Hofstra University Model United Nations Conference

Home , Operation Ocean Shield, Pirate haven

United Nations General Assembly First Committee

Disarmament and International Security (DISEC)

Nora Heidel Chairperson

Chair’s Welcome

Dear Delegates,

Hello, and welcome to the Disarmament and International Security committee! My name is Nora Heidel and it is an honor to be serving as your Chair for the Hofstra Model United Nations Conference!

I am currently a Sophomore at Hofstra University, with a double major in Anthropology and Criminology. Originally from Connecticut, I joined Model UN during my Freshman of high school due to an interest in international affairs. I grew to love it and continued with Model UN for the rest of my high school career. I have attended conferences hosted by Yale University and the University of Connecticut, among others, and served on the secretariat of our high school conference. This is my first year participating in Hofstra Model UN. Apart from Model UN, I am an active member of other clubs here at Hofstra, including the anthropology club and the crew team. My main non-academic interests involve running and listening to music.

I am very excited to be serving as Chair for DISEC, as these types of issues are some of my favorite to discuss. For this conference, we will be examining space disarmament and global maritime piracy for these are pressing issues that the international community is facing today. I hope that these topics prove to be challenging and stimulating for you. I encourage you to utilize the background guide as a starting point for your research, and then to delve deeper into these topics. If you have any questions at all about the committee please do not hesitate to email me. I am very excited to meet all of you and I hope that you have a great conference!

Sincerely,

Nora Heidel

Chair, Disarmament and International Security Committee [email protected]

Introduction to the Disarmament and International Security Committee

The First Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations, also known as the Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC), deals with

“disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that affect the international community and seeks out solutions to the challenges in the international security regime.”1 According to Chapter 4, Article 11 of the Charter of the United Nations, the primary purpose and aim of the General Assembly is to:

Consider the general principles of co-operation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments, and may make recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or to the Security Council or to both.2

With this as the General Assembly’s charge, DISEC thus considers all matters of disarmament and international security under the purview of the committee. To achieve its ultimate goals of reducing the level of armaments around the globe and promoting cooperative approaches to international security, the committee works closely with the

United Nations Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament.

It is my hope that this HUMUNC committee will engage the important tasks of

DISEC and be diligent in finding ways to foster constructive discussion and successful passing effective resolutions on two important topics of international security: global maritime piracy and space disarmament.

It is clear that global maritime piracy is an important issue that needs attending to immediately. The world has seen a rapid surge in piracy since 2006, especially from pirates operating off the coast of Somalia. Because Somalia is what some would label a

“failed state,” the Somali government currently does not have the strength to control its 3 own territorial waters. As a result, some Somali citizens, who have very few other economic opportunities, have turned to the business of piracy. These pirates are known to hijack and capture foreign vessels and even take hostages for ransom.

The international community has taken a variety of actions to address this issue.

For example, the European Union launched Operation Atalanta, which coordinates the navies of ten different European nation navies to patrol the Somali waters. NATO commenced Operation Ocean Shield whose aims include aiding sovereign states in developing and enhancing their efforts in battling piracy. The UN itself has in the past attempted to address some of the root causes of state failure and piracy. There have also been a multitude of UN Security Council resolutions on the problem of piracy. These efforts, however, have not stopped the problem and there is much the international community – and this committee – must do to help end rampant piracy.

Space disarmament, the second issue of the committee, is also a significant problem facing the international community today. Though gaining knowledge about space is vital, the international community has made clear that weapons do not have a place in space. For example, the Outer Space Treaty came into force in 1967, and banned weapons of mass destruction in space as well as established rules on how to responsibility use and explore outer space. As technology has progressed, however, it has become clear that agreements like the Outer Space Treaty need to be updated to, for example, prevent other types of weapons being introduced into space. Although there have been many working papers and efforts to construct new treaties, none have been successful. This committee must find a way to protect the wishes of the international community by ensuring the continued demilitarized nature of space. 4

Topic A: Global Maritime Piracy

Introduction

In recent years, maritime piracy has become an issue for the international community. There are currently four global piracy hotspots: the Gulf of Aden near

Somalia; the Gulf of Guinea near Nigeria and the Niger River delta; the Malacca Straight between Indonesia and Malaysia; and between India and Sri Lanka. Piracy emanating from Somalia has become particularly problematic and is, “by far the greatest global piracy threat.”3 A particularly dramatic attack in 2008 drew the attention of the international community. Somali pirates captured a French yacht and, after a ransom was paid and the hostages were freed, French commandos attacked the pirates.4 Six pirates were captured and eventually sentenced by a French court for their crimes.5

Since this episode, the international community has stepped efforts to combat maritime piracy. Still, the problem has not abated. In 2009, the Maersk Alabama, a U.S. cargo ship, was hijacked and eventually freed by U.S. military forces. In 2010, the

Samho Dream, a South Korean supertanker carrying oil from Iraq to the US and the largest vessel taken by pirates to date, was hijacked 600 miles off the coast of Somalia.

