58th IISL COLLOQUIUM ON THE LAW OF OUTER SPACE (E7) Joint IAF-IISL Session on the Legal Framework for Collaborative Space Activities (7-B3.8) Author: Ms. Olga S. Stelmakh, Parliament of Ukraine / DRSH Group Int., Ukraine, [email protected]

GLOBAL SPACE GOVERNANCE FOR ENSURING RESPONSIBLE USE OF OUTER SPACE, ITS SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY: LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

The paper will be focused on the dominant legal actions taken worldwide, more specifically at the regional and international level, towards responsible and secure use of outer space and ensuring of its sustainability. For this purpose the sufficiency of applicable legally binding norms elaborated at the beginning of the space era and extent of complementarity of the pertinent soft law provisions will be analyzed. It will also envisage legal grounds for regulating emerging space threats and a shaped framework for measures taken at all stages of space activities towards achieving of aforementioned objectives. The emphasis will be made on legal initiatives to manage the risks posed by dangerous space debris, destructive collisions, the crowding of satellites, the growing saturation of the radio-frequency spectrum, etc. In this line, the paper will provide an overview of such topical concepts as “space situational awareness”, “space traffic management” and “active debris removal”. Finally, the role of international cooperation through transparency and confidence-building measures designed to enhance coordinated actions in the context of concepts’ proper implementation will be examined.

