Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09UNVIEVIENNA206
2009-05-07 08:49:00
UNCLASSIFIED
UNVIE
Cable title:  

COPOUS: WRAP-UP OF THE 46TH SESSION OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND

Tags:  TSPA TSPL UNGA UNPUOS 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0206/01 1270849
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 070849Z MAY 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9406
INFO RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC
RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 1343
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1002
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0647
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1147
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0795
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 0688
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0898
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0446
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1635
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0881
RUEANAT/NASA WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUCPDC/USDOC WASHDC
RULSDMK/DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHDC 0071
RHEBAAA/USDOE WASHDC
RUEHC/DEPT OF INTERIOR WASHDC
RUEAFCC/FCC WASHDC
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC
UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000206 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: TSPA TSPL UNGA UNPUOS

SUBJECT: COPOUS: WRAP-UP OF THE 46TH SESSION OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE (STSC),FEBRUARY 9-20, 2009

REF: A. STATE 28279
-------
SUMMARY
-------
UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000206

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: TSPA TSPL UNGA UNPUOS

SUBJECT: COPOUS: WRAP-UP OF THE 46TH SESSION OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE (STSC),FEBRUARY 9-20, 2009

REF: A. STATE 28279
--------------
SUMMARY
--------------

1. (U) The 48th session of the Legal Subcommittee (LSC) of the UN
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) yielded
positive results for the United States and set the stage for the
further advancement of USG interests in the LSC next year. The
second year consideration of national legislation relevant to the
exploration and use of outer space and capacity building in space
law generated considerable discussion. The subcommittee considered
for the first time national implementation of space debris
mitigation measures. The working group on the status of the five UN
Outer Space Treaties examined the low rate of participation in the
Moon Agreement and agreed that it would continue its discussions in

2010. Austria also announced its intention to convene a
multidisciplinary seminar on issues related to the Moon Treaty
before the next session of the Subcommittee. End summary.

--------------
Weapons in Space
--------------


2. (U) The 2009 session of the LSC was devoid of any serious effort
to inject space arms control (or other contentious political issues)
into the work of the Subcommittee, with only China, Cuba, and Russia
raising this topic. All three suggested that new international
legal instruments were needed to prevent the weaponization of space
and use of force. Remarks referring to an "arms race" in space were
not supported by other countries and were not followed up on during
the rest of the session.

--------------
Iridium-Cosmos Collision
--------------


3. (U) Per reftel, USDEL updated the subcommittee on the collision
of Iridium 33 and COSMOS 2251. Several delegations made direct or
indirect reference to the collision in the course of calling for
greater adherence to debris mitigation guidelines and the need for
international standards for safe space operations. Russia did not
mention the collision.

--------------
Outer Space Treaties
--------------


4. (U) The working group under Agenda Item 4 - Status and
Application of the Five International Legal Instruments Governing
Outer Space was reconvened and chaired again by Vassilios
Cassapoglou of Greece. The working group spent much of its time

discussing the Moon Agreement and the reasons for the low
participation of states. The secretariat prepared a background
paper on activities being carried out on the Moon, international and
national rules governing those activities and information from
States Parties to the Moon Agreement about the benefits of adherence
to that Agreement. As agreed at the last session of the LSC, this
report was based primarily on information provided by member states.
In addition, the working group had before it a joint statement that
had been presented last year by Austria, Belgium, Chile, Mexico, the
Netherlands, Pakistan, and the Philippines (all states parties to
the Agreement) on the benefits of adherence to the Agreement. A
number of delegations, notably Russia, China, and Japan, gave
detailed interventions on specific provisions of the Agreement that
they believe are in conflict with or are inconsistent with
provisions of the other four outer space treaties. They also
expressed concerns that the interaction between the concepts of
province of mankind found in the Outer Space Treaty and the common
heritage of mankind contained in the Moon Agreement raised potential
inconsistencies that would need to be addressed. The working group
agreed to continue considering the Moon Agreement at its next

session. (Comment: The interventions by China, Japan and Russia
underscored the fact that there is no consensus in COPUOS for
reforming the Moon Treaty. Indeed, the more the agreement is
analyzed and discussed, the less willing non-states parties seem to
fix it. End comment.)


--------------
Delimitation of Outer Space/
Use of Geostationary Orbit (GSO)
--------------


5. (U) Discussion of Agenda Item 6, Delimitation of Outer Space/Use
of Geostationary Orbit (GSO),largely repeated comments made in
previous years. The working group under this agenda item was
reconstituted under the chairmanship of Jose Monserrat Filho
(Brazil). In the plenary and working group, numerous states
explained their views on not only whether a definition of outer
space is desirable, but also regarding the use of geostationary
orbits. Russia and Ukraine spoke strongly in favor of a
definition/delimitation, arguing that as different legal regimes
apply to airspace and outer space, one needs
to know the boundary between them. In the working group and in the
plenary the US and other Western Group delegations expressed the
view that a definition/delimitation of outer space was unnecessary.
Both the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC) (as a
whole) and Indonesia emphasized the need for equitable access to the
GSO, a limited natural resource. The GRULAC in particular
referenced the relevant International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
processes.


6. (U) The Committee agreed to invite member states to submit
information on national legislation or practices that relate to the
definition and/or delimitation of outer space, and to request the
secretariat to continue to address to member states the following
questions:

a) Does your government consider it necessary to define outer space
and/or to delimit air space and outer space, given the current level
of space and aviation activities and technological development in
space and aviation technologies?;

b) Does your Government favor another approach to solving this
issue?