The ship and its crew of 24 was held hostage for 217 days before being released after a ransom of $9 million was paid.6 In early 2011, pirates off the coast of Oman hijacked a yacht carrying four Americans. The American hostages were killed as they were about to be rescued by US Special Forces. Two pirates were killed during the altercation and fifteen were detained.7 The increasing frequency and boldness of piracy attacks in recent years demonstrates the growing capabilities of modern pirates. It is clear the 5 international community must do more to combat piracy by implementing more effective security measures as well as address the root causes of piracy in failed states such as

Somalia.

Customary international law has long applied to piracy. Seen as enemies of all states, pirates have traditionally been considered outlaws who are subject to the jurisdiction of any state under this system of unwritten customary law.8 The United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, however, codified much of this customary law in 1982. According to Article 101, piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

With this wide-ranging definition of piracy, the international community has established a system to combat the problem of piracy. However, given the recent up surge in piracy especially off the coast of Somalia, it is clear that the international community must do more to keep the oceans free of piracy.

History of the Issue

Maritime piracy has been a problem faced by nations for more than 2000 years.

Beginning in ancient Greece, individuals labeled as “sea robbers” were deemed a threat to trading routes. People who were considered “Vikings”, which itself means

“Scandinavian sea-raider,” were infamous for attacking shipping vessels whose settlements were located on the coast. Worldwide pirate actions were at their peak from

1620-1720, also known as the Golden Age of Piracy.10 This era produced many well known pirates, such as Jack Rackham, also know as Calico Jack, who created and flew the black and white “jolly roger” pirate flag.11 Maybe the most well known pirate during this time period was the ill-famed Edward Teach, also known as Blackbeard, who primarily used fear and intimidation to plunder vessels.12

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, European Imperial navies made a large effort to eliminate piracy worldwide. In the classic law of nations, pirates were considered to be both criminals and military enemies. This meant that pirates could be captured and tried; if found on the high seas, they could be attacked and killed. Nations who captured pirates had the choice of dealing with them militarily or criminally, and were allowed to conduct shipboard proceedings, for international law recognized that returning pirates to a port for trial could be burdensome. The international efforts to abolish piracy were effective, and the pirate lifestyle was considered almost eradicated by the early 20th century. Indeed, piracy had decreased so drastically that, until the post-Cold War period, it was no long considered a serious threat to the international community.

The rise of piracy in the Cold War period can be attributed to several factors. The end of the Cold War resulted in a reduction of the size and tours of international navies. 7

The decrease of navies combined with an increase in international sea-going trade made organized piracy easier to execute and potentially more profitable. In addition, the increased incidence of “failed states” – that is, states without the capacity to control their own territory and borders – also gave potential pirates an opportunity to operate without the deterrent threat of potential state action to capture and punish them.

Current Situation

In 2011 alone, there were 439 attacks by pirates reported worldwide. While there are other piracy hotspots around the world such as in West Africa and Southeast Asia, more than half of the 2011 attacks were by Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden, the Red

Sea, the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean, and surrounding areas.13 Data for 2012 show a decrease in the overall number of attacks by Somali pirates, but with scores of piracy related events occurring it is clear the international community must continue to work on the issue.14

Somalia has become a haven for pirates for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, the collapse of the Somali government in 1991 ushered in an era of great instability and economic dislocation in the already poor state. The humanitarian disaster that followed the government collapse led the UN to send a mission to Somalia in 1992 to restore order and provide relief supplies. Having failed in this mission, UN forces left in

1995. Even though there have been multiple efforts by the international community, regional organization, and individual states to address the situation, Somalia has seen nearly non-stop strive since. In the twenty-year civil war Somalia has endured, it is 8 estimated one million Somalis have died. In 2011 alone, 50,000-100,000 people died due to the effects of drought, famine, and continued conflict in Somalia.15

The inability to establish effective governance in Somalia has not only led to this humanitarian catastrophe, but also helped create opportunities for piracy to flourish.

Indeed, the growth of piracy off the coast of Somalia in the Gulf of Aden closely tracks the collapse of Somali government authority. Taking advantage of the absence of Somali authority off the countries coast after 1991, commercial fishing fleets entered the area and, in effect, robbed local fisherman of their livelihoods. In an effort to protect their income, Somali fisherman began arming themselves and levying “fines” against the illegal fleets. Given the dire conditions the Somali economy, the income from this activity soon outpaced the income Somalis could make from fishing.16 According to one observer, by the mid-2000s many Somali fisherman had become full-time pirates.17 With no central government to stop such actively, piracy has consequently thrived off the coast

4,000 mile-long coast of this failed state.

