Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Peaceful Purposes in International Space Law

Edlund Otterstedt, Anna LU (2020) JURM02 20202
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I takt med ett ökat antal nationella, militära rymdstyrkor har frågan om de rättsliga gränserna för militär användning av yttre rymden (outer space) blivit allt mer relevant. Inget rymdrättsligt traktat har antagits eller trätt i kraft sedan 1984 och innebörden av ”fredliga ändamål” (peaceful purposes) i det nuvarande regelverket är därför av betydelse. Fortfarande finns ingen allmängiltig definition av begreppet och uppsatsen avser därför klarlägga dels dess betydelse i artikel IV Rymdfördraget (OST), dels dess existens och betydelse i sedvanerätten. Utredningen utgår ifrån det traditionella sättet att tolka begreppet, det vill säga antingen som ”icke-militär” (non-military) eller som ”icke-aggressiv” (non-aggressiv). Det utreds även hur... (More)
I takt med ett ökat antal nationella, militära rymdstyrkor har frågan om de rättsliga gränserna för militär användning av yttre rymden (outer space) blivit allt mer relevant. Inget rymdrättsligt traktat har antagits eller trätt i kraft sedan 1984 och innebörden av ”fredliga ändamål” (peaceful purposes) i det nuvarande regelverket är därför av betydelse. Fortfarande finns ingen allmängiltig definition av begreppet och uppsatsen avser därför klarlägga dels dess betydelse i artikel IV Rymdfördraget (OST), dels dess existens och betydelse i sedvanerätten. Utredningen utgår ifrån det traditionella sättet att tolka begreppet, det vill säga antingen som ”icke-militär” (non-military) eller som ”icke-aggressiv” (non-aggressiv). Det utreds även hur ”fredliga ändamål” påverkar lagenligheten av militär användning av yttre rymden.

”Fredliga ändamål” i artikel IV OST betyder ”icke-militärt” och är tillämplig för himlakroppar (celestial bodies), inklusive månen. ”Fredliga ändamål” i OST är dock inte rättsligt bindande för hela yttre rymden. Däremot medför traktatets preambel att övriga bestämmelser i traktatet ska tolkas i enlighet med ”fredliga ändamål”. ”Fredliga ändamål” i OST demilitariserar därför månen och andra himlakroppar men utgör inget rättsligt hinder för militär användning av övriga delar av yttre rymden. ”Icke-aggressiv” militär användning är tveklöst en förutsättning för att inte kränka ”fredliga ändamål” men det är inte dess betydelse eftersom en sådan tolkning varken stödjs av bestämmelsens lydelse, efterföljande praxis eller förarbeten. En sådan tolkning medför dessutom att bestämmelsen blir överflödig.

Det är möjligt att ”fredliga ändamål” är en sedvanerättslig regel då det finns bevis som stödjer detta. En sådan sedvanerättslig regel skulle ha mer långtgående bindande effekt än OST. Dels eftersom den skulle binda även stater som inte är parter till OST, dels eftersom den – baserat på materialet som analyserats i uppsatsen – hade kunnat vara tillämplig för hela yttre rymden. Baserat på det traditionella sättet att tolka ”fredliga ändamål” skulle regelns innehåll däremot vara olika beroende på tillämpningsområde. I yttre rymden skulle den tillåta ”icke-aggressiv” militär användning men för himlakroppar inklusive månen skulle den endast tillåta ”icke-militär” användning.

Avslutningsvis föreslås att tolkningen ”icke-aggressiv” idag inte är passande och att ”fredliga ändamål” istället bör ses som en presumtion. Presumtionen skulle innebära att militär användning som utgångspunkt vore förbjuden men med möjlighet att motbevisa. I motiverade och avvägda fall skulle det också kunna vara möjligt att ge företräde åt ”icke-fredliga ändamål”, däremot inte i de fall där ”fredliga ändamål” gäller ”uteslutande” (exclusively). (Less)
Abstract
The question of the legal boundaries on military uses of outer space is becoming more and more relevant through recent developments, for instance as the number of national space forces increases. Ever since 1984, no new space law treaty has been adopted or entered into force and the meaning of “peaceful purposes” as stipulated in the current framework is thus relevant. Still today, no authoritative definition of the term exists and this is why this thesis examines its meaning under treaty law – more specifically in the article IV of the Outer Space Treaty (OST) – as well as aims at determining its existence and content under customary international law. The research is focused around the classical “non-military” versus “non-aggressive”... (More)
The question of the legal boundaries on military uses of outer space is becoming more and more relevant through recent developments, for instance as the number of national space forces increases. Ever since 1984, no new space law treaty has been adopted or entered into force and the meaning of “peaceful purposes” as stipulated in the current framework is thus relevant. Still today, no authoritative definition of the term exists and this is why this thesis examines its meaning under treaty law – more specifically in the article IV of the Outer Space Treaty (OST) – as well as aims at determining its existence and content under customary international law. The research is focused around the classical “non-military” versus “non-aggressive” interpretation of “peaceful purposes” and also considers which consequences “peaceful purposes” has on the military uses of outer space in general.