INTRODUCTION AND PREREQUISITES FOR
States shall undertake appropriate A SECURE AND SUSTAINABLE SPACE international consultations before proceeding with ENVIRONMENT AND RESPONSIBLE any activity or experiment that would cause BEHAVIOUR THEREIN potentially harmful interference with activities of other States (art. IX) / with a counter right to Even though the grounds of responsible request consultations concerning such an activity and secure use of outer space, and of its or experiment (art. IX); sustainability have been laid down at the
States conducting activities in beginning of the space era, the recognition of the outer space agree to inform the UN Secretary- need to develop them further adjusting to modern General as well as the public and the international space challenges started about a decade ago. scientific community, to the greatest extent As of today the legal regime governing feasible and practicable, of the nature, conduct, responsible, secure and sustainable space locations and results of such activities. On environment is composed of two main blocks: receiving the said information, the UN Secretary- legally binding norms (mainly international space General should be prepared to disseminate it treaties and national space legislation) and immediately and effectively (art. XI); complementary soft law provisions (draft codes of
States shall consider on a basis of conduct, GGE reports, policies, guidelines, equality any requests by other States to be principles etc.). afforded an opportunity to observe the flight of The very first fundamentals of secure space objects launched by those States (art. X). space environment and responsible behavior The aforementioned provisions are the therein have been enshrined in the Outer Space minimum requirements for a responsible public Treaty.1 order in space, the optimum ones are found in soft In particular it provided for four law provisions thus not having any enforcement categories of obligations towards ensuring the mechanisms – backing for implementation. In a minimum level of transparency: perfect public order in space the optimum • To cooperate; requirements should move towards the minimum • To hold consultations; ones and replace them leaving the niche to more • To inform; up-to-date requirements - responses to current • To afford the opportunity to space threats and challenges. However taking into observe the flight of space objects launched. account the fast pace of changes occurring in a Elaborating further on those categories, space sector, the niche of optimum requirements we have to refer to some pertinent provisions: should be taken by the new ones adjusted to the
States shall be guided by the congested and contested space environment. principle of cooperation and mutual assistance (art. IX); LEGAL ACTIONS TAKEN WORLDWIDE can share information with the aim of creating mutual understanding and trust, reducing The first question that should be asked: misperceptions and miscalculations and thereby why do we need to ensure security and helping both to prevent military confrontation and sustainability of space environment, and to foster regional and global stability. TCBMs responsible nature of space activities? have been also seen as a facilitator in building ITU and IADC indirectly responded to confidence as to the peaceful intentions of States this question focusing on the importance of increasing understanding, enhancing clarity of satellite orbits and protected regions of outer intentions and creating conditions for establishing space. Namely, ITU specifies that satellite orbits a predictable strategic situation in both the constitute limited natural resources that are economic and security arenas. increasingly in demand. The IADC, in its turn, In that Report the GGE defined two emphasized on the value of protected regions, categories of TCBMs: stating that any activity taking place in outer space 1) dealing with capabilities; should be performed while recognising the unique 2) dealing with behaviors. nature of protected LEO and GEO regions of With focus on enhancing the transparency outer space, to ensure their future safe and of outer space activities, the report provided for: sustainable use. It has been also highlighted that
Information exchange on space these regions should be protected with regard to policies; the generation of space debris.
Information exchange and Highly vulnerable space assets provide us notifications related to outer space activities; with enormous benefits that are threatened by
Risk reduction notifications; risks from space debris, destructive collisions,
Contact and visits to space launch the crowding of satellites, the growing saturation sites and facilities. of the radio-frequency spectrum, etc. As correctly Another important soft law document noted by the European External Action Service entitled “International Code of Conduct for Outer these challenges call for committed involvement Space Activities” 5, even though still a draft, is by all space-faring and other countries to ensure considered as one of the most promising and greater safety, security, and long-term comprehensive documents of this nature that sustainability of outer space activities.2 focus on security and sustainability of outer space. The first relevant study dates back to 15 Shaped as multilateral code of conduct, it October 1993 entitled “Study on the application of is aimed at enhancing the safety, security, and confidence-building measures in outer space” sustainability of outer space activities and as (A/48/305 and Corr.1).3 It was initiated based on recommended by the aforementioned GGE Report the UNGA resolution 45/55 B of 4 December on TCBMs is perceived as a complement to 1990 that requested the UN SG with a group of international law. governmental experts to carry out a study on the Already in its preamble was specific aspects related to the application of acknowledged the need to safeguard the continued different technologies available, possibilities for peaceful and sustainable use of outer space for defining appropriate mechanisms of international current and future generations that should be cooperation in specific areas of interest. Even performed in a spirit of greater international though at that time the main emphasis was made cooperation, collaboration, openness and on “prevention of an arms race” still it was transparency. The Code recognizes the necessity acknowledged that to avoid conflicts based on of a comprehensive approach to safety, security, misperceptions and mistrust, it is imperative to and sustainability in outer space. It also notes that promote transparency and other confidence- space debris affects the sustainable use of outer building measures. space, constitutes a hazard to outer space activities The next topical study was requested and potentially limits the effective deployment almost 20 years later, namely on 8 December and utilisation of associated space capabilities. 