The UN COPUOS – the normalizer of the emerging outer space order

The UN COPUOS was established as a permanent body by GA in 1959 and moved from New York to Vienna in 1993 (Lyall & Larsen, 2009:17).

Although anonymous even within the UN system, the UN COPUOS is normally identified as the committee that formulated the five outer space treaties.²⁰⁶ While much has been written about these treaties and formulations, the UN COPUOS is unexplored as a site for contemporary

206 These are the Outer Space Treaty (1967), Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, Return of Astronauts and Objects Launched into Outer Space (1967), The Liability Convention (1971), The Registration Convention (1975) and The Moon Agreement (1979).

global ordering. In the following, I will account for my main observations in this regard.

The UN COPUOS meetings take place at the Vienna International Centre. At the Centre, the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) serves as the Secretariat for the UN COPUOS meetings. Besides, the UNOOSA handles the Register of Objects Launched into Outer Space (UNOOSA, 2020f).²⁰⁷ In addition, the UNOOSA is responsible for the United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER).²⁰⁸ The UNOOSA also has a permanent Space Application Section working worldwide with a range of capacity building activities. However, although the demand for capacity building is high, the funding is limited.

With 95 member states, the UN COPUOS meetings have a smaller number of participants than the WRC. In June 2019, approximately 500 people participated in the full COPUOS meeting and the number of member states amounted to 95 (UNOOSA, 2019).²⁰⁹ The room of the plenary is limited to approximately 450 persons and almost every seat at plenary sessions is occupied, except for some seats reserved for the diplomats. Even though there are a few commercial representatives in the back rows, these rows primarily belong to the rising number of newly established international organizations (IOs) and particularly to NGOs.

Hence, there is no outer circle of the commercial suborder and the private sector is not allowed status as a permanent observer. Instead, there is an outer circle of a wide range of different space-related NGOs. The different space agencies are represented as well. Some of the NGOs and

207 The register is accessible on the website including the recorded information about the objects. From the website, it is evident that the amount of information provided to the register by the launching states differs. The register is a treaty-based transparency and confidence-building measure in outer space (UNOOSA, 2020c:2). The UNOOSA staff numbers to approximately 35 people (UNOOSA, 2020c:75).

208 UN-SPIDER help countries with limited access to space data to prevent and manage disasters. The offices for UN-SPIDER are located in Beijing, Vienna and Bonn (UNOOSA, 2020c:2).

209 According to the World Bank income level standards as of January 2020, 36 out of the 95 member states are high-income countries, 32 are upper-middle level countries, 19 are lower-level income countries and eight are low-income countries (UNOOSA, 2020c:59f). Together the 95 member states represent 87 per cent of the world population (UNOOSA, 2020c:59). In 2019, the GA admitted the Dominican Republic, Rwanda and Singapore as new member states and the Moon Village Association as a permanent observer (ibid.).

other observers participate in the ITU WRC but there they disappear in the crowd, in contrast to in the UN COPUOS plenary. In the UN COPUOS, the representatives are seated in the back but still visible and present. However, as the regular budget for the UNOOSA’s work has been declining while the space activities are increasing, there have been calls for involving the private sector.²¹⁰

Figure 22: 55th Session of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee. Credit: UNOOSA.

The work of the UN COPUOS is organized into two subcommittees, the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee and the Legal Subcommittee, both were established in 1961 (UNOOSA, 2019:5).²¹¹ Despite reoccurring ideas of merging the two committees, there has been no real effort to do so. The Scientific and Technical Subcommittee continues to convene at the beginning of the year and the Legal Subcommittee a few months later. In between the annual two-week subcommittee sessions, there are some ad hoc working group meetings to make sure that the work of the groups is proceeding. The delegates that participate in these intersessional meetings are the ones that have the resources and interest to do so. Most often, the great powers are among them. The level of

210 For an overview of the UNOOSA budget see the Annual Reports (cf. UNOOSA, 2019). In 2018, China was the largest donor providing 44 per cent of the UNOOSA budget (UNOOSA, 2019:69).

211 COPUOS reports to the Fourth Committee of the GA, which adopts an annual resolution on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space.

participation is a mix of individual professional initiatives (and vocation) as well as instruction from the capitals. The key players give the work of the intersessional more weight. Still, during the full COPUOS meetings, a few months later, the outcome of the working groups must be presented and accepted by all the member states. This includes the states that did not participate in the intersessional meetings or in the working groups.

In the COPUOS consensus is the decision-making principle. Hence, the very last afternoon of the sessions, when some of the experts have already left Vienna, is the time when the annual resolution is agreed upon. The GA then reviews and adopts the resolution. For the larger states, the end of the COPUOS full meeting is typically when the high-ranking diplomats show up. In addition, these diplomats commonly participate when the national statement is made and possibly at the opening of the UN COPUOS meeting. Thus, the diplomats are not typically socialized into the space community and appear to be detached from the work and knowledge exchange taking place during the full two weeks meeting, including, lunches, evening- and side events. Still, the fact that they show up at some decisive movements, signals that they like to control the outcome of the work and hence, find it important. The symbolic presence can also point to that the diplomats feel a professional obligation to attend.

In the political space of the UN COPUOS, a deep frame tension surfaces between the pragmatic/universal scientific suborder and the traditionalist political suborder. This tension occurs as some of the hardest working scientific experts find themselves in a situation where their achievements and progress made after long discussions will ultimately be judged according to states’ interests. Hence, even fruitful discussions must be squeezed into the state template, the rigid state spatiality and the mental heritage of the UN. Demonstrative of this is that while much time is devoted to national statements in the COPUOS, this is more of an expected mandatory role-play. Only on a few occasions do these statements catch any real attention to potentially have some influence on the direction of the emerging outer space order.

