The Ethical Use of Outer Space - Ethical Engineering for International Development and Environmental Sustainability - page 131

7 Conclusion

The international community has successfully established a broad, basic legal
framework for the uses of outer space. However, the growing diversity of space
activities; the environmental, political, military and technological challenges; and
the lack of meaningful progress in important areas mean there is an urgent need to
develop new legal rules and structures to regulate new activities in space. To address
the challenges and rapidly changing security context in outer space will require a
signifi cant international dialogue which is absent at this time. Gennady M. Danilenko
( 1989 ) has described the growing problems of consensus decision-making in rela-
tion to agreements on the use of outer space. He points to the increasing number of
states being involved which has resulted in discussions on space issues becoming
more confrontational as the different groups of states have radically different posi-
tions. This makes the possibility of reaching a consensus more unlikely and out-
comes tend towards the lowest common denominator, so as to ensure reasonable
conditions for the states involved. Danilenko comments that 'such a consensus often
serves only as a disguise for continued disagreement' but suggests that it does mean
that more equitable international relations are gradually coming to the fore. As an
example, he points to how the demands of the developing countries led to the 1986
Principles Relating to Remote Sensing creating preferential rights for them. In addi-
tion, the issue of equitable access to geostationary orbit is also increasingly being
discussed in terms of the economic benefi ts and rights of the less developed nations.
In all the international discussions and debates on the use of space so far, neces-
sity and self-interest (whether it be political, military or industrial) have usually
been at the forefront. Hardly ever does an ethical argument enter into discussions.
Although the OST could be said to be basically ethical, it was an agreement made
before most of the world had any stake in outer space. Treaties of an ethical nature
that followed, such as protecting the Moon and planets against ownership and
exploitation, have become far less popular - especially as ideas for mining the
Moon, the asteroids and even Mars appear to be considered seriously (Lewis 1996 ;
Spacedaily 2012 ; Chang 2012 ). Other problems, such as access to orbits that are
popular for global communication or surveillance purposes, are growing and an
arms race in outer space looks increasingly likely - if it hasn't begun already. The
real problem at the moment is that any legal framework requires the cooperation and
consent of those most likely to benefi t from its absence - and in particular the United
States. This is a problem faced in other areas of concern such as climate change,
nuclear disarmament and autonomous military robots.
It is a very good time therefore to consider improvements, and in so doing states
must realise that, in order to be effective, space lawmaking should increasingly be
based on legislative techniques that will refl ect the realities of international rela-
tions. The future of the space legislative process depends primarily on the ability of
the international community to achieve a genuine understanding and a consensus
refl ecting both the legitimate common interests of all states in space and the special
interests and responsibilities of the space powers in the exploration and use of outer
space for the benefi t of all humankind. This would seem to be as close to an ethical