2010, by the UNGA Resolution 65/68. Therefore it is in the shared interest of all States to Transparency and confidence-building measures reinforce international norms for responsible in outer space activities.4 This resolution provided behaviour in outer space. for a mandate to establish the Group of Under this Code the States agree to Governmental Experts (GGE) to conduct a study, establish and implement policies and procedures commencing in 2012, on outer space TCBMs. In to minimise the risk of accidents in space, 2013 the GGE Report on Transparency and collisions between space objects, or any form of Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space harmful interference with another State’s peaceful Activities has been released. The GGE considered exploration, and use, of outer space. In conducting the TCBMs as a means by which Governments outer space activities they also resolve to refrain from any action which brings about, directly or eliminate the identified risk initially triggering the indirectly, damage, or destruction, of space consultations. Any other State which has reason to objects unless such action is justified by believe that its outer space activities would be imperative safety considerations (in particular if directly affected by the identified risk may take human life or health is at risk or in order to reduce part in the consultations if it requests so, with the the creation of space debris) or by the UN Charter, consent of the State which requested consultations including the inherent right of individual or and the State which received the request. The collective self-defense. Where such exceptional States are given a right to propose the creation of, action is necessary, it should be undertaken in a on a voluntary and case-by-case basis, missions to manner so as to minimize, to the greatest extent analyse specific incidents affecting space objects, practicable, the creation of space debris and to based on objective information, with a view to take appropriate measures to minimize the risk of draw lessons for the future. These missions, to be collision. The States, guided by the principle of established by consensus by the Meeting of the cooperation and mutual assistance, consented to States and carried out by a geographically notify, in a timely manner, to the greatest extent representative group of experts, endorsed by the practicable, all potentially affected States of any involved States, should utilise information event related to the outer space activities they are provided on a voluntary basis by the States, conducting which are relevant for the purposes of subject to applicable laws and regulations. this Code, including scheduled maneuvers that One more legal initiative is held under the could pose a risk to the safety of flight of the aegis of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses space objects of other States; predicted of Outer Space and is structured as the Working conjunctions posing an apparent on-orbit collision Group on the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer risk, due to natural orbital motion, between space Space Activities. objects or between space objects and space debris; It is tasked to examine and propose pre-notification of launch of space objects; measures to ensure the safe and sustainable use of collisions, break-ups in orbit, and any other outer space for peaceful purposes and for the destruction of a space object which has taken benefit of all countries. Within the WG 4 expert place generating measurable orbital debris; groups were created to discuss specific topics and predicted high-risk re-entry events in which the develop draft guidelines: re-entering space object or residual material from A — Sustainable space utilization the re-entering space object potentially could supporting sustainable development on Earth; cause significant damage or radioactive B — Space debris, space operations and contamination; malfunctioning of space objects or tools to support space situational awareness loss of control that could result in a significantly sharing; increased probability of a high risk re-entry event C — Space weather; or a collision between space objects. Moreover, D — Regulatory regimes and guidance for the States shall provide the notifications on any new actors in the space arena. event related to the outer space activities The 33 draft guidelines have been described above to all potentially affected States consolidated in 18 draft guidelines. However the through the Central Point of Contact or through work is still ongoing. diplomatic channels; or by any other method as may be mutually determined by States. In SSA, STM and ADR notifying the Central Point of Contact, the States In the last decade three new concepts should identify, if applicable, the potentially (SSA, STM and ADR) related to secure and affected States. A State that may be directly sustainable space environment have been either affected by certain outer space activities developed, or enhanced. Understanding of their conducted by another State and has reason to content is important for placing them within the believe that those activities are or may be contrary global space governance system. to this Code may request consultations with a Space Situational Awareness permits to view to achieving mutually acceptable solutions autonomously detect, predict and assess the risk to regarding measures to be adopted in order to life and property due to man-made space debris prevent or minimize the potential significant risks objects, reentries, in-orbit explosions and release of damage to persons or property, or of harmful events, in-orbit collisions, disruption of missions interference to a State’s outer space activities. The and satellite-based service capabilities, potential consultation process will be held through impacts of Near-Earth Objects (NEOs), and the diplomatic channels or by other methods as may effects of space weather phenomena on space- and be mutually determined. It is worth noting that the ground-based infrastructure. In addition, it enables States also agree to work jointly and cooperatively to have understanding what is going on in space in a timeframe sufficiently urgent to mitigate