“Peaceful purposes” in article IV OST means “non-military” and it applies to the Moon and other celestial bodies, but not to the whole of outer space. However, as “peaceful purposes” is also stipulated in the preamble of OST, it may affect the interpretation of the other provisions in OST. Accordingly, the Moon and other celestial bodies are demilitarised zones whereas the rest of outer space is open for military uses. Certainly, the “non-aggressive” use is a precondition for the non-violation of “peaceful purposes” but not the meaning of it, as such an interpretation would not be supported by the text of the treaty, by state practice, the preparatory work and as well be superfluous.

There are evidences that points at the possibility that “peaceful purposes” also is a rule under customary international law. Such a rule would have far more binding effect than “peaceful purposes” in article IV OST. Firstly, as it would, as a main rule, be binding on all states. Secondly, and according to my findings, as it is possible that it applies to the whole of outer space and not only celestial bodies, including the Moon. Based on the classical way of interpreting “peaceful purposes” it would however seem to be different in content depending on area and allow for “non-aggressive” military uses in the whole of outer space, yet not on celestial bodies including the Moon where it would mean “non-military”.

Lastly, the thesis suggests that the “non-aggressive” interpretation is not accurate today and proposes to look at “peaceful purposes” as a rule or principle of presumption. This would mean that military uses by default would be prohibited by “peaceful purposes” but that this could be rebutted, by proving that the purpose of the activity would be peaceful. In some cases, it could also seem motivated to let another purpose prevail. In cases where “peaceful purposes” would be coupled together with “exclusively” it would however never be possible to give priority to any other purpose. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Edlund Otterstedt, Anna LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20202
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
public international law, folkrätt, space law, rymdrätt, international space law, peaceful purposes, disarmament, outer space treaty, rymdfördraget, customary international law, sedvanerätt
language
English
id
9034554
date added to LUP
2021-01-27 09:56:10
date last changed
2021-01-27 09:56:10
@misc{9034554,
  abstract     = {{The question of the legal boundaries on military uses of outer space is becoming more and more relevant through recent developments, for instance as the number of national space forces increases. Ever since 1984, no new space law treaty has been adopted or entered into force and the meaning of “peaceful purposes” as stipulated in the current framework is thus relevant. Still today, no authoritative definition of the term exists and this is why this thesis examines its meaning under treaty law – more specifically in the article IV of the Outer Space Treaty (OST) – as well as aims at determining its existence and content under customary international law. The research is focused around the classical “non-military” versus “non-aggressive” interpretation of “peaceful purposes” and also considers which consequences “peaceful purposes” has on the military uses of outer space in general.
 
“Peaceful purposes” in article IV OST means “non-military” and it applies to the Moon and other celestial bodies, but not to the whole of outer space. However, as “peaceful purposes” is also stipulated in the preamble of OST, it may affect the interpretation of the other provisions in OST. Accordingly, the Moon and other celestial bodies are demilitarised zones whereas the rest of outer space is open for military uses. Certainly, the “non-aggressive” use is a precondition for the non-violation of “peaceful purposes” but not the meaning of it, as such an interpretation would not be supported by the text of the treaty, by state practice, the preparatory work and as well be superfluous. 
 
There are evidences that points at the possibility that “peaceful purposes” also is a rule under customary international law. Such a rule would have far more binding effect than “peaceful purposes” in article IV OST. Firstly, as it would, as a main rule, be binding on all states. Secondly, and according to my findings, as it is possible that it applies to the whole of outer space and not only celestial bodies, including the Moon. Based on the classical way of interpreting “peaceful purposes” it would however seem to be different in content depending on area and allow for “non-aggressive” military uses in the whole of outer space, yet not on celestial bodies including the Moon where it would mean “non-military”. 

Lastly, the thesis suggests that the “non-aggressive” interpretation is not accurate today and proposes to look at “peaceful purposes” as a rule or principle of presumption. This would mean that military uses by default would be prohibited by “peaceful purposes” but that this could be rebutted, by proving that the purpose of the activity would be peaceful. In some cases, it could also seem motivated to let another purpose prevail. In cases where “peaceful purposes” would be coupled together with “exclusively” it would however never be possible to give priority to any other purpose.}},
  author       = {{Edlund Otterstedt, Anna}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Peaceful Purposes in International Space Law}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}