Ambiguities in Space Law as Path towards Weaponization of Space: the Case of the Outer Space Treaty. Remarks on Regulation of Weaponization of Outer Space by Space Law

Author: Danylo Stonis
Institution: Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica
Year of publication: 2022
Source: Show
Pages: 74-84
DOI Address:
PDF: cpls/4/cpls408.pdf

Ambiguities in Space Law as Path towards Weaponization of Space: the Case of the Outer Space Treaty. Remarks on Regulation of Weaponization of Outer Space by Space Law

Nowadays, space management is widely recognized as an important area of global governance. The management of outer space is very complex, therefore activities of states in outer space realm are regulated by Outer Space Treaty. However, due to a number of ambiguities in the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty regarding the military use of space, loopholes for an increase in militarization and weaponization of space have emerged, thus causing serious problems with space security and affecting the sustainable use of space. Such shortcomings in the regulation of the military use of outer space by the Outer Space Treaty, including the lack of definition of certain terms and the establishment of appropriate procedures, allow the parties to freely interpret the relevant terms, and also conduct experiments in space, which contribute to the militarization and weaponization of space. Naturally this issue poses global security threat, because once the militarization or weaponization of outer space has started, it is almost impossible to reverse this process. In addition, the development of anti-satellite weapons and the dual purpose of satellites orbiting the Earth undoubtedly adds to the political and legal challenge of managing outer space. Therefore, this articles claims, that the legal regulation of outer space requires thorough revision in order to effectively address the issue of legal mechanisms in outer space.