or by acquiring the independent capability to watch for objects and natural phenomena that could orbit. Since they have already terminated their harm our infrastructure.6 mission when deploying the spacecraft it is Space Traffic Management is the set of natural that such stages are treated as non- technical and regulatory provisions for promoting functional. safe access into outer space, operations in outer It is important to be proactive in facing space and return from outer space to Earth free space debris problem since it is not limited by from physical or radio-frequency interference. It danger posed to space objects, but also constitute provides appropriate means for conducting space threat to the environment in which they operate, activities without harmful interference; supports services they provide and to the humans in space. the universal freedom to use outer space as laid In addition, the space debris problem down in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. For the leaves an open item: who has to remove space purpose of achieving a common good, actors have debris and who actually will accomplish this? to follow specific rules, which are also in their This question is followed by many more self-interest. 7 questions, namely how can we oblige someone to Active Debris Removal involves remove non-functional space object, is there any removing objects from orbit above and beyond the legally binding obligations to remove it and are currently-adopted mitigation measures. It foresees there any enforcement mechanisms for doing so? a satellite performing a rendezvous with the object The critical character of a space debris targeted for removal, initiating contact with the problem is also explained by its influence on what object, controlling its attitude, reducing orbital is happening on Earth (justified by our altitude and then removing it from orbit. However dependence on space applications). as the most significant limitations of its In a situation where there is no mandatory implementation could be seen the
lack of obligation to remove the space object from orbit transparency, coordination and willingness to and preserve space environment, no enforcement cooperate. Moreover, being mainly developed at mechanisms for implementation of space debris the beginning of the space era, the pertinent mitigation guidelines and no differentiated international legal instruments do not consider guidelines that would consider new trends, there is recent trends, are sometimes too broad and do not an explicit need to develop a clear ADR rules to provide for a differentiated approach on most deal with space debris problem if preventive issues. actions failed to be efficient. However this is complicated by fact that there is no international acceptance and recognition of ADR and so far SPACE DEBRIS MITIGATION and ADR there were no cases / precedents of its implementation. To present there is no explicit In IADC guidelines it is provided that internationally binding obligation imposed on the operators should avoid the long term presence of launching states to remove the space object from launch vehicle orbital stages in the GEO region. orbit once it is no more functional or cooperative. As regards the spacecraft that have terminated However through the array of soft law documents, their mission, they should be manoeuvred far in particular space debris mitigation guidelines, enough away from GEO so as not to cause planetary protection policies and codes of interference with spacecraft or orbital stage still in conduct, this implicit obligation can be distilled geostationary orbit. It is expected that such a and introduced as an explicit commitment to manoeuvre should place the spacecraft in an orbit remove space object from orbit upon completion above the GEO protected region.Whenever of its efficient operation. possible spacecraft or orbital stages that are The IADC Space Debris Mitigation terminating their operational phases in orbits that Guidelines 8 focus primarily on two main pass through the LEO region, or have the potential categories of non-functional man-made objects, to interfere with the LEO region, should be de- namely spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital orbited or where appropriate manoeuvred into an stages. They see spacecraft as an orbiting object orbit with a reduced lifetime. The Guidelines designed to perform a specific function or mission provide in particular for two relevant to the ADR and draw a clear distinction between those mitigation measures: de-orbiting and re-orbiting. spacecrafts that are considered functional and Both of them are interpreted through intentional non-functional. A spacecraft that can no longer changing of a spacecraft or orbital stage’s orbit; fulfil its intended mission is considered non- however the first one, i.e. de-orbiting, focus on re- functional if only it is not in reserve or standby entry of a spacecraft or orbital stage into the modes awaiting possible reactivation. As regards Earth’s atmosphere purported to eliminate the launch vehicle orbital stages, the Guidelines view hazard it poses to other spacecraft and orbital them as stages of a launch vehicle left in Earth stages, by applying a retarding force, usually via a have already been identified. Numerous studies propulsion system. indicate that, as the number and mass of space It is worth noting that during an debris increase, the primary source of new space organisation’s planning for and operation of a debris is likely to be from collisions. Collision spacecraft and/or orbital stage, the systematic avoidance procedures have already been adopted actions should be taken to reduce adverse effects by some member States and international on the orbital environment by introducing space organizations. Recognizing that an increased risk debris mitigation measures into the spacecraft or of collision could pose a threat to space orbital stage’s lifecycle, from the mission operations, the intentional destruction of any on- requirement analysis and definition phases. More orbit spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stages importantly, no program, project or experiment or other harmful activities that generate long-lived that will release objects in orbit should be planned debris should be avoided. When intentional break- unless an adequate assessment can verify that the ups are necessary, they should be conducted at effect on the orbital environment, and the hazard sufficiently low altitudes to limit the orbital to other operating spacecraft and orbital stages, is lifetime