Proposal for an International Agreement on Active Debris Removal

Tian, Zhuang

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90338-5_7

Zhuang Tian^12,13

Part of the book series: Studies in Space Policy ((STUDSPACE,volume 16))

894 Accesses

Abstract

Along with the benefits derived from space applications, the burgeoning of space activities has also shown a side effect, namely numerous pieces of space debris orbiting the Earth. Awareness of the problem of space debris has been raised and spread with the increasing severity of this issue, and many initiatives have been taken. This note deals with several legal questions concerning the implementation of Active Debris Removal (ADR). The first question is what should be removed, i.e., the definition of the term “space debris”, and the correlation between this term and the term “space object” which is frequently referred to in the United Nations (UN) space treaties.

The UN space treaties are commonly referred to as the “five United Nations treaties on outer space” which are:

(i)
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies 18 UST 2410 (1967) (Outer Space Treaty);

(ii)
Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (Rescue Agreement);

(iii)
Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects 672 United Nations Treaty Series 119 (1968) 24 UST 2389 (1972) (Liability Convention);

(iv)
Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space 28 UST 695 (1975) (Registration Convention); and

(v)
Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies 1363 Nations Treaty Series 3 (1979) (Moon Agreement).

Texts of all of these treaties can be found at <http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html>

The following question is who can remove space debris, and subsequently the potential liabilities involved in such implementation. Finally, this note discusses the establishment of an Orbital Maintenance Fund for the promotion of technological development in ADR.

