TANGGUNG JAWAB NEGARA ATAS DIGUNAKANNYA SENJATA SPACE-BASED MISSILE INTERCEPTOR SEBAGAI BENTUK UPAYA SELF-DEFENSE DARI NEGARA PENYERANG TERHADAP NEGARA PIHAK KETIGA DITINJAU DARI HUKUM INTERNASIONAL

Self-defense as an inherent right owned by a country is regulated in Article 51 of the UN Charter and due to the use of Space-Based Missile Interceptor (SBMI) weapons in space, the 1967 outer space treaty must also be guided. Because Article 4 of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits the use of weapons in space, the legality of using SBMI weapons is questionable. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the legal provisions, forms of state accountability and the process of prosecuting compensation for countries using these weapons according to international law. The results of the study indicate that the use of SBMI weapons does not conflict with international law, because it is based on Article 103 of the UN Charter which states that if there are provisions in other legal rules that are contrary to the UN Charter, the UN Charter must be guided. So that self-defense actions based on Article 51 of the UN Charter do not violate the law. The party that must be absolutely responsible is the country that started the conflict, because it has violated the rules of international law in Article 2 paragraph (4) of the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. The compensation process is carried out according to the rules of the space liability convention 1972 and if in practice the party who is responsible does not show good faith in providing compensation, then it can be continued by referring to the dispute resolution process in the UN Charter.

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE PEACEFUL EXPLORATION OF OUTER