With few other opportunities given the state of the economy in Somalia, piracy has proven quite attractive for some individuals. The large ransoms often paid by owners of captured ships have made pirates some of the wealthiest individuals in Somali society.18 To compound the situation, many individuals in Somalia do not see piracy as a major problem. Ordinary Somalis face more pressing concerns everyday, including hunger, poverty, the constant threat of war and terrorism, and the brutality of extremist groups such as the Al-Shabaab, which is a franchise of the militant Islamist group al-

Qaeda.19 9

While piracy causes specific problems for states like Somalia, the entire international community feels the impact of piracy through the significant costs it imposes on the global economy. According to one estimate, the direct cost of pirate activity is $7-12 billion per year.20 These costs include ransoms for captured ships, increased security for commercial ships, potential re-routing to avoid pirate infested waters, increased insurance premiums, potential shipping delays, and the negative impacts on fishing and tourism. As just one example, customers would see longer delivery times and therefore increased costs if more shipping traffic is diverted to the longer but safer passage around the southernmost tip of Africa rather than use the Suez

Canal that forces a passage through the pirate haven of the Gulf of Aden. Recent actions by major shipping firms indicate that piracy is already having a major impact on the global economy.21 If the problem worsens, piracy may also have the potential to add to the uncertainty over already unpredictable oil prices, possibly leading to further economic instability.

UN and Other International Actions

Piracy resulting from failed states such as Somalia creates enormous difficulties for the international community. Individual state efforts and coordinated international actions have been employed to fight piracy as the international community has come to realize the rising danger of piracy in the past few years. So far, these efforts have failed to put a halt to pirate activities. Almost none have addressed the primary cause of piracy in the region: the instability and chaos in Somalia. 10

Individual nations with strong naval capabilities have taken various actions, from defending commercial vessels, to staging rescues of hostages and capturing pirates, to attacking the pirate ships. Cases of recent pirate altercations include one on April 1, 2010.

The USS Nicholas captured a pirate mother ship and sank a pirate skiff (small boat) off the coast of Somalia.22 Five pirates were apprehended and then later convicted sentenced by a Federal Court in Virginia to life in prison followed by a consecutive 80 years in prison.23 The United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Russia, Japan and other nations all have naval vessels that have acted individually to fight pirate activities and protect important commercial sea lanes in the region off the coast of Somalia.

Countries such as Russia, Japan, Pakistan, and Malaysia, have all offered to contribute to coordinated efforts to fight piracy. China even deployed its naval force to another region for the first time in order to combat piracy.

In addition to individual national actions, the international community has been progressively organizing its reaction to piracy. In 2008, the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO) launched its first ever mission against pirates, sending four vessels to patrol Somali waters, mainly protecting UN food aid groups headed to Somalia. In

2009, NATO commenced Operation Ocean Shield in order to aid the international effort in combating piracy off the Horn of Africa. In addition to a principle focus on at-sea counter piracy operations such as helicopter surveillance to trace and identify ships at sea, this ongoing operation also aids states in the region in developing and enhancing their efforts in battling piracy.24

The European Union has been conducting similar actions. Operation Atalanta commenced on December 8, 2008. The mission has kept 5-10 warships of the European 11

Union Naval Force (EU NAVFOR) and 2-3 Maritime Patrol Aircrafts patrolling the Horn of Africa.25 Under mandate from the United Nations Security Council, Operation

Atalanta includes:

• The protection of vessels of the World Food Programme (WFP) delivering food aid to displaced persons in Somalia; the protection of African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) shipping;

• The deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast;

• The protection of vulnerable shipping off the Somali coast on a case by case basis;

• In addition, EU NAVFOR – ATALANTA shall also contribute to the monitoring of fishing activities off the coast of Somalia.26

The UN has supported individual state and international organization efforts to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia and surrounding areas. The UN Security Council has issued a number of resolutions that have targeted piracy off the coast of Somalia since 2008. On June 2, 2008, the UN Security Council unanimously approved Resolution

1816, which, with the permission of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia, would last for 6 months. Under this resolution, all countries cooperating with Somalia could enter Somalia’s waters and utilize all necessary means in combating pirate activity, while still following international law.27 This Security Council action addressed a shortcoming in the UNCOLS, which applies only to open oceans, by allowing states to operate within territorial waters and giving these states tremendous leeway in the use of force pursuant to the Security Council’s Chapter VII powers.28

Other Security Council action followed this, all of which built upon Resolution

1816. Resolution 1838 asked all nations with military capacity in the area to actively 12 fight piracy on the high seas of the Somali coast.29 Resolution 1846 authorized regional organizations to use all necessary means” to fight piracy off the Somalia coast.30

Resolution 1851 authorized states to use land-based operations in Somalia to combat maritime piracy.31 On November 22, 2011, the Security Council passed resolution 2020 that called for the united effort of the international community in combating piracy and the creation and implementation of solutions to causes linked to pirate activity. The resolution also requested that any country or organization that had the ability to send naval vessels and aircrafts to seize any boats, vessels or weapons suspected in serving pirate activities, as well as to help strengthen the country of Somalia.32

It is clear that the Security Council has been active on the issue of piracy, at least since 2008. Still, most of these actions have had limited success. And most international efforts to fight piracy have not dealt with continued instability in Somalia, a root cause of the problem. Further action by the international community is required to further stamp out the problem of piracy off the coast of Somalia as well as address the causes of the problem in Somali society.