Adv. LL.M. in Air and Space Law, Leiden University, 2017. LL.B. Sun Yat-sen University, 2014. His thanks go to Asst. Prof. Dr. Tanja Masson-Zwaan for her invaluable guidance and encouragement during his masters’ studies. His gratitude also goes to Dr. Annette Froehlich for her thoughtful and inspirational support during the writing process of this Note.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 89.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 119.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
UN Doc. A/AC.105/L.308, Guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities (15 February 2017), at 11. Seehttp://www.unoosa.org/oosa/oosadoc/data/documents/2017/aac.105l/aac.105l.308_0.html.
2.
Id.
3.
Donald J. Kessler and Cour-Palais B. G. “Collision frequency of artificial satellites: The creation of a debris belt.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 83, No. A6 (1978): 2637.
4.
Id.
5.
J.C. Liou, “An Active Debris Removal Parametric Study for LEO Environment Remediation.” Advances in Space Research 47, No. 11 (2011): 1865.
6.
Id.
7.
UN Doc. A/AC.105/C.1/2012/CRP.16, “Active Debris Removal — An Essential Mechanism for Ensuring the Safety and Sustainability of Outer Space, A Report of the International Interdisciplinary Congress on Space Debris Remediation and On-Orbit Satellite Servicing.” (27 January 2012) (referred to in this note as the Report on ADR and OOS) at 20. Seehttp://www.unoosa.org/pdf/limited/c1/AC105_C1_2012_CRP16E.pdf.
8.
Gunnar Leinberg, “Orbital Space Debris.” 4 J.L. & Tech. (1989): 93.
9.
Id.
10.
ESA, “E.Deorbit: It is Time to Make Active Debris Removal a Reality for The European Space Sector.” (2017) Seehttp://blogs.esa.int/cleanspace/2017/01/30/e-deorbit-it-is-time-to-make-active-debris-removal-a-reality-for-the-european-space-sector.
11.
Ajey Lele, “China’s 2016 Space White Paper: An Appraisal.” (2017) Seehttp://www.eurasiareview.com/09012017-chinas-2016-space-white-paper-an-appraisal.
12.
Id.
13.
IADC Steering Group,“Space Debris - IADC Assessment Report for 2011.” (2012) at 17. Seehttp://www.iadc-online.org/Documents/IADC-2012-06,%20IADC%20Annual%20Report%20for%202011.pdf.
14.
Id.
15.
Jinyuan Su, “Active Debris Removal: Potential Legal Barriers and Possible Ways Forward.” Journal of East Asia and International Law 9, no. 2 (2016): Chapter II.
16.
Brian Weeden, “Overview of the Legal and Policy Challenges of Orbital Debris Removal.” Space Policy 27, no. 1 (2011): 42.
17.
Id. at 43.
18.
For instance, there are different interpretations of the term “harmful contamination” as prescribed in Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty. See Roberts, Lawrence D, “Addressing the Problem of Orbital Space Debris: Combining International Regulatory and Liability Regimes.” Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 15, No. 1 (1992): 61. Howard A. Baker has asserted that “harmful contamination” must be interpreted from a reading of Article IX as a whole, and it was never intended that the protection offered by this article would apply to the environments of outer space, the Moon and celestial bodies per se. See Howard A. Baker, “The Sci-Lab Perception: Its Impact on Protection of the Outer Space Environment.” Proceedings of the Thirtieth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (1987): 127. On the contrary, M. Miklody maintains that this term was intended to protect the sanctity of the space environment itself irrespective of any human activity therein. See M. Miklody, “Some Remarks to the Legal Status of Celestial Bodies and Protection of Environment.” Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (1982): 13.
19.
However, it should be noted that debris remediation is one of the major concerns of the proposed second set of Guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities, which are still under discussion. See UN Doc. A/AC.105/C.1/L.362 (21 June 2017). Work continues on this second set of guidelines, which will be brought together with the first set to form a full compendium of guidelines. The full compendium will then be referred to the General Assembly in 2018. Seehttp://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/topics/long-term-sustainability-of-outer-space-activities.html.
20.
Eric K. Clemons and Heinz Schimmelbusch. “The Environmental Prisoners’ Dilemma Or We’re All in This Together: Can I Trust You to Figure it Out?” (2007) at 1. Seehttp://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~clemons/blogs/prisonersblog.pdf.
21.
Id.
22.
Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (1968): 1244–1245.
23.
Report on ADR and OOS, supra note 9, at 28.
24.
Id.
25.
Id.
26.
Gary Galles, “Politicians Seek Short-Term Advantages by Lecturing Capitalists about the Long Term.” (2015) Seehttps://mises.org/library/politicians-seek-short-term-advantages-lecturing-capitalists-about-long-term.
27.
Id.
28.
Kim Gamel, “S. Korean president proposes amendment to end single-term limit.” (2016) Seehttps://www.stripes.com/news/s-korean-president-proposes-amendment-to-end-single-term-limit-1.435542.
29.
Clemons, supra note 22, at 9.
30.
Id.
31.
Id. at 6.
32.
Id.
33.
Id. at 11.
34.
Id. at 12.
35.
Lotta Viikari, “The Environmental Element in Space Law: Assessing the Present and Charting the Future.” Brill, 2008: 100. See also Plantz, Meghan R. “Orbital Debris: Out of Space.” Ga.j.intl & Comp.l 2(2013): 608.
36.
Christopher D. Williams. “Space: The Cluttered Frontier.” J.air L. & Com (1994): 1182.
37.
