DRAFT Space Code of Conduct: Principles, Policies, Options

DRAFT Space Code of Conduct: Principles, Policies, Options

A Presentation by the Fletcher School’s Space Policy Working Group

Dr. William Martel, Principal Investigator

Elisa Perry, Tim Ridout, Anthony Sung, Basak Sefii, Ches Thurber, Peshala Wimalasena

December 2, 2010

2 /42

Outline• Problem statement

• Case study: Chinese ASAT

• Interference possibilities

• Responding to interference in space

• Code of conduct

• Applying code to case studies

• Directions for future research

/42

Problem Statement• Goal: peaceful and efficient use of space

• However, rapid increases in space activity heighten risks

• Lack of norms and consequences encourages actors to test boundaries of permissible conduct

• Critical importance of space to national security, economic systems

• Significant concepts of transparency and deterrence

3

4 /42

Transparency• Definition: open interactions among actors

in space to understand actions, intentions

• Transparency requires:− Space situational awareness− Clear rules of behavior− Communication among actors− Accountability for actions

5 /42

Deterrence• Definition: assure security through clear, credible

threat of retaliation

• Deterrence requires:− Clear rules of behavior

− Evident consequences, “red lines”

− Capability, will of actors to respond consistently

• To reduce risk of escalation:− Mutually agreed-upon rules, clearly understood

consequences

− Open channels of communication

6 /42

Previous Attempts at Space Code• Existing treaties, norms, proposed codes insufficient

• Stimson Center Code (2007)− Share information on space activities− Minimize debris− Refrain from interference− Implement domestic regulations

• EU Code (2010)− Register, report, and share information− Adopt Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines− Minimize accidents− Abide by ITU recommendations

• All express desire for peaceful use of space

• We need a code of conduct to guide behavior

7 /42

Our Solution• Code of Conduct

− Enhance transparency, predictability, security− Specify, codify permitted, prohibited behavior in

space− Provide communication mechanisms for

information sharing, dispute resolution − Clarify principles for legitimate responses to

interference− Credibly signal consequences to would-be rule-

breakers− Encourage consistent policy responses from

states

8 /42

Research Process (2009-2010)• Survey of space problem

− Demographics of space− Policy challenges

• Analysis of potential models of governance− Air and maritime analogies− Other proposed space codes− Existing regulatory and legal frameworks (ITU, OST)

• Study and brainstorm interference possibilities• Assess actors’ likely responses• Draft code of conduct• Suggest modes of implementation

9 /42





• Code of conduct



10 /42

Case Study: 2007 Chinese ASAT• January 2007: China launches ground-

based SC-19 missile that destroys own FY-1 weather satellite in LEO

• Collision created considerable debris

• Diplomatic protests: Australia, Canada, EU, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, UK, US

• International response stronger than China anticipated

11 /42

Chinese ASATHighlights Central Problem

• No laws or norms prohibit China’s action

• Inability to predict international response

• No agreed framework on deterrence

• Absent clear rules, consequences, China conducts ASAT

• Results in escalation, damage to space environment

12 /42

Other Incidents of Concern• Radio frequency

− Cuba jams uplink of US broadcast signal to Iran (2003)

• Proximity operations− US, China test microsat proximity operations (2005, 2008)

• Laser dazzling− US claims Chinese lasers dazzle US satellites (2006)

• Hacking satellite systems− Hackers obtain control of British satellite (1999)

• Kinetic− Chinese ASAT (2007), US ASAT (2008)− Iridium/Cosmos accidental collision (2009)

13 /42





• Code of conduct



14 /42

Types of Satellite Interference• Radio frequency

• Proximity operations

• Directed energy (laser dazzling)

• Cyber (hacking)

• Kinetic (damage, degrade, destroy)

15 /42

Satellite Interference Spreadsheet• Columns– Specific interference activity– Duration/intensity of attack– Level of damage caused– Level of proof needed to identify source/intent

• The interference methods (rows) are ordered by level of escalatory potential

16 /42





• Code of conduct



17 /42

Potential Responses1) Absolutely nothing

2) Evasive, defensive action

3) Back-channel political communications

4) Public protest/shaming

5) Demand for compensation/ restitution

6) Official diplomatic responses

7) Economic sanctions

8) Selective retaliation,reversible consequences

9) Selective retaliation, irreversible consequences (satellites)

10) Selective retaliation, irreversible consequences (ground-based assets)

11) Outright war

18 /42

Criteria for Effective Responses• How should policymakers choose appropriate

responses from range of options?