(Comment: There was no serious effort to invigorate this working
group because it is clear that the diametrically opposed views will
not be reconciled any time soon. End comment)


--------------
Nuclear Power Sources in Space
--------------


7. (U) All delegations intervening on Agenda Item 7, Nuclear Power
Sources in Space, welcomed the adoption at the last session of the
STSC of the Safety Framework for Nuclear Power Source Applications
in Outer Space. The GRULAC delegations called for binding norms for
the use of NPS and Venezuela reiterated the reservations they had
expressed at the time the framework was adopted at the STSC. Russia
delivered a lengthy statement asserting that the framework is
non-binding and is not an interpretation or replacement of other
instruments dealing with NPS. Further, the guidelines are designed
to promote the safe use of NPS and should serve as a guide for
national NPS activities. The known uses of NPS remain the same as
when the 1992 NPS principles were adopted, therefore, no changes to
the principles are necessary. Finally, Russia suggested that we
need an in-depth analysis of the national implementation of the
principles and the STSC framework and with that experience there
could be the possibility of developing an international high-level
instrument.



--------------
Space Assets Protocol
--------------


8. (U) Member states reiterated their support for the space assets
protocol and noted that there did not appear to be any legal
conflicts between the protocol and the space treaties. UNIDROIT
reported that a steering committee had been established and met on
May 7-9, 2008. In addition, two subcommittees were established on
default remedies in respect of components and public services,
respectively. The results of the subcommittees' work will be
considered by the steering committee when it meets May 14-15, 2009.
At that time, the steering committee will also assess the
possibility of convening the committee of governmental experts
November 30-December 4, 2009, and adopting the draft space assets
protocol at a diplomatic conference in the third quarter of 2010.


--------------
Capacity-building in Space Law
--------------


9. (U) There was a high level of participation in Agenda Item 10,
Capacity-building in space law. Member states and observers
reported on efforts to promote capacity building, training and
education in space law. The exchange of information reinforced the
need for states to develop a cadre of government and non-government
experts with the knowledge of the legal framework at the national
and international levels within which space activities are carried
out. The Subcommittee identified a number of actions that could be
undertaken to strengthen capacity in space law, particularly in
developing countries. The Subcommittee agreed to consider the item
again next year. It also recommended that member states, observers
and OOSA consider the means of implementing the above identified
actions and to inform the Subcommittee on any steps taken or planned
on a national, regional, or international level. Based on a
recommendation from the previous session of the subcommittee, OOSA
worked with space law educators and representatives of the regional
centers for space science and technology education, affiliated with
the UN, to develop a draft curriculum on space law. The draft was
well received by delegations, and OOSA will work to finalize the
draft for the next session.


--------------
National Mechanisms Relating to Space
Debris Mitigation Measures
--------------


10. (U) This was the first year that Agenda Item 10, National
Mechanisms relating to Space Debris Mitigation Measures, was
considered. The topic was added to the agenda based on a U.S.
proposal presented last year. Statements were made by Canada,
China, France, India, Italy, Russia, and the U.S. Special
presentations were also made by Japan, Russia, and the European
Space Agency (ESA). The subcommittee recommended that states
continue to implement space debris mitigation measures and to study
the experience of states that had already established national
mechanisms governing mitigation measures, and further agreed that
the item should be retained on the agenda.


--------------
National Legislation Relevant to the Peaceful
Exploration and Use of Outer Space
--------------


11. (U) This was the second year of a 4-year work plan on general
exchange of information on national legislation relevant to the

peaceful exploration and use of outer space, with the aim of
providing a broader picture of how states regulate their national
space activities. A working group, chaired by Irmgard Marboe
(Austria),was convened for the first time. The working group had
before it the presentations and conference room papers presented
last year and submissions from France, Belgium, Japan, and EUTELSAT
IGO. In addition, statements were made in the plenary by Italy,
Poland, and South Africa. The working group, taking into account
the reports and national submissions before it, conducted a review
of the following issues: 1) Reasons for States to enact space
legislation; 2) Scope of space activities targeted by national
regulatory frameworks; 3) Scope of national jurisdiction over space
activities; 4) Competence of national authorities in the
authorization, registration and supervision of space activities; 5)
Conditions to be fulfilled for registration and authorization;
6)Regulations concerning liability; and 7) Compliance and
monitoring. There was extensive and substantive participation by
delegates that resulted in a solid report.


12. (U) The working group agreed that a number of issues need
further consideration, such as the regulation by states of transfers
of ownership of space objects and transfer of authorized space
activities to third parties, the participation of private nationals
in space flights and the treatment in service provider contracts of
issues of liability and responsibility for collisions of satellites
in outer space. It was also recommended that member states be
invited to respond to the seven issues above and that member states
that have not yet enacted national legislation should be invited to
submit information on the reasons for the absence of such
legislation. In addition, the secretariat will prepare, in
consultation with the chair, a paper providing a schematic overview
of existing national regulatory frameworks based on the information
provided to the working group. (Comment: The working group got off
to a great start due to the superb leadership provided by Prof.
Marboe and the substantive submissions and presentations made by
member states. We anticipate that this high quality of work will be
sustained over the life of the agenda item and will result in an
extremely useful product. End comment)


--------------
Proposals for New Items
--------------


13. (U) Items on the UNIDROIT space protocol, capacity building in
space law, debris mitigation, and NPS were retained along with the
standing items. Consensus could not be reached on the proposals
that were suggested at the last session. Additionally, Saudi Arabia
proposed an item on regulation of the dissemination of earth
observation satellite images through the World Wide Web, however,
there was no consensus.


14. (U) The U.S. Delegation has cleared this cable.

SCHULTE