The Securitization of Outer Space: Challenges for Arms Control

Abstract

The concepts of militarization and weaponization dominate debates on space security, and radically different implications for arms control follow depending on which of these two characterizations is adopted. Yet the militarization–weaponization debate in many ways fails to capture the vagaries of contemporary space policy. An increasing number of international actors now argue that the infrastructure of modern society – including communications, media, and environmental monitoring – is crucially reliant upon satellite technologies. As a result it is now more accurate to say that outer space is becoming ever more securitized: that is, access to space is now commonly framed as essential to the military, economic, and environmental security of leading states and international organizations. The article illustrates the contribution of a securitization approach in this regard via an analysis of United States and European Union space policy. In the process it argues that attempts at securitization in these space policy discourses maintain an inherent tension between global and national security concerns, and thus provide a weak basis for space arms control. However, in closing the article the author makes the argument that securitization of outer space, if configured around an alternate vision of space security that moves beyond the statist foundations of traditional arms control, can potentially mobilize the political will required for controlling the means of violence in and from outer space.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank the following for their comments and suggestions: all the contributors to the Arms Control for the 21st Century Project at the International Studies Association conference, New York, in 2009, and at York University, Toronto, in 2010; and the participants at the Swansea University Space Security workshop in 2010. Specific thanks to Neil Cooper and Julie Macleavy for reading and commenting on earlier versions of the article, and to the two anonymous Contemporary Security Policy reviewers for their encouraging comments and constructive suggestions. Any remaining errors are of course the author's own.

Notes

Andrew T. Park, ‘Incremental Steps for Achieving Space Security: The Need for a New Way of Thinking to Enhance the Legal Regime for Space’, Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, No.3 (2006), pp.871–911.

Ibid., p.885; Columba Peoples, ‘Assuming the Inevitable? Overcoming the Inevitability of Outer Space Weaponization and Conflict’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 29, No. 3 (2008), pp.503–21.

See Stuart Croft, Strategies of Arms Control: A History and Typology (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996), p.117; Michael Sheehan, The International Politics of Space (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007), pp.20–54; James Clay Moltz, The Politics of Space Security: Strategic Restraint and the Pursuit of National Interests (California: Stanford University Press, 2008), pp.124–75.

Michael Krepon and Christopher Clary, Space Assurance or Space Dominance? The Case Against Weaponizing Space (Washington, DC: The Henry L. Stimson Center, 2003); Nancy Gallagher and John D. Steinbruner, Reconsidering the Rules for Space Security (Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2008); Nina Tannenwald, ‘Law versus Power on the High Frontier: The Case for a Rule-Based Regime for Outer Space’, The Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 29 (2004), pp.363–422.

See, for example, Helen Caldicott and Craig Eisendrath, War in Heaven: The Arms Race in Outer Space (New York: Norton, 2007); Joan Johnson-Freese, Space as a Strategic Asset (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007); Moltz, The Politics of Space Security (note 3).

Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (London: Lynne Rienner, 1998).

For a more detailed account of international treaties relating to space see Jozef Goldblat, ‘Efforts to Control Arms in Outer Space’, Security Dialogue, Vol. 34, No. 1 (2003), pp.103–8; and Gerardine Meishan Goh, ‘Keeping the Peace in Outer Space: A Legal Framework for the Prohibition of the Use of Force’, Space Policy, Vol. 20, No. 4 (2004), pp.259–78. The ABM Treaty is often counted within the category of space arms control as Article II.1 prohibited development, testing and deployment of space-based components of ABM systems ‘to counter strategic ballistic missiles or their flight elements in flight trajectories’, and was supplemented by the so-called ‘non-interference’ clause of the Treaty, by which the US and USSR agreed not to interfere with the other's ‘national technical means of verification’ – see Wulf von Kries, ‘The Demise of the ABM Treaty and the Militarization of Outer Space’, Space Policy, Vol. 18, No. 3 (2002), pp.175–8, p.177.

Space Security Index, Space Security 2009 (Space Security Index, 2009), p.10, at: http://www.spacesecurity.org/publications.htm

Ibid.

China used a ballistic missile to destroy one of its weather satellites – for details see Gregory Kulacki and Jeffrey G. Lewis, ‘Understanding China's Antisatellite Test’, Nonproliferation Review, Vol.15, No.2 (2008), pp.335–47; the US employed it sea-based ‘Aegis’ ballistic missile system to shoot down its malfunctioning USA 193 spy satellite – see Pavel Podvig, ‘The US Satellite Shootdown: An Unnecessary Action’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 2008), at: http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/pavel-podvig/the-us-satellite-shootdown-an-unnecessary-action

Gallagher and Steinbruner, Reconsidering the Rules for Space Security (note 4); Tannenwald, ‘Law versus Power on the High Frontier’ (note 4).

Johnson-Freese, Space as a Strategic Asset (note 5), p.137.

Karl P. Mueller, ‘Totem and Taboo: Depolarizing the Space Weaponization Debate’, Astropolitics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2003), pp.4–28, p.5.

Gallagher and Steinbruner, Reconsidering the Rules for Space Security (note 4), p.9.

Article IV of the OST as summarised in Goldblat, ‘Efforts to Control Arms in Outer Space’(note 7), p.103. For the full treaty provisions see ‘Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies’, at http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ost/text/space1.htm

Goldblat, ‘Efforts to Control Arms in Outer Space’(note 7), p.104.

Gallagher and Steinbruner, Reconsidering the Rules for Space Security (note 4), p.10.

Taboo is used here in the sense of a ‘normative prohibition’ – see Nina Tannenwald, ‘The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use’, International Organization, Vol. 53, No. 3 (1999), pp.433–68; Mueller, ‘Totem and Taboo’ (note 13).

One pro-weaponization blog quotes US STRATCOM Commander General Kevin P. Chilton as follows: ‘Let's say you build a craft capable of pulling alongside a satellite, extending a robotic arm, and plucking the satellite's solar panels off, thereby disabling it. Would you consider that a space weapon? Well, if so, that would mean the US space shuttle is a space weapon.’ See: http://closingvelocity.typepad.com/closing_velocity/2009/01/obama-to-ban-space-shuttle-astronauts.html

Bruce M. DeBlois, Richard L. Garwin, R. Scott Kemp, and Jeremy C. Marwell, ‘Space Weapons: Crossing the US Rubicon’, International Security, Vol. 29, No. 2 (2004), pp.50–84; Johnson-Freese, Space as a Strategic Asset (note 5), p.106.

Mike Moore, Twilight War: The Folly of US Space Dominance (Oakland, CA: The Independent Insitute, 2008), p.xvi.

Staeve Lambakis, ‘Space Cops: Reviving Space Arms Control’, Astropolitics, Vol. 1, No. 2 (2003), pp.75–83, p.76.

What Mueller designates as ‘sanctuary idealism’, ‘Totem and Taboo’ (note 13), p.9–10.

See Bruce M. DeBlois, ‘Militarization, Weaponization and Space Sanctuary: Past Dialogues, Current Discourse, Important Distinctions’, Paper presented at the Conference on ‘Outer Space and Global Security’, Geneva, 26–27 November 2002, at: http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/Abolish/OuterSpaceConfGeneva02/DeBloisConf2002.htm

See Johnson-Freese, Space as a Strategic Asset (note 5); and Moltz The Politics of Space Security (note 3) for extended versions of this argument.

Michael E. O'Hanlon, Neither Star Wars Nor Sanctuary: Constraining the Military Uses of Space (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2004).

Johnson-Freese, Space as a Strategic Asset (note 5), p.91.

Moore, ‘Twilight War’ (note 21), DeBlois et al., ‘Space Weapons’ (note 20).

On the potential impact of space debris, including that caused by the destruction of satellites, see Kelly Young, ‘Anti-Satellite Test Generates Dangerous Debris’, New Scientist, January 2007, at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10999-antisatellite-test-generates-dangerous-space-debris.html

Thanks to Nancy Gallagher for pointing out some of these complexities in email correspondence with the author.

Ole Wæver, Barry Buzan, Morton Kelstrup, and Pierre Lemaitre, Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe (London: Pinter, 1993).

Buzan et al., Security: A New Framework for Analysis (note 6).

Ole Wæver, ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’, in Ronnie D. Lipschutz (ed.) On Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), p.51.

Security: A New Framework for Analysis (note 6), p.36.

Cited in Hans Morgenthau, ‘The Intellectual and Political Functions of Theory’, in James Der Derian (ed.), International Theory: Critical Investigations (London: Palgrave, 1995), p.39.

Wæver, ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’ (note 33), p.51.

Buzan et al., Security: A New Framework for Analysis (note 6), p.26.

Ibid.

Ibid., p.5.

Ibid., p.176.

See Peoples, ‘Assuming the Inevitable?’ (note 2), p.503.

Cf. Moltz, The Politics of Space Security (note 3), p.38, p.61.

Buzan et al., Security: A New Framework for Analysis (note 6), p.25.