• Criteria:1) Protect national security2) Minimize impact, end interference event3) Deter future attempts4) Comply with international laws and norms5) Minimize risk of further escalation

19 /42

Factors Affecting Level of Response

• Nature, degree, and intent of interference

• Quality of information: Interfering actor? Intent?

• Function of “victim” satellite

• Clarity of rules

• Previous attempts to resolve conflict peacefully

• International context

20 /42

Interference Response: Purposes • Clearly identify types of interference

• Categorize plausible responses

• Differentiate diplomatic to forceful responses

• Rationalize responses based on context

• Illustrate potential for escalation

21 /42

Satellite Interference ResponsesClassifying potential for escalation:

− Low potential− Medium potential− High potential

22 /42

Satellite Interference Responses Radio Frequency

23 /42

Satellite Interference Response Proximity

24 /42

Satellite Interference ResponsesDirected Energy

25 /42

Satellite Interference ResponsesCyber/Hacking

26 /42

Satellite Interference Responses Kinetic

27 /42





• Code of conduct



28 /42

Code of ConductWhat It Should Do

• Enhance transparency, predictability, stability, and security

• Protect states’ capabilities

• Help distinguish between accidental and intentional actions

• Specifically prohibit or minimize certain provocative types of behavior in space

• Thus, provide written framework for avoidance, peaceful resolution of disputes

29 /42

Important Elements of the CodePositive Principles

• Promote peaceful and efficient use of space

• Protect equal access to space

• Satellites protected as sovereign property of state

30 /42

Important Elements of the CodeNegative Principles

• Prohibit dangerous, provocative acts in space:− Radio frequency jamming− Proximity operations− Cyber hacking− Directed energy attacks− Kinetic attacks− Unnecessary creation of debris

31 /42

Important Elements of the CodeDispute Resolution Mechanisms

• Joint efforts to improve space situational awareness

• Protocols for information sharing

• Protocols for communication in event of interference

• Forums for discussion of space disputes

• Possible mechanisms for arbitration, adjudication of disputes

32 /42

Important Elements of the CodePrinciples to Guide Responses

• Right to self-defense applies in space− Critical concept for state

• Limitations on self-defense also apply− Peaceful means should be exhausted first, when

possible− Responses must be proportional to level of

interference− Responses must be discriminate

• Actors may wish to declare more specific response policies− Unilaterally or through bilateral agreements

33 /42





• Code of conduct



34 /42

2007 China ASAT Revisited• Code of conduct explicitly prohibits

such action– Rule against unnecessary debris creation– Potential rule prohibiting ASAT first-use

• Code narrows range of responses– Clear violation of established rule makes

lowest-level responses more likely

35 /42

Impact of Code on China ASAT• China likely expected “Green” response

• Code would make clear that “Yellow” response more likely

• By making consequences transparent, consistent, code enhances deterrence

• Uncertainty: With code in place, would China have been deterred from conducting ASAT?

36 /42

Microsatellite Case Study• Chinese microsatellite approaches US

imaging satellite

• Given unknown Chinese intentions, national security mission of US satellite creates dangerous situation

• Current legal regime provides no basis for determining who has right of way, how to respond

• Lack of clarity increases risk of escalation

37 /42

Microsatellite Case StudyPotential Application of Code

• Code clearly prohibits Chinese action− Satellite maintaining orbit has right-of-way− “Keep-out box” encircling US satellite establishes protected

“zone”

• Code clarifies possible responses− Clear violation makes lowest-level responses unlikely− Clear violation has implications for higher-level responses− Mechanisms for communication, dispute resolution make

higher-level responses less likely, unnecessary, provocative

38 /42

Microsatellite Case StudyImpact of Code

• Code establishes which satellite has right of way

• Imposes obligation on microsatellite to move away

• Communication and crisis resolution mechanisms increase likelihood of de-escalation− Cold War examples

• Clarity of rule, consequences may deter microsatellite approach to begin with

39 /42





• Code of conduct



40 /42

Further Steps to Implementing the Code

• Unilateral policy declaration− National Space Policy

• Bilateral treaty− US-Soviet agreements

• Multilateral convention− Outer Space Treaty

• Customary international law− Maritime rights-of-way, rules of engagement

• Regulatory regime− ITU regulations for GEO− ICAO system for airspace

41 /42

Directions for Future Research• Study responses based on satellite type and

function

• Further development, analysis of code of conduct

• Create “model” bilateral, multilateral scenarios

• Study institutions to enforce code of conduct

• Analysis of forceful responses (Red Zone)

• Incorporate “traffic management” and other non-deliberate interference issues

Questions and Extended Discussion

42 of 41

Documents

DRAFT Space Code of Conduct: Principles, Policies, Options