  • Bhat, S., Mohan, K. (2009). Antisatellite Missile Testing: A Challenge to Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty. NUJS Law Review, 2(2), pp. 205–212.
  • Bourbonniere, M., Lee, R. (2007). Legality of the Deployment of Conventional Weapons in Earth Orbit: Balancing Space Law and the Law of Armed Conflict. European Journal of International Law, 18(5), pp. 873–901. DOI: 10.1093/ejil/chm051.
  • Cervino, M., Corradini, S., Davolio, S. (2003). Viewpoint: Is the ‘peaceful use’ of space being ruled out? Space Policy, 19(4), pp. 231–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.spacepol.2003.08.012.
  • Cunningham, F.S., Fravel, T.M. (2019). Dangerous Confidence? Chinese Views on Nuclear Escalation. International Security, 44(2), pp. 61–109. DOI: 10.1162/ isec_a_00359.
  • De Man, P. (2017). State practice, domestic legislation and the interpretation of fundamental principles of international space law. Space Policy, 42, pp. 92–102.
  • Dembling, P.G., Arons, D.M. (1967). The evolution of outer space treaty. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 33, pp. 419–456.
  • Dinstein, Y. (1991). War, Aggression and Self Defence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gleeson, P. (2005). Legal Aspects of the Use of Force in Space. Library and Archives Canada. Pobrane z:
  • Gonçalves, A.F., Silva, A.M. (2019). Global governance and the militarization of the outer space. Meridiano 47 – Journal of Global Studies, 20. DOI: 10.20889/M47e20009.
  • Green, L.C. (1985). Essays on the Modern Law of War, 2nd ed. New York: Transnational Publishers.
  • Grimal, F., Sundaram, J. (2018). The Incremental Militarization of Outer Space: A Threshold Analysis. Chinese Journal of International Law, 17(1), pp. 45–72. DOI: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmy006.
  • Halpern, J. (1985). Antisatellite Weaponry: The High Road to Destruction. Boston University International Law Journal, 3(1), pp. 167–193.
  • Henry, P., Compard, D., Deloffe, B. et al. (2008). Viewpoint: The militarization and weaponization of space: Towards a European space deterrent. Space Policy, 24(2), pp. 61–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.spacepol.2008.02.001.
  • Christol, C.Q. (1985). The common interest in the exploration, use and exploitation of outer space for peaceful purposes: the Soviet-American dilemma. Akron Law Review, 18(2), pp. 193–222.
  • Johnson-Freese, J., Burbach, D. (2019). The Outer Space Treaty and Weaponization of Space. Bulletin of the atomic scientists, 75(4), pp. 137–141.
  • Kerrest, A. (2011). Outer Space as International Space: Lessons from Antarctica. In: P.A. Berkman, M.A Lang, D.W.H. Walton, O.R. Young (eds)., Science Diplomacy: Antarctica, Science, and the Governance of International Spaces, pp. 133–142. Smithsonian Contributions to Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1995). International Court of Justice. Retrieved from:
  • Lieggi, S., Quam, E. (2007). China’s ASAT Test and the Strategic Implications of Beijing’s Military Space Policy. The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 19(1), pp. 5–27.
  • Marchisio, S. (2010). The Draft Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities. In: Activities of States in Outer Space In Light of New Developments: Meeting International Responsibilities and Establishing National Legal and Policy Frameworks. United Nations/Thailand Workshop on Space Law. Bangkok: Thailand. Retrieved from:
  • Markoff, M.G. (1976). Disarmament and peaceful purposes provisions in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Journal of Space Law, 4(1), pp. 3–23.
  • Mehdi, M., Su, J. (2020). Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space and Developing Countries. Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 32(2), pp. 253–270.
  • Meyer, A. (1969). Interpretation of the term peaceful in the light of the space treaty. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space.
  • Meyer, P. (2021). Could an optional protocol be the way to stop the weaponization of outer space? Space Policy, 76(2), pp. 332–339.
  • Military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of China (2021). Annual report to Congress. Office of the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. Retrieved from:
  • Nyamuya Maogoto, J. (2005). The Military Ascent into Space: From Playground to Battleground: The New Uncertain Game in the Heavens. Netherlands International Law Review, 52, pp. 461–488.
  • Nyamuya Maogoto J., Freeland, S. (2007). Space Weaponization and the United Nations Charter Regime on Force: A Thick Legal Fog or a Receding Mist? The International Lawyer, 41(4), pp. 1091–1119.
  • Office of the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments involving the People’s Republic of China, Washington, D.C.: US Department of Defense 2019, p. 44.
  • Proposed Prevention of an Arms Race in Space (PAROS) Treaty. Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). Retrieved from:
  • Race, M. (2011). Policies for Scientific Exploration and Environmental Protection: Comparison of the Antarctic and Outer Space Treaties. In: Science Diplomacy: Antarctica, Science, and the Governance of International Spaces, pp. 143– 152. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge. DOI: 10.5479/si.9781935623069.133.
  • Resolution 1472 (XIV). International co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space. UN General Assembly, 856th plenary meeting, 12 December 1959.
  • Resolution 1721 (XVI). International co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space. UN General Assembly, 1085th plenary meeting, 20 December, 1961.
  • Resolution 1884 (XVIII). Question of general and complete disarmament. UN General Assembly, 1244th plenary meeting, 17 October 1963.
  • Resolution 1962 (XVIII). Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space. UN General Assembly, 1280th plenary meeting, 13 December 1963.
  • Resolution 2222 (XXI). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. UN General Assembly, 1499th plenary meeting, 19 December 1966.
  • Resolution 3235 (XXIX). Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space. UN General Assembly, 2280th plenary meeting, 12 November 1974.
  • Shao, X. (2021). What We Talk about When We Talk about General Principles of Law. Chinese Journal of International Law, 20(2), pp. 219–255.
  • Sheehan, M. (2013). Did you see that, grandpa Mao? The prestige and propaganda rationales of the Chinese space program. Space Policy, 29(2), pp. 107–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.spacepol.2013.03.003.
  • Schmitt, M. (2006). International Law and Military Operations in Space. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 10, pp. 89–125.
  • James, D. (1980). The Legality of Antisatellites. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 3(2), pp. 467–494.
  • Suzuki, K. (2013).  The contest for leadership in East Asia: Japanese and Chinese approaches to outer space”. Space Policy, 29(2), pp. 99–106. DOI: 10.1016/j. spacepol.2013.03.006.
  • Tellis, A.J. (2007). China’s Military Space Strategy. Survival, 49(3), pp. 41–72. DOI: 10.1080/00396330701564752.
  • The Artemis Accords: Principles for Cooperation in the Civil Exploration and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets and Asteroids for Peaceful Purposes. National Aerospace Agency (NASA), 2020. Retrieved from:
  • The Charter of the United Nations, United Nations, 26 June 1945. Vermeer, A. (2010).
  • The Laws of War in Outer Space: Some Legal Implications for Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello of the Militarisation and Weaponisation of Outer Space. In: B. Brecher (ed.), The New Order of War. Brill.
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 23 May 1969.
  • Vlasic, I.A. (1981). Disarmament decade, outer space and international law. McGill Law Journal, 26(2), pp. 135–206.
  • Vlasic, I.A. (1967). The Space Treaty: A Preliminary Evaluation. California Law Review, 55(2), pp. 507–519. DOI: 10.2307/3479358.

anti-satellite weapons weaponization of space space law Outer Space Treaty

Message to:



© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart