National Incentives for International Governance
Description: National Incentives for International Governance of Space Applications Gilles Doucet Institute of Air and Space Law Faculty of Law - McGill University Problem: Safety Sustainability of Outer Space Increasingly at Risk Outer space is an
Related Topics
Download Presentation
"National Incentives for International Governance" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
slide1. National Incentives for International Governance of Space Applications Gilles Doucet Institute of Air and Space Law Faculty of Law - McGill University<br>
slide2. Problem: Safety & Sustainability of Outer Space Increasingly at Risk Outer space is an international environment, but international governance has lagged technology and commercial innovations.
Space environment changed since 1967 (OST)
More actors, different actors, news applications, new threats to safety and sustainability
Four decades of:
International soft law measures
Some national regulations (variable, inconsistent)<br>
slide3. Why is that? States act in their perceived best interests.
States are generally motivated to enter into international agreements by national incentives
Not the greater good of humankind
Governments tend to have a short term view
National incentives for international agreements have been illusive in outer space due to the international character of the environment (non-sovereign nature)<br>
slide4. Non-Space Model: Non-Proliferation Treaty Key provisions
Weapon States agree to not proliferate. (art I)
Non-weapon States renounce nuclear weapons. (art II)
States share nuclear technology for peaceful use (art V)
“Bargain”: States agree to limits on their national actions in exchange for cooperation (under a verification regime)
Has been generally successful
190 states parties
4 nuclear states outside the regime
Numerous states with nuclear potential have refrained
What would the world look like without the NPT?<br>
slide5. Non-Space Model: Chemical Warfare Convention States agree to:
destroy their weapons & production facilities (art IV, V)
allow international verification (art IV) and
facilitate cooperation for peaceful chemistry applications (art XI)
“Bargain”: States agree to limits on their national actions in exchange for cooperation (verification regime)
Has been generally successful
192 states parties
only 4 UN states outside the regime
Imagine if Chemical weapons were part of all countries’ arsenals<br>
slide6. Non-Space Model: Chicago Convention Regulatory pillar enabling the international civil aviation industry (1944)
Comprehensive Treaty; established ICAO
One key element:
States agree to recognize licenses & certificates issues by other States, provided that they meet or exceed mandated standards. (art 33)
States should adhere to uniform standards and recommended practices (SARPs). (art 37)
“Bargain”: States agree to limits on their national sovereignty in exchange for the cooperation of other States
SARPs are adopted by the ICAO Council (art 55)
Developed by the Air Navigation Commission
Not part of the Chicago Convention treaty (SARPs are Annexes)
SARPs have kept pace with technology<br>
slide7. Proposal: National Incentives for Outer Space Governance Adopt proven model from successful treaties
“Bargain”: States agree to certain restrictions in return for cooperation of other States
Applicable to civil and commercial activities
Military activities excluded (unrealistic at this time)
Chicago Convention model is most applicable to space
New Convention based on Outer Space SARPs (as annexes)
States to comply with the SARPs in order to receive cooperation from other States (national incentive)<br>
slide8. Potential Areas for Outer Space SARPs (focus on safety & sustainability) Space Debris Mitigation Standards
Space Traffic Management
Passenger Services (Space Tourism)
Registration Requirements for Space Objects
Active Debris Removal ?
Orbital Servicing ?
Resource extraction ?
……<br>
slide9. What types of cooperation? Examples are:
Exports of space technologies
Provision of space launches
Distribution of space remote sensing products
Ground station services (TT&C, data reception)
Licensing of communication services
(national spectrum allocations)
Nationally regulated activities
Existing mechanisms in many countries<br>
slide10. Why would anyone agree? Most nations
Need cooperation of other States in order to conduct space activities
Major space-faring nations
Derive greatest benefits from space; have the most at risk if space activities become unsustainable
Will likely have the most influence on the SARPs
Commercial actors
More certainty, lower risk, level playing field
No incentive for “jurisdiction shopping”<br>
slide11. Everything happens for a reason,
and that reason is usually physics! Gilles Doucet
Space Security Consultant
613-794-4744
gillespdoucet@gmail.com<br>
slide2. Problem: Safety & Sustainability of Outer Space Increasingly at Risk Outer space is an international environment, but international governance has lagged technology and commercial innovations.