In addition to action on specific actions to deal with pirates operating off the coast of Somalia, there are international legal issues the international community should address. There is some controversy on the status of capture pirates and under which state’s jurisdiction they fall. Customary international law and UNCLOS may suggest that any country may prosecute pirates that they apprehend because pirates have always been viewed as “hostis humani generis,” or enemy of mankind. But this in fact raises a few issues. First, a ship that under pirate attack may be sailing under more than one nation’s flag, raising the question of which country should prosecute any captured pirates. Second, 13 pirates are not sanctioned by their own countries and, if tried, would not be defended by anyone, which is a violation of modern human rights. States have developed some procedures on this lately. France and the United States, for example, have prosecuted captured pirates in their national courts. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, has signed an agreement to hand over all pirates capture for trial in Kenya.33 Though these may be positive steps, the international community should develop a more robust system to ensure that captured pirates are tried according to international legal standards of justice.

Bloc Positions on Maritime Piracy

China: China, being a victim of pirate attacks, is no longer standing idly by. With significant increases in naval capabilities in the last few years, China increasingly has the ability defend their vessels in the Gulf of Aden.34 As such, when its vessels have been subject to pirate attacks, China has recently been much more aggressive in attempting to rescue the ship and any hostages that may have been taken. In a rare joint military exercise that emphasizes the importance of gaining a measure of control over the piracy problem, China and the United States carried out joint anti-piracy drills in September

2012 off the Horn of Africa.35

Russia: Russia has been actively involved in the fight against piracy since 2008, when it joined the international anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden as well as other pirate- infested waters. Russian warships have successfully guided hundreds of vessels from various countries through these waters. Recently, Russia has called for the creation of a special UN juridical body to try any captured pirates.36 14

United States: The United States has also taken an active role to help combat global piracy and especially piracy off the coast of Somalia. According to the State Department, the U.S. goal is to help Somalia to “regain stability, eliminate terrorism, and respond to the humanitarian needs of its people.”37 The U.S. has taken part of operations led by

NATO and the EU and has worked within the UN Security Council to craft resolutions that deal with the issue of piracy.

European Union: Member nations of the European Union have clearly taken a firm stance against global maritime piracy. It was the goal of the EU to take a comprehensive approach to the situation by attacking both the problem and the root causes of the issue, as well as protecting its own citizens from any threat. The EU launched Operation

Atalanta as well as several other initiatives to aid the fight against piracy. In 2011, the EU created a Strategic Framework for the Horn of Africa, emphasizing that the EU will work in partnership with states and organizations in the infested region, most importantly the

African Union and other international partners.38 The EU is also active in UN Security

Council Resolutions and other initiatives.39

Asia: Having fallen victim to pirate attacks, many Asian member states have been steadily increasing their role in international anti-piracy operations. China, Japan, India and South Korea have become noticeable players in the fight against piracy in the Gulf of

Aden and have coordinated with other states in anti-piracy operations. With the regions rapid economic expansion, Africa and the area of intense pirate activity off the Somali coast has become a vital interests of many Asian nations.40

Africa: Piracy is a huge problem in Africa. A large proportion of piracy attacks occur off of the Horn of Africa. But there has also been a rise in piracy in West Africa, particularly 15 off the coast of Nigeria in the Gulf of Guinea.41 Constrained by a lack of resources,

African countries have been accepting the help of other nations wishing to aid in anti- piracy measures but could also use increased international support to attack the root causes of piracy in the region.

Middle East: Because of proximity to pirate havens, many countries in the Middle East, such as Yemen, Lebanon, and United Arab Emirates, have been victimized by piracy in the region. Taking an active stance, some states in the region tried captured pirates in their national courts but the issues of jurisdiction, prosecution, and incarceration of pirates have complicated the region’s response.42

Issues/Questions a Resolution Could Address

• How can the international community address piracy off of the coast of Somalia?

• Would a new international maritime force authorized by the UN better combat piracy off of the Horn of Africa?

• Can the UN sanction the use of lethal force against pirates?

• How can the UN address the root causes of piracy?

• How can the UN deal with the economic side effects of global piracy?

• How should the UN deal with the legal and jurisdictional questions regarding the status of captured pirates? Where and by whom should they be tried?

Topic B: Space Disarmament

Introduction

The international community is facing ongoing complications with the issue of space disarmament. Presently outer space can be utilized for several positive things: peaceful exploration, broadening the world’s knowledge of this new frontier, as well as advancing technology. On the other hand, outer space has the potential to be utilized as a stage for an arms race. As individual nations become more advanced, many want to develop space programs for research, but may also be tempted to develop space programs for military purposes. The latter is a clear threat to the international community.