Jürgen Reifarth, “An Appropriate Legal Format for the Discussion of the Problem of Space Debris.” Environmental Aspects of Activities in Outer Space (Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel ed., 1990): 308. Williams, id. at 1181–1182.
38.
William, id. at 1183.
39.
I. H. Ph. Diederiks-Verschoor, “An introduction to space law.” 2nd ed. The Hague: Kluwer, 1999. p. 131. Olavo de O. Bittencourt Neto, “Chasing Ghost Spaceships: Law of Salvage as Applied to Space Debris.” Proceedings of the International Institute of Space Law (IISL) 2014: 154.
40.
Bittencourt Neto, id.
41.
Seehttp://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/spacelaw/national/Netherlands_BZ116174A.pdf. See also Neta Palkovitz and Tanja Masson-Zwaan. “Orbiting under the Radar: Nano-Satellites, International Obligations and National Space Laws.” Proceedings of the IISL 2012.
42.
UN Document A/AC.105/720 (1999).
43.
Id. para.6.
44.
Id.
45.
Report on ADR and OOS, supra note 9, at 30.
46.
Id. at 30–31.
47.
The use of multitask satellites is likely to minimize the number of man-made objects orbiting the Earth as fewer satellites are needed to undertake tasks.
48.
Report on ADR and OOS, supra note 9, at 31.
49.
Id.
50.
Natalie Pusey. “The Case for Preserving Nothing: The Need for a Global Response to the Space Debris Problem.” Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y 21 (2010): 449.
51.
Id.
52.
Id.
53.
Art. I (d), the Liability Convention. Art. I(b), the Registration Convention.
54.
Williams, supra note 38, at 1147–1148.
55.
Id. at 1184.
56.
Id.
57.
Report on ADR and OOS, supra note 9, at 30.
58.
Id.
59.
Williams, supra note 38, at 1184–1185.
60.
Id. at 1185.
61.
Francis Lyall and Paul Larsen. “Space Law: a Treatise.” Farnham: Ashgate, 2009: 310. Bittencourt Neto, supra note 41, at 154.
62.
Tanja Masson-Zwaan, “Legal Aspects of Space Debris.” IAA Space Debris Situation Report 2016, published in June 2017: 142.
63.
Williams, supra note 38, at 1154.
64.
Bittencourt Neto, supra note 41, at 158–160.
65.
Id. at 158.
66.
Report on ADR and OOS, supra note 9, at 33.
67.
Id.
68.
Bittencourt Neto, supra note 41, at 162.
69.
Id.
70.
UN Doc. A/AC.105/L.308, supra note 3, at 31.
71.
Report on ADR and OOS, supra note 9, at 33.
72.
It should be noted that the functionality-based criterion as proposed by Bittencourt Neto and in the second set of LTS guidelines embraces a large majority of space debris. Due to the strategic importance of classified technology contained in space debris, it is unlikely that states will agree to renounce their jurisdiction and control over these objects.
73.
Report on ADR and OOS, supra note 9, at 33.
74.
Id.
75.
Id. at 33–34.
76.
Id.
77.
Id. at 39–40.
78.
See “Stability of the Future LEO Environment”, an IADC study presented to UNCOPUOS, February 2013, available at http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/pres/stsc2013/tech-12E.pdf. See also Masson-Zwaan, supra note 64, at 144.
79.
Agatha Akers. “To Infinity and beyond: Orbital Space Debris and How to Clean It Up.” U. La Verne L. Rev. 33 (2011): 286.
80.
Id. at 312.
81.
Report on ADR and OOS, supra note 9, at 39.
82.
Id.
83.
Id.
84.
Id.
85.
Id. at 38.
86.
Akers, supra note 81, at 313.
87.
Id. at 315.
88.
Id. at 316.
89.
Report on ADR and OOS, supra note 9, at 18.
90.
Jeff Foust. “XCOR To Raise Ticket Prices for Suborbital Flights.” (2015) Seehttp://spacenews.com/xcor-to-raise-ticket-prices-for-suborbital-flights.
91.
Tanja Masson-Zwaan and Steven Freeland, “Between heaven and earth: The legal challenges of human space travel.” Acta Astronáutica 66.11(2015): 1599.
92.
Id.
93.
Akers, supra note 81, at 311.
94.
Guideline 6: Limit the long-term presence of spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stages in the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) region after the end of their mission.
95.
Guideline 7: Limit the long-term interference of spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stages with the geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) region after the end of their mission.
96.
Art. II, the Liability Convention.
97.
Art. III, the Liability Convention.
98.
Williams, supra note 38, at 1159.
99.
Id.
100.
Id.
101.
Report on ADR and OOS, supra note 9, at 32.
102.
Id.
103.
Art. IV, the Liability Convention.
104.
Report on ADR and OOS, supra note 9, at 32.
105.
Benjamin Jacobs. “Debris Mitigation Certification and the Commercial Space Industry: A New Weapon in the Fight against Space Pollution.” Media L. & Pol’y 20 (2011): 117.
106.
Id.
107.
Christophe Bonnal, J. M. Ruault, and M. C. Desjean, “Active debris removal: Recent progress and current trends.” Acta Astronautica 85 (2013): 51.
108.
Id. at 53.
109.
Art. VIII, the Outer Space Treaty.
110.
Report on ADR and OOS, supra note 9, at 40.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Air and Space Law, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands
Zhuang Tian
Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Zhuang Tian

Authors

Zhuang Tian
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

European Space Policy Institute, Vienna, Austria
Annette Froehlich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tian, Z. (2019). Proposal for an International Agreement on Active Debris Removal. In: Froehlich, A. (eds) Space Security and Legal Aspects of Active Debris Removal. Studies in Space Policy, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90338-5_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90338-5_7
Published: 28 November 2018
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90337-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90338-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics