Res Communis

What is Space Security? Summary

by Nicholas Welly, JD Candidate, University of Mississippi School of Law

Yesterday, the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air and Space Law hosted a seminar on space security. Panelists included Center Director, Professor Joanne Gabrynowicz; Center Research Counsel P.J. Blount; Associate Professor of Law Matthew Hall; and Director for the Institute of Space Law at the Beijing Institute of Technology School of law Professor Li Shouping.

Prof. Matthew Hall: National Security
Professor Hall began the event with a discussion of the evolving meaning of “National Security,” describing the sea change in meanings from the Cold War to today. Professor Hall noted that while historically, national security focused on strategic relations, particularly between the former Soviet Union and the United States, today the term has a much more tactical connotation. He argued that this is most evident through the use of terms like counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation, disciplines that deal with specific functional and regional security issues, as opposed to common Cold War terms like counterespionage, which reflected a general national posture with focus on a single adversary. Professor Hall also described shifts in U.S. policy as reflected in documents like the National Intelligence Strategy and National Defense Policy. Professor Hall noted that these documents have expanded to include a focus on economic and transborder issues like disease and climate change. Finally, Professor Hall highlighted that national security community looks different today, with technical experts no longer limited to supporting roles, but now serving as leaders and policy-makers.

P.J. Blount: Space Security
Mr. Blount transitioned the discussion to the topic of space security. He noted that while this issue often conjures images of space weapons, space security is in fact three-dimensional. The first dimension, international peace and security, involves the application of space technologies for the purpose of treaty verification. Mr. Blount noted, however, that space technology is being used for a wider variety of functions than the arms treaty verifications for which they were originally developed, and that today, space systems contribute to climate, humanitarian, and even disaster relief efforts. Mr. Blount then explained the second dimension of space security—national security—still plays much of the same role as was intended at the advent of the space age: protecting national interests against outside threats. However, drawing on Professor Hall’s discussion, Mr. Blount noted that as the definition of national security changes, so does the role of space systems in protecting national interests. Mr. Blount highlighted language of the most recent U.S. National Space Policy (2006) to suggest space security may evolve to protect environmental, economic, and agricultural interests in the future. Finally, Mr. Blount described the space environment as the third dimension of space security, noting that the more heavily States rely on their space systems, the more evident the vulnerability of satellites to various threats becomes. Mr. Blount highlighted several issues threatening the viability of national space systems, including orbital debris, hostile attacks, and orbital overcrowding. He then noted that these issues raise the question of whether more law or less law could solve the challenges they present to free access, exploration, and use of outer space.

Prof. Li Shouping: International Peace & Security
Professor Li began by recognizing that “international security” is not a term of traditional international law. Rather, he noted, international law discusses “international peace and security,” and he pointed to the repeated use of this term in the U.N. Charter. Professor Li then argued that, in fact, international peace is the foundation of international security. Quoting Arnold Wolfers, Professor Li described security as a situation without objective threats and subjective fears, and then noted former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Anan’s call for a new security consensus based upon (1) a subjective freedom from fear, and (2) an objective recognition that whatever threatens one threatens all. Professor Li then explained that a critical factor in establishing international peace and security was the ability of the international community to deal with any threat that might arise, and noted that today, in international security the primary threats are the aggressive war and the use of force against the political independence and territorial integrity of States. In new international security, the threats were extended to international terrorism, poverty, infectious disease, proliferation of nuclear weapons, biochemical weapons, and so on. He concluded that the new connotation of international security has a much broader scope than it historically had. The new international security is a “common security,” which means coexisting with the opponent. The new international security is a “cooperative security,” which means that single States do not have the ability to unilaterally deal with threats. The new International security is a “collective security,” which means that States should recognize that threats today are threats to all, but recognized that this breadth is consistent with the changing threats to States.

Prof. Joanne Gabrynowicz: Collective Security
Professor Gabrynowicz concluded the panel discussion, addressing the topic of collective security. She noted how major historical events (e.g. WWI, WWII, 9/11) get the attention of the international community and catalyze new approaches to issues of security. She then identified several aspects of collective security that have grown out of these events. First, collective security requires that all States, and especially powerful States, must establish formal security arrangements and must be committed to them for them to work. Professor Gabrynowicz also identified international consensus (as opposed to voting) as a key to facilitating collective security. She pointed to the U.N. as an example of how a long-term commitment to relationship-building can overcome the stagnation that comes with voting systems where any one objector can effectively stall the decision-making process. However, she noted that once decisions are made with international consensus, for the collective to impose a sanction, it must have the ability to exert a political or economic force. Consistent with the idea of consensus-building, Professor Gabrynowicz noted that proponents of collective security must have patience and tolerance for ambiguity, and be able to keep the “big picture” in mind during the decision-making process. Professor Gabrynowicz described the last aspect of collective security as trust, highlighting that States will only commit if they believe it will work to protect their own interests. She explained that defining trust on an international basis was particularly difficult because States do not generally have a single identity. Professor Gabrynowicz then concluded that we should expect collective security to become more effective in the post-Cold War environment because there is a different kind of polarity evolving—one between the “have” nations and the “have not” nations, and thus access to and distribution of resources is becoming an increasingly critical issue.

The panel concluded by opening up to questions from the audience.