Space environment changed since 1967 (OST)
More actors, different actors, news applications, new threats to safety and sustainability
Four decades of:
International soft law measures
Some national regulations (variable, inconsistent)<br>
slide3. Why is that? States act in their perceived best interests.
States are generally motivated to enter into international agreements by national incentives
Not the greater good of humankind
Governments tend to have a short term view
National incentives for international agreements have been illusive in outer space due to the international character of the environment (non-sovereign nature)<br>
slide4. Non-Space Model: Non-Proliferation Treaty Key provisions
Weapon States agree to not proliferate. (art I)
Non-weapon States renounce nuclear weapons. (art II)
States share nuclear technology for peaceful use (art V)
“Bargain”: States agree to limits on their national actions in exchange for cooperation (under a verification regime)
Has been generally successful
190 states parties
4 nuclear states outside the regime
Numerous states with nuclear potential have refrained
What would the world look like without the NPT?<br>
slide5. Non-Space Model: Chemical Warfare Convention States agree to:
destroy their weapons & production facilities (art IV, V)
allow international verification (art IV) and
facilitate cooperation for peaceful chemistry applications (art XI)
“Bargain”: States agree to limits on their national actions in exchange for cooperation (verification regime)
Has been generally successful
192 states parties
only 4 UN states outside the regime
Imagine if Chemical weapons were part of all countries’ arsenals<br>
slide6. Non-Space Model: Chicago Convention Regulatory pillar enabling the international civil aviation industry (1944)
Comprehensive Treaty; established ICAO
One key element:
States agree to recognize licenses & certificates issues by other States, provided that they meet or exceed mandated standards. (art 33)
States should adhere to uniform standards and recommended practices (SARPs). (art 37)
“Bargain”: States agree to limits on their national sovereignty in exchange for the cooperation of other States
SARPs are adopted by the ICAO Council (art 55)
Developed by the Air Navigation Commission
Not part of the Chicago Convention treaty (SARPs are Annexes)
SARPs have kept pace with technology<br>
slide7. Proposal: National Incentives for Outer Space Governance Adopt proven model from successful treaties
“Bargain”: States agree to certain restrictions in return for cooperation of other States
Applicable to civil and commercial activities
Military activities excluded (unrealistic at this time)
Chicago Convention model is most applicable to space
New Convention based on Outer Space SARPs (as annexes)
States to comply with the SARPs in order to receive cooperation from other States (national incentive)<br>
slide8. Potential Areas for Outer Space SARPs (focus on safety & sustainability) Space Debris Mitigation Standards
Space Traffic Management
Passenger Services (Space Tourism)
Registration Requirements for Space Objects
Active Debris Removal ?
Orbital Servicing ?
Resource extraction ?
……<br>
slide9. What types of cooperation? Examples are:
Exports of space technologies
Provision of space launches
Distribution of space remote sensing products
Ground station services (TT&C, data reception)
Licensing of communication services
(national spectrum allocations)
Nationally regulated activities
Existing mechanisms in many countries<br>
slide10. Why would anyone agree? Most nations
Need cooperation of other States in order to conduct space activities
Major space-faring nations
Derive greatest benefits from space; have the most at risk if space activities become unsustainable
Will likely have the most influence on the SARPs
Commercial actors
More certainty, lower risk, level playing field
No incentive for “jurisdiction shopping”<br>
slide11. Everything happens for a reason,
and that reason is usually physics! Gilles Doucet
Space Security Consultant
613-794-4744
gillespdoucet@gmail.com<br>