of resulting fragments. Spacecraft and acceptably low in the long-term. launch vehicle orbital stages that have terminated However the space debris mitigation their operational phases in orbits that pass through measures should focus on minimization of the the LEO region should be removed from orbit in a potential for on-orbit break-ups, avoiding controlled fashion. If this is not possible, they intentional destructions, which will generate long- should be disposed of in orbits that avoid their lived orbital debris. This is one of the key long-term presence in the LEO region. When limitations for the ADR implementation which making determinations regarding potential specifies that mitigation measures should be solutions for removing objects from LEO, due carefully designed not to create other risks. consideration should be given to ensuring that Thus when undertaking the ADR debris that survives to reach the surface of the activities two main limitations should be kept in Earth does not pose an undue risk to people or mind: 1) avoidance of intentional destruction and property, including through environmental other harmful activities and 2) prevention of on- pollution caused by hazardous substances. orbit collisions. It is specified that intentional Spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stages that destruction of a spacecraft or orbital stage and have terminated their operational phases in orbits other harmful activities that may significantly that pass through the GEO region should be left in increase collision risks to other space objects on- orbits that avoid their long-term interference with orbit should be avoided. In developing the design the GEO region. For space objects in or near the and mission profile of a spacecraft or orbital GEO region, the potential for future collisions can stage, a program or project should estimate and be reduced by leaving objects at the end of their limit the probability of accidental collision with mission in an orbit above the GEO region such known objects during the spacecraft or orbital that they will not interfere with, or return to, the stage’s orbital lifetime. GEO region. The most relevant to ADR guidelines, Similar provisions have been enshrined in namely the ones that reflect situations having a the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the high probability for implementation of this Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. 9 mechanism, are: 1) to limit the probability of The high risk of damage posed by ADR accidental collision in orbit, 2) to avoid intentional activities also requires proper consideration of destruction and other harmful activities, 3) to limit applicable liability regime. From the legal the long-term presence of spacecraft and launch perspective, when applying ADR, one should vehicle orbital stages in the LEO region after the think about possible differences in legal end of their mission and 4) to limit the long-term implications depending on contact vs. contactless interference of spacecraft and launch vehicle removal. Deriving from the Liability Convention, orbital stages with the GEO region after the end of launching state, when in outer space, is liable only their mission. if the damage is due to its fault or the fault of The probability of accidental collision persons for whom it is responsible. Therefore, in with known objects during the system’s launch case of contactless removal the fault will be less phase and orbital lifetime should be estimated and evident and therefore more challenging to prove. limited already at the time of developing the Despite all possible justifications to apply design and mission profile of spacecraft and the ADR, it cannot be implemented without launch vehicle stages. If available orbital data reaching agreement with states related to non- indicate a potential collision, adjustment of the functional / non-cooperative space object – target launch time or an on-orbit avoidance manoeuvre object to be removed. Two optional approaches should be considered. Some accidental collisions could be suggested: to identify all objects in orbit that can be impacted by ADR activities and to UN COPUOS 11 is the only committee of hold preliminary consultations with all concerned the UNGA dealing exclusively with international parties (mainly launching states) or to inform the cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space. Its UN Secretary-General about the planned ADR role as a forum to monitor and discuss setting a deadline for concerned States to get in developments related to the exploration and use of touch with “interested in ADR States” expressing outer space has evolved alongside with the their will to hold consultations. technical advancements in space exploration, Aside from this, the continuing legal geopolitical changes, and the evolving use of relationship between the object and launching space science and technology for sustainable states together with extension of their jurisdiction development. The overall mandate of the over the object once launched in the outer space Committee and its two Subcommittees aims at should be taken into account. In the context of strengthening the international legal regime hazardous nature of ADR activities, the issue of governing outer space, resulting in improved authorization, supervision and control should be conditions for expanding international cooperation considered to ensure that ADR falls under the in the peaceful uses of outer space. The mandate legal scope and therefore cannot be interpreted as also specifies that the Committee should support an “international wrongful act”. efforts at the national, regional and global levels, including those of entities of the United Nations GLOBAL SPACE GOVERNANCE system and international space-related entities, to maximize the benefits of the use of space science The Montreal Declaration dated and technology and their applications. It aims to 31.05.2014 (McGill) 10 recognized that current increase coherence and synergy in international global space governance system that was created cooperation in space activities at all levels. during the 1960s and 1970s has not been ITU 12 is the UN specialized agency for comprehensively examined by the international information and communication technologies – community since its establishment. The concept ICTs that allocates global radio spectrum and of global governance is comprehensive and satellite orbits, develops the technical standards includes a wide range of codes of conduct, that ensure networks and technologies seamlessly TCBMs, safety