Moreover, the recent introduction of new technologies and potentially new types of space-capable weapons has further threatened the international community’s desire to ensure the peaceful nature of space. The debate about the steps required to prevent the militarization of space thus is an ongoing battle at the United Nations.

History and Scope of the Problem

Shortly after the launch of the first artificial satellite and during the beginnings of the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, the UN took its first step toward ensuring the peaceful use of space. The United Nations Committee on the

Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS) was created in 1959 by General Assembly

Resolution 1472 to be a focal point of international cooperation on space issues.

COPOUS is to “review the scope of international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space, to devise programs in this field to be undertaken under United Nations 17 auspices, to encourage continued research and the dissemination of information on outer space matters, and to study the legal problems arising from the exploration of space.”43

Since its creation, COPUOS has aided in the construction of several important treaties regarding the use of space.44 The first and to date most important one is the

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of

Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, more commonly known as the Outer Space Treaty.

The Outer Space Treaty was created in 1967 and served to provide a framework for international space law. The main points and aims of the treaty can be expressed in several of its articles:

Article I: The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries…

Article II: Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Article IV: State Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner … The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.

Article VIII: A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body.45

In short, it is forbidden for any signatory to place nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction into space, or to utilize outer space for militant purposes. The treaty expresses that the moon and any other celestial body is to be used for peaceful purposes and that no 18 nation can claim sovereignty over the moon or any other body in space. However, if a nation launches an object into space, that state has full control over that object.

Another treaty involving UN member state actions in outer space is the

Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, also known as the Moon Treaty. Signed in 1979, this treaty turns authority of all celestial bodies over to the international community. This means that no one state can claim sovereignty over any celestial body, and that any space activity must obey international law.46 Simply put, both the Moon Treaty and the Outer Space condemn the sending and utilization of weapons or any other type of force in outer space.

In addition to these two critical treaties, there are at least three other UN- sponsored treaties that deal with issues involving astronauts and the return of objects from space, liability for damage caused by space objects, and registration of objects launched into space.47 But none of these additional treaties, like the Outer Space and

Moon Treaties, have been able to address all of the concerns of the international community when it comes to the peaceful use of space. One issue is just the sheer number of signatories to the most important treaties. The Outer Space Treaty has had only 100 nations sign on, and the Moon Treaty has the dismally low number of 17 nations agreeing to abide by the treaty.

While these treaties have admirable goals, they limited by the way in which the militarization of space is discussed and, as a result, cannot adequately address new technologies that could threaten the weaponization of space. That is, these treaties are in danger of failing ensure the admirable goal of preventing the militarization of space.

Currently, only nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are prevented from being 19 deployed, tested, or used in outer space. No other type of weapon is discussed or clearly banned in these legal documents. Moreover, there is no treaty that bans the bans the launching of nuclear weapons on intercontinental ballistic missiles that travel through space. The treaties also do not explicitly prohibit member states using force against another country’s property in outer space.

In an effort to address some of these shortcomings, in 2006 the United Nations proposed the Space Preservation Treaty, which would ban all space weapons and space warfare proliferation. The treaty would also call for the termination of all research, testing, and production of space weapons. Only peaceful space exploration and utilization would be allowed, enforced by an outer space peacekeeping committee to help impose the permanent weapons ban.48 The main goals this is to prevent an arms race in outer space. Ultimately, the Space Preservation Treaty fell flat because many states objected to multiple provisions within the document. The United States and Israel, for example, notably abstained from the vote on the basis that the treaty didn’t define “space weapon” well enough, leaving much room for interpretation.49

The need for such a treat to ban all space weapons has been made evident with two recent events. In January of 2007, China caused alarm regarding control of space when, without alerting the international community, it shot down one of its weather satellites with a missile from the ground. The following year, the United States Navy launched a missile to destroy a non-operational spy satellite.50 These activities clearly introduce weapons into space and essentially militarize space; just not in the manner existing treaties had envisioned. 20

Such occurrences bring to the fore issues that the international community should address when it comes to the peaceful use of outer space. The destruction of satellites causes an incredible amount of debris to be dispersed into space. Debris takes hundreds of years to settle, and has the potential to destroy satellites and endanger astronauts.51 As it relates to diplomacy and promoting international harmony, these types of activities promote distrust between states. Specifically, the issue of states not informing other nations of their actions in space ahead of time needs to be solved. Nation’s activities in space should be monitored and made known to the international community in order to prevent an arms race in space and create global cooperation in disarming outer space.52

Other Relevant UN and Bilateral Treaties Regarding Space

Beyond the establishment of COPUOS in 1959 and 1967 Outer Space and the

1979 Moon Treaties, there have been multiple other efforts to control activities in space.

These have been both UN-sponsored and bilateral in nature. All have important elements that deal with the peaceful use of space.