Here Buzan et al. draw explicitly on John L. Austin, How to do Things with Words (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962).

Buzan et al., Security: A New Framework for Analysis (note 6), p.29; see also Wæver, ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’ (note 31).

Jef Huysmans, The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU (London: Routledge, 2006), p.4.

See the various contributions to Thierry Balzacq (ed.), Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (London: Routledge, 2011); Michael C. Williams, ‘Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 4 (2003), pp.511–31.

Thierry Balzacq, (2005), ‘The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol.11, No.2, pp.171–201; Matt McDonald, ‘Securitization and the Construction of Security’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 14, No.4 (2008), pp.563–87.

Paul Roe, ‘Actor, Audience(s) and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the UK's Decision to Invade Iraq’, Security Dialogue, Vol. 39, No. 6 (2008), pp.615–35, p.622; or, in Balzacq's terms drawn from speech act theory, a distinction can be made between the ‘illocutionary’ and ‘perlocutionary’ facets of a securitizing speech act – ‘A theory of securitization: origins, core assumptions, and variants’ in Balzacq (ed.), Securitization Theory (note 47), p.4.

See, for example, Paul Stares, ‘US and Soviet Military Space Programs: A Comparative Assessment’, Daedalus, Vol. 114, No. 2 (1985), pp.127–45.

From the Washington Post of the time, cited in Sheehan, The International Politics of Space (note 3), p.45.

Space Security Index, Space Security 2009 (note 8), p.10.

Ibid.

Gallagher and Steinbruner, Reconsidering the Rules for Space Security (note 4), p.5.

See ‘Space Based Laser (SBL)’, GlobalSecurity.org, at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sbl.htm (accessed 8 March 2011)

See ‘Near-Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE)’, GlobalSecurity.org, at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/nfire.htm (accessed 8 March 2011)

See Pavel Podvig, ‘The US Satellite Shootdown’ (note 10).

Johnson-Freese, Space as a Strategic Asset (note 5), p.90; Mike Moore, Twilight War (note 21), p.85.

Moltz, The Politics of Space Security (note 3), p.293.

Theresa Hitchens and Victoria Samson, ‘Space Weapons Spending in the FY 2009 Defense Budget’, at: http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/SpaceWeaponsFY09.pdf

United States Space Command (USSPACECOM), Long Range Plan, April 1998, as quoted in http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/lrp/ch05a.htm

US Government Printing Office, Joint Vision 2020: America's Military – Preparing for Tomorrow, June 2000, at: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1225.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/jointvision/jvpub2.htm

Lt. Col. Martin E. B. France, ‘Back to the Future: Space Power Theory and A. T. Mahan’, Air & Space Power Chronicles, 4 August 2000, at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/france1.html

Bruce M. DeBlois, ‘Space Sanctuary: A Viable National Strategy’, Aerospace Power Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Winter 1998), at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj98/win98/deblois.html

Although there are qualified exceptions to this characterisation; see ibid.

Moore, Twilight War (note 21), p.xviii.

See Peoples, ‘Assuming the Inevitable?’ (note 2).

Paul Wolfowitz, ‘On Missile Defense’, speech to Frontiers of Freedom, 24 October 2002, at: http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2002/s20021024-depsecdef.html

Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, The White House, US National Space Policy, 31 August 2006, at: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/space.pdf

Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, 11 January 2001, Executive Summary, p.8–9, at: http://www.fas.org/spp/military/commission/pre.pdf

Ibid., p.11.

US National Space Policy 2006 (note 69), p.3.

Ibid., p.2.

The US was one of a handful of states to vote against PAROS in 2005, the others being Israel, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.

See Yousaf Butt, ‘Technical Comments on the US Satellite Shootdown’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 21 August 2008, at: http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/technical-comments-the-us-satellite-shootdown

Michael C. Williams, ‘The Continuing Evolution of Securitization Theory’, in Thierry Balzacq (ed.), Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (London: Routledge, 2011), p.213.

Gérard Brachet and Bernard Deloffre, ‘Space for Defence: A European Vision’, Space Policy, Vol.22, No.2 (2006), pp.92–99.

José Manuel Durão Barroso, ‘The Ambitions of Europe in Space’, speech to the Conference on European Space Policy, 15 October 2009, p.3, at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/space/files/policy/the_ambitions_of_europe_in_space_en.pdf Emphasis in original.

Wolfgang Rathgeber and Nina-Louise Remuss, Space Security: A Formative Role and a Principled Identity for Europe (Vienna: European Space Policy Institute, 2009), p.71.