In addition, as Vienna is associated with the arms control regime, some of the diplomats were inclined to reproduce the underlying thinking associated with this regime into the emerging outer space order. This is understandable, as discussed before, there is a connection between

nuclear weapons and outer space. The thinking associated with the arms control regime is also what gives the formal authority to the diplomatic reality, rather than the knowledge about the subject matter – outer space.

Even though the UN and its staff work for the common good and for humanity, the working procedures of the sessions are foremost categorized in accordance with the national ordering principle. After some sessions, the different delegations’ positions and statements become very predictable. It was for example possible to leave the room and come back without any significant loss of understanding for the interplay going on within the political suborder. There are few, if any, openings for change. The diplomatic present is densely contextualized, formalized and slow, as we will see in the next section.

7.2.1. Would, should or could…and historical change

The UN COPUOS is not the converging space-time frame as the WRSs.

There are no frequencies that call for decisions, thus the UN COPUOS is not compressed by time but better characterized as an ongoing open process. The work of the UN COPUOS resembles an equalizer, or normalizer of a flow of formulations. Not much moves the work or critical issues forward and simultaneously forcing the suborders together.

For example, a unanimous COPUOS can extend the time limits for the working groups. Typically, considerable time was used to discuss the use of ‘would, should or could’.

Well, I have thought about your thesis and political order […]. Our work here consists of many long days of formulations of resolutions and extensive discussions about whether to use ‘would, should or could’. I have been working here for years. Concerning order, it takes very long to build an order, and it takes just seconds to ruin it and all the work behind [it] (political).

During the characteristic ‘would, could or should work’ the delegates are working at the same sentence in a word document, ‘track-changes’ is activated and the document shifts from more or less red color due to interventions from the floor. Sometimes, almost all sentences are marked with red and delegates must figure out and come up with formulations that are acceptable to all. Despite the slow pace of formulating the text, it is valuable to be there, listen to messages in their original form and

observe the true sender of the message. After a while, there is a sense of community as we are all stuck in the text together. In the UN COPUOS Plenary, attention is devoted to one voice at the time, and that one voice is given the right to talk without interruption. In this respect, this political space can be seen as a stabilizer where tensions and positions are allowed to appear in the form of brackets and red marked text. At times, the intervening delegations elaborated their concerns and positions resulting in an increased understanding, at other times interventions caused confusion. This time-consuming work can be frustrating and challenging.²¹²

In this perspective, the UNISPACE+50 in 2018 served as an event to celebrate the role and achievements of the UN COPUOS.

UNISPACE+50 was held to mark the 50th anniversary of the Outer Space Treaty (OST) and to reiterate the value and substance of the space treaties.²¹³ The preparations for the UNISPACE+50 event put some time pressure on the UN COPUOS. For example, before the event, the Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines (LTS) should preferably have been agreed upon and incorporated into the UN COPUOS UNISPACE+50 resolution.

There were also hopes that the UNISPACE+50 two-day high-level forum, would reach out and lift the space issues, as well as strengthen the political engagement. The idea was to promote an opportunity for the international community to convene and “consider the future course of global space cooperation for the benefit of humankind” (UNOOSA, 2018:17). The Chair of the UN COPUOS (2016 – 2018), David Kendall reflected on how sustainability was approached during the UNISPACE III in 1999:

UNISPACE III was held in a tremendous period of brainstorming by lots of people. It was a very successful and often quoted conference. One reason was that a lot of young people were brought in, these were the ones who looked at things, and people

212 During the UN COPUOS ‘would, could or should work’, participants typically remain in the national seat from 10 AM to 6 PM. The working hours of the interpretation service sat the pace. The political suborder furthermore had to adjust to the annual resolution that the UN COPUOS sends to the GA.

213 Four UN COPUOS UNISPACE conferences have been held; 1968, 1982, 1999 and 2018 (UNOOSA, 2020e).

that could think about it. We still need to do better here, it is too much grey hair (including my own) [laughter]. We need fresh inputs […]. We need passion (David Kendall, interview, January 2018).

In 1999, the perception that space was becoming dangerous led to the ideas about long-term sustainability, which translated into concrete policy implementations. In 2010, a working group was set up for the LTS. In light of the development of suitability, Kendall admitted that it would be

“a challenge” to develop a successful UNISPACE +50 resolution as the delegates have a wide range of (competing) opinions. However:

Once the air is cleared, delegates are coming back together to consider what the crucial aspects are. It is remarkable, diplomats are screaming at each other, but come back and focus. Not one person in the room refuses that the world would be much, much worse if there was not a forum as this COPUOS. No resolution, no COPUOS-mandate. Think of the alternatives, no mandate, no blueprint. Therefore, everyone knows you simply have to ‘get it agreeable’ (David Kendall, interview, January 2018).

Eventually, the 2018 UNISPACE+50 high-level forum took place in Bonn. The event attracted 300 participants from 58 countries, including 30 heads of space agencies from around the world (UNOOSA, 2019:8).

Surprisingly to me, the political level of the participants was not as high as expected for a high-level forum. The lack of attendance was simply because no other state sent their higher political leadership (informal conversation). Rather than innovation, imitation, tradition and predictability seemed to be important aspects of the political suborder.

At the time of UNISPACE+50 however, it might have been beneficial for the emerging outer space order to keep outer space as stable as possible.

Despite changes in the world order, including outer space, the UN COPUOS continues its work as usual and thereby becomes a normalizer in a time of transition and uncertainty. Regardless that some delegates seemed very exhausted after years of negotiations, and that some formulations tend to become watered down and vague, the ‘would, could or should’- work contributed to keeping the dialogue open. At the same time, the traditional work procedures effectively concealed the world order transformation.