On August 5, 1963 the Partial Test Ban treaty was opened for signatures in order to ban nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, outer space and under water. Eventually ratified by 113 nations, the treaty banned the testing of nuclear weapons everywhere but underground and was an important step in slowing down the nuclear arms race. Ensuring safe testing of new devices and preventing release of nuclear debris were the main goals of this treaty. While this treaty had the most direct impact on the nuclear weapons powers at the time, the no arms control measure prior to this has garnered as much support in the international community.53 21

On a bilateral basis, the United States and former USSR signed the first treaty to develop from the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I) on May 26, 1972.54 The

SALT I limitations on offensive nuclear missiles were significant, and relate to space as the strategic arms they deal with are intercontinental ballistic missiles that travel through space. At the same time as the SALT I negotiations, the U.S. and Soviet Union also agreed to the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, which explicitly banned space-based

ABM systems.55 Taken together, the two treaties aimed to improve the relationship between the U.S. and Soviet Union by way of decreasing offensive and defensive capabilities in a way that could build trust between the competing states. In 1979, a second round of SALT talks resulted in a second treaty, SALT II. This set further limits of strategic offensive arms between the former USSR and the United States.56

While some movement on space-related issues had clearly taken place, by 1984 the UN General Assembly decided that any documents created that were to revolve around outer space and the prevention of an arms race needed to be fully detailed and comprehensive. Furthermore, the General Assembly pushed the Conference on

Disarmament to intensify its efforts to prevent arms races, especially in space. As a result of this effort, in 1985 the Conference on Disarmament created an ad hoc committee called the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS). PAROS reaffirmed the principles of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty but, recognizing the weaknesses of existing legal instruments, called for measures additional measures to guarantee the absents of all kinds of weapons in space. The Conference on Disarmament began work on a PAROS

Treaty, but little progress was made. Mostly due to Western opposition, the committee was dissolved in 1994.57 22

In 1996, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was established and adopted by the

UN. This treaty bans all nuclear explosions from all environments, thus bolstering the

1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty and the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, both of which had already outlawed nuclear weapons in space. As of January 2013, the treaty has still not taken effect as several “nuclear capable” states specified in the treaty have not yet ratified the document. The treaty will only commence after all remaining nuclear capable states such as India, Pakistan, and North Korea have signed the treaty.58

Block Positions:

China: China has been one of the major players in the initiative to prevent a nuclear arms race in outer space. China has led several working papers that revolve around the disarming of space. Specifically, it presented a draft Treaty on the Prevention of the

Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and the Threat or Use of Force against Outer

Space Objects, which would prevent the introduction of any weapons into space, to the

Conference on Disarmament in February 2008.59 Given the work on this draft treaty that dates back to 2002 and China’s other efforts regarding the prevention of weapons in space, the unannounced launch of the anti-satellite in January 2007 came as a shock to the entire international community. But even after this dramatic show of force in space,

China has continued to push the creation of a comprehensive plan and solution for space disarmament.

Russia: Russia has become one of the world’s biggest supporters permanent disarming of outer space. In October of 2004, Russia became the first country to pledge that it would not be the first to use weapons of any kind in space, and has consistently supported a 23 suspension on testing anti-satellite systems.60 Moreover, Russia China’s co-sponsor in presenting the draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer

Space and the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects to the Conference on

Disarmament in February 2008. One important aim of Russia with regard to pushing for this a new treaty was that it could make clear that current international law does not ban non-mass destruction weapons from being deployed in space.61

United States: The United States continues to vote unfavorably on resolutions related to preventing the weaponization of space and related issues. For example, the U.S. continually refuses to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Moreover, the U.S. objects to efforts such as China and Russia draft Treaty on the Prevention of the

Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and the Threat or Use of Force against Outer

Space Objects, stating that it prefers to focus on short-term and voluntary measures to

“strengthen the long-term sustainability, stability, safety, and security of the space environment.”62 The U.S. also votes against the otherwise overwhelmingly supported

PAROS treaty initiative.

European Union: The European Union has consistently been a united body on this issue.

The EU has supported initiatives that would draw up guidelines for conduct and behavior in space. Indeed, the EU has put forth a draft Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities that addresses issues such as space debris and aims to promote a set of best practices in space.63

Asia: Asian member states have never opposed any treaty designed for the protection of space. Until 2007 these states seemed more interested in the discussion of general disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation than space-specific disarmament. When China 24 launched an anti-satellite in 2007, however, other Asian states became immediately concerned with the disarmament of space.

Africa: While African member states typically cast their votes affirmatively for resolutions dealing with the issue of space disarmament, they are rare at the forefront of debate. However, many African nations are interested in the particular aspects of the treaties, in as much as they have concerns that any such treaty could limit their future potential for a national space program.