Council of the European Union, ‘Council Conclusions and Draft Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities’, Brussels, December 2008, p.3 at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1570&lang=EN; on the idea of the EU as normative space power, see Rathgeber and Remuss Space Security (note 79), pp.73–5.

See Magnus Hellgren, ‘EU Presidency Statement – United Nations 1st Committee: Outer Space Cluster’, New York, 19 October 2009, at: http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_9121_en.htm

European Commission, ‘Green Paper: European Space Policy’, prepared in cooperation with the European Space Agency (Brussels: European Commission, 2003), at: http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/space-green-paper_en.pdf

Ibid. Adopted in 1992 at the Ministerial Council of the Western European Union, the tasks comprise of humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping, and crisis management including peacekeeping.

European Commission, ‘Green Paper: European Space Policy’ (note 82).

European Commission, ‘White Paper: Space: A New European Frontier for an Expanding Union – An Action Plan for Implementing the European Space Policy’ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2003/com2003_0673en01.pdf

Commission of the European Communities, ‘Commission Working Document: European Space Policy Progress Report’ (Brussels: European Commission, 2008), p.5, at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0561:FIN:en:PDF

European Space Agency and the Istituto Affari Internazionali, ‘Space and Security Policy in Europe’ (Paris: Europen Institute for Security Studies, November 2003), p.8, at: http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/occ48.pdf

M. Cervino, S. Corradini, S. Daviolo, ‘Is the “Peaceful Use” of Outer Space Being Ruled Out?’, Space Policy,Vol. 19, No.4 (2003), pp.231–37, p.231.

European Space Agency and the Istituto Affari Internazionali, ‘Space and Security Policy in Europe’ (note 87), p.37.

Ibid., p.7.

Ibid ., p.16.

See also Sheehan, The International Politics of Space (note 3), p.88–90.

Barroso, ‘The Ambitions of Europe in Space’ (note 78), p.4.

Council of the European Union, ‘European Space Policy: “ESDP and Space”’ (November 2004), p.6, at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/04/st11/st11616-re03.en04.pdf

Commission of the European Communities, ‘European Space Policy Progress Report’ (note 86), pp.4–5. European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, ‘Amendments on Mid-term review of the European Satellite navigation programmes’, Brussels, May 2010, p.6, at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afet/am/816/816287/816287/en.pdf

Rathgeber and Remuss, Space Security (note 79), p.63.

Council of the European Union, ‘European Space Policy: “ESDP and Space”’ (note 94), p.5.

‘Challenges loom as Obama seeks space weapons ban’, Reuters UK, 25 January 2009, at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE50O15X20090125

The White House, ‘National Security Strategy’, May 2010, p.49–50, at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf

US National Space Policy, June 2010, at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/policy/national/100628_national_space_policy.pdf

Ibid., p.7.

‘NSS’ 2010 (note 99), p.22.

Ibid., p.14.

Buzan et al., Security: A New Framework for Analysis (note 6), p.31.

Thierry Balzacq, ‘A theory of securitization’, in Securitization Theory (note 47), p.15.

For an extended discussion see Sarah Léonard and Christian Kaunert, ‘Reconceptualising the Audience in Securitization Theory’ in Securitization Theory (note 47), pp.57–76.

Union of Concerned Scientists, ‘Multiple Declarations to Refrain from Deploying Weapons in Space’, in United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), Safeguarding Space for All: Security and Peaceful Uses (2005), pp.43–44, at: http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2376.pdf

Moltz, The Politics of Space Security (note 3), p.7, emphasis in original.

See Wæver, ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’ (note 33), p.57.

Cf. Wæver's discussion of détente in ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’ (note 33).

See Rita Floyd, ‘Towards a Consequentialist Evaluation of Security: Bringing Together the Copenhagen and the Welsh Schools of Security Studies’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2 (2007), pp.327–50.

See ibid., pp.340–1 for an overview of this debate.

Moltz, The Politics of Space Security (note 3), p.60.

Institute of Air and Space Law, MacGill University, ‘“Peaceful” and Military Uses of Outer Space’ (Montreal: MacGill University, 2005), p.16, at: http://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/BackgroundPaper%20McGill%20Outer%20Space%20Uses.pdf

Detlev Wolter, Common Security in Outer Space and International Law (UNIDIR: 2005), at: http://www.unidir.org/pdf/ouvrages/pdf-1-92-9045-177-7-en.pdf; Union of Concerned Scientists, ‘Multiple Declarations to Refrain from Deploying Weapons in Space’ (note 107).