
91 Baohui Zhang, “The US-China Security Dilemma in Military Space: Options for Arms Control,” Asian Survey, 51: 2 (March/April 2011), p. Based on these two categories, we can now list the weapons that China has acquired and used as part of its aggressive military activities in space. The treaty clearly states that outer space must be used only for activities for peaceful purposes in accordance with Article IV.106 It has been noted that various experts such as Jessup and Taubenfeld have suggested that the meaning of peaceful purposes is not to carry out any military activities, be it as a support system or aggressive weapons testing.107 If based on this interpretation of the treaty, then we can conclude that what the US and China were doing was illegal.
Of course, there are other experts, such as Tronchetti, who have suggested that military activities in space can be carried out under the pretext of peaceful purposes, as long as they are not aggressive in nature.108 In this way, the treaty only entails a partial demilitarization, and there it can be said that the military activities of the United States and China in space are still governed by the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty. The first is a clear threat from one country to another in the form of a request, or ultimatum, which, if not met, could result in the use of force.110 The second type is a threat that is conveyed on a country. which is a member of a defense pact or an international organization.111 The last, and the most dangerous of all, is a hidden threat that is an intended result of a state's military exercise, even a simple weapons test or a maneuver.112 This type threat posed by aggressive military activities in space. The Outer Space Treaty provided, under Article To define harmful contamination or harmful interference, we can categorize it into physical interference and non-physical interference.
116 Baohui Zhang, "The Security Dilemma in the U.S.-China Military Space Relationship: The Prospect for Arms Control", Asian Survey, 51:2 (March-April 2011), pp. The provisions presented in this article are not ample enough to directly to regulate military activities in outer space. China Dream, Space Dream: China's Advances in Space Technologies and Implications for the United States.
The delimitation of space revisited, the role of national space laws in the delimitation issues”. Peaceful uses of space have enabled its militarization – does this also mean its weaponization?”. Verbal note dated 8 June 1994 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations (Vienna), addressed to the Secretary General.
Note Verbale dated 4 June 1996 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations (Vienna) addressed to the Secretary-General. Note Verbale dated 31 May 2001 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations (Vienna) addressed to the Secretary-General.