Middle East: The Middle East as a whole wants to encourage the security of space. Arab nations of the Middle East have taken this topic as an opportunity to oppose Israel in front of the international community since Israel abstains from most space related documents. Because of this, the Middle East is uneasy and worried that Israel may pose as a threat in utilizing nuclear weapons.

Questions / Issues a Resolution Could Address

• Are existing treaties on space disarmament effective? Could they be altered in ways to make them stronger? Should new treaties be written?

• How can the U.N. better enforce existing treaties regarding space disarmament?

• How should the UN address the issue of anti-satellite weapons, such as the ones tested by the China in 2007 and the U.S. in 2008?

• How can the UN promote a sound balance between the potential risks and rewards of utilizing space?

• Is the international community safe from a nuclear arms race? If so, how do we maintain that safety? If not, what steps does the international community need to take?

1 “General Assembly of the United Nations: Disarmament and International Security,” http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/.

2 "Charter, United Nations, Chapter IV: The General Assembly," http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter4.shtml.

3 Alessi, Christopher, “Combatting Maritime Piracy,” Council on Foreign Relations, March 23, 2012, http://www.cfr.org/france/combating-maritime-piracy/p18376.

4 “French Commandos Seize Somali Pirates After Yacht Hostages Freed,” The Independent. April 12, 2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/french- commandos-seize-somali-pirates-after-yacht-hostages-freed-808224.html.

5 “French Courts Jail Six Somali Pirates for Kidnapping Couple.” The Independent, December 1, 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-courts-jail- six-somali-pirates-for-kidnapping-couple-6270271.html

6 "Somali Pirates Get Hefty Ransom," Al Jazeera English, November 7, 2010, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2010/11/2010116231624431468.html.

7 "4 Americans Seized By Pirates Found Dead On Yacht." National Public Radio, February 22, 2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/02/22/133961448/4-americans-seized-by- pirates-found-dead-on-yacht.

8 Kontrovich, Eugene, “Piracy and International Law,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, February 8, 2009, http://jcpa.org/article/piracy-and-international-law/.

9 "Preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea," http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm.

10 "Piracy." A Brief History of Piracy, http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_piracy.htm.

11 "Calico Jack Rackham - John Rackham." The Pirate King, http://www.thepirateking.com/bios/rackham_calico_jack.htm.

12 "Biography of Edward ‘Blackbeard’ Teach,” About.com: Latin American History, http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/historyofthecaribbean/a/Biography-Of-Edward- Blackbeard-Teach.htm.

13 Alessi, Christopher, “Combatting Maritime Piracy,” Council on Foreign Relations, March 23, 2012, http://www.cfr.org/france/combating-maritime-piracy/p18376.

14 "IMB Reports Drop in Somali Piracy, but Warns against Complacency." International Chamber of Commerce: Commercial Crime Services, October 22, 2012, http://www.icc- ccs.org/news/811-imb-reports-drop-in-somali-piracy-but-warns-against-complacency.

15 Baugh, Matt. "Why a Stable Somalia Is in Our Interests,” Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Global Conversations, February 21, 2012, http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/mattbaugh/2012/02/21/why-a-stable-somalia-is-in-our-interests/.

16 Alessi, Christopher, “Combatting Maritime Piracy,” Council on Foreign Relations, March 23, 2012, http://www.cfr.org/france/combating-maritime-piracy/p18376.

17 Gettleman, Jeffry, “The Pirates are Winning!” New York Review of Books, September 14, 2010, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/oct/14/pirates-are- winning/?pagination=false

18 Hunter, Ron. "Somali Pirates Living the High Life." BBC News, October 28, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7650415.stm.

19 Baugh, Matt. "Why a Stable Somalia Is in Our Interests,” Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Global Conversations, February 21, 2012, http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/mattbaugh/2012/02/21/why-a-stable-somalia-is-in-our-interests/.

20 Poulin, Steven. "Threat of Piracy and Response Initiatives." Threat of Piracy and Response Initiatives, US Department of Homeland Security, http://www.mlaus.org/archives/library/2141.ppt.

21 McConnell, Tristan, "Pirates: The Economic Costs of Maritime Crime." GlobalPost, March 16, 2012, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/africa/kenya/120306/pirates- economic-cost-somalia.

22 "US Navy Frigate Captures Pirate Mother Ship." Msnbc.com. April 1, 2010, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36131357/ns/world_news-africa/t/us-navy-frigate-captures- pirate-mother-ship/?ns=world_news-africa.

23 “Fourth Circuit Affirms Convictions Of Somali Pirates Who Attacked USS Nicholas. Eastern District of Virginia,” May 23, 2012 http://www.justice.gov/usao/vae/news/2012/05/20120523ussnicholasnr.html.

24 "Counter-Piracy Operations,” NATO, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_48815.htm.

25 "EU Forces in Anti-piracy Raid on Somali Mainland." The Guardian, May 15, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/15/eu-anti-piracy-raid-somalia.