concepts, international interconnect and strives to improve access to ICTs institutions, international treaties and other to underserved communities worldwide. agreements, regulations, procedures and In its turn the UNIDIR (UN Institute for standards. The Declaration drew attention to the Disarmament Research) 13 is an autonomous numerous developments that have occurred in the institute within the UN that generates ideas and world in general, and in space sector in particular, promotes action on disarmament and security, with serious implications for current and future assists the international community in developing space activities and for sustainable use of space the practical, innovative thinking needed to find for peaceful purposes for the benefit of all solutions to the challenges of today and tomorrow humankind. and in finding and implementing solutions to Thus the Global Space Governance can be disarmament and security challenges, seeks to seen as a movement towards political integration contribute to conflict prevention and promote the of transnational actors aimed at negotiating development of a peaceful and prosperous world responses to space-related problems that affect and strives to anticipate new security challenges more than one state and tends to involve and threats and to elaborate possible methods to institutionalization. This raises questions as to the address them before they become critical. possibility for the UN to be considered as an As regards the IAEA (International institution of global space governance and the Atomic Energy Agency) 14 it is positioned as an powers such institution (e.g. UN OOSA, ITU, independent intergovernmental, science and UNIDIR, IAEA etc.) will have in relevant context. technology-based UN organization, in the United The consideration should go in parallel with Nations family, that serves as the global focal understanding that the global space governance point for nuclear cooperation; assists its Member also provides for an acceleration of States, in the context of promoting the safe, secure interdependence on a worldwide space arena and and peaceful use of nuclear technologies social the term itself may also be used to name the and economic goals, in planning for and using process of designating space laws, rules, or nuclear science and technology for various regulations intended for a global scale. Therefore peaceful purposes, including the generation of the Governance requires reflection on the issues: electricity, and facilitates the transfer of such Who is governing? What is the focus area? What technology and knowledge in a sustainable are its existing instruments and methods applied? manner to developing Member States; develops What are the limitations? nuclear safety standards and, based on these standards, promotes the achievement and • Holding of fora;
maintenance of high levels of safety in • Establishment of working groups; applications of nuclear energy, as well as the • Development of new cooperative protection of human health and the environment actions and initiatives. against ionizing radiation; verifies through its inspection system that States comply with their CONCLUDING REMARKS commitments, under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and other non-proliferation agreements, to use Nowadays we can observe many parallel nuclear material and facilities only for peaceful legal initiatives and other non-legal actions purposes. focusing on enhancing the secure, sustainable and To the main focus areas of the global responsible space. However their efficiency will space governance refer space activities, space be reduced if implemented in uncoordinated way environment, space objects and human in space. not falling under the scope of global space The global space governance should also cover governance. Even though this must cause many such emerging space threats as risks posed by discussions as regards pros and cons of dangerous space debris, nuclear power source centralization vs. decentralization and the applications in outer space, destructive collisions, potential risk of usurpation of space authorities in crowding of satellites and growing saturation of “one hands”, we are of the view that the global the radiofrequency spectrum. space governance should be implemented for the Existing legal instruments for space purposes of coordination, avoiding useless governance are binding and nonbinding, wherein duplications and hazardous contradictory actions. the TCBMs are playing the growing role. Even To conclude, we are not talking about though the TCBMs refer to the soft law, they have “governing” stricto sensu, creating a centralized a potential to become a hard law. space superpower, but rather about assisting space Methods applied in space governance: actors to cooperate and coordinate, having a • Bottom – up approach for law- holistic picture and understanding of what has making (collection of best practices and already been done, what is happening and what is development of recommendations, principles, planned to be realized. rules of conducts etc.);

1 Outer Space Treaty 1967 // http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html

2 European External Action Service // http://eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/outer-space- activities/index_en.htm

3 Study on the application of confidence-building measures in outer space // http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/48/305

4 UNGA Resolution 65/68. Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities // http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/65/68

5 DRAFT International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities, version 31 March 2014 // http://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/pdf/space_code_conduct_draft_vers_31-march- 2014_en.pdf

6 SSA // http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Space_Situational_Awareness/About_SSA

7 STM // https://iaaweb.org/iaa/Studies/spacetraffic.pdf

8 IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines 2002 // http://www.iadc-online.org/index.cgi?item=docs_pub

9 Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 2007 // http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/st_space_49E.pdf

10 Montreal Declaration 2014 // https://www.mcgill.ca/iasl/files/iasl/montreal-declaration-2nd-manfred-lachs- conference.pdf

11 UN COPUOS // http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html

12 ITU // http://www.itu.int/en/about/Pages/default.aspx

13 UNIDIR // http://www.unidir.org/

14 IAEA // https://www.iaea.org/