26 EU NAVFOR: Somalia, “Mission,” http://eunavfor.eu/about-us/mission/.

27 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1816, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9344.doc.htm.

28 Kontrovich, Eugene, “Piracy and International Law,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, February 8, 2009, http://jcpa.org/article/piracy-and-international-law/.

29 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1838, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9467.doc.htm.

30 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1846, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9514.doc.htm.

31 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1851, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9541.doc.htm.

32 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2020, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10454.doc.htm.

33 Kontrovich, Eugene, “Piracy and International Law,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, February 8, 2009, http://jcpa.org/article/piracy-and-international-law/

34 Ramzy, Austin. "How China Is Battling Its Pirate Problem." Time Magazine, October 27, 2009, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1932402,00.html.

35 "U.S., Chinese Navies in Joint Anti-piracy Drills off Somalia." Reuters, September 18, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/us-china-usa-piracy- idUSBRE88H0PY20120918.

36 "Russia Will Continue to Fight Sea Piracy off the Somali Coast - News." RIA Novosti, November 19, 2012, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20121119/177592396.html.

37 "The United States Response to Piracy off the Coast of Somalia." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, http://www.state.gov/t/pm/ppa/piracy/c32662.htm.

38 "Council Conclusions on the Horn of Africa." Council of the European Union, 14 Nov. 2011, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/126 052.pdf.

39 "The EU Fight Against Piracy in the Horn of Africa,” European Union, External Action Service, http://eeas.europa.eu/piracy/index_en.htm.

40 Travnicek, Natasha. "Asian Involvement in Anti-piracy Operations in the Gulf of Aden." Consultancy Africa Intelligence. August 16, 2012, http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i d=1084:asian-involvement-in-anti-piracy-operations-in-the-gulf-of-aden- &catid=58:asia-dimension-discussion-papers&Itemid=264.

41 Hirsch, Afua. "Piracy in West Africa Reaching Dangerous Proportions, Says Watchdog." The Guardian, October 19, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/19/piracy-west-africa.

42 Badam, Ramola Talwar, "UAE Decision to Sentence Somali Pirates to Life Praised." - The National, May 24, 2012, http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae- news/courts/uae-decision-to-sentence-somali-pirates-to-life-praised. 43 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Space, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/COPUOS/copuos.html.

44 United Nations Office for Outer Space: United Nations Treaties and Principles on Space Law, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/en/SpaceLaw/treaties.html.

45 Outer Space Treaty of 1967, http://history.nasa.gov/1967treaty.html.

46 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/moon.html.

47 United Nations Office for Outer Space: United Nations Treaties and Principles on Space Law, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/en/SpaceLaw/treaties.html.

48 Sharma, Rangam and Sukhvinder Singh Dari, “Conflicting Sovereignty Issue in Outer Space: An Analysis of the Current Existing Conventions Vis a Vis Impediments and Challenges," IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 1, No. I (July-August 2012) pp. 14-20, http://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/vol1-issue1/D0111420.pdf.

49 Ibid.

50 Randerson, James, and Mark Tran. "China Accuses US of Double Standards over Satellite Strike." The Guardian, February 21, 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/21/spaceexploration.usa.

51 Zenko, Micah, “The Danger of Space Debris,” Council on Foreign Relations, September 24, 2011, http://www.cfr.org/space/danger-space-debris/p26018.

52 Kaufman, Marc and Dafna Linzer, “China Criticized for Anti-Satellite Missile Test,” Washington Post, January 19, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801029.html. 29

53 "Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water." U.S. Department of State, http://www.state.gov/t/isn/4797.htm.

54 "Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I)," Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/salt.

55 "The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty at a Glance," Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/abmtreaty.

56 “The Strategic Arms Limitations Talks II (SALT II),” Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/salt2.

57 "Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space." Federation of American Scientists, http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/ArmsControl_NEW/nonproliferation/NFZ/NP- NFZ-PAROS.html.

58 "The Status of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Signatories and Ratifiers," Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ctbtsig.

59 “Russia And China Propose A Treaty Banning Space Weapons, While The Pentagon Plans An ASAT Test." Stimson, February 14 2008, http://www.stimson.org/spotlight/russia-and-china-propose-a-treaty-banning-space- weapons-while-the-pentagon-plans-an-asat-test-/.

60 "Disarmament: Statements and Speeches." Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Office in Geneva, June 13, 2006, http://www.geneva.mid.ru/disarm/08.html.

61 “Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects,” Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/space/treaty-prevention-placement-weapons-outer-space-threat-use- force-against-outer-space-objects-ppwt/p26678.

62 "Outer Space (Disarmament Aspects) Segment of Thematic Debate in the First Committee of the Sixty-seventh Session of the United Nations General Assembly." U.S. Department of State, October 23, 2012. Web, http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/199713.htm.

63 “EU Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities” Council on Foreign Relations, September 2010, http://www.cfr.org/eu/eu-code-conduct-outer-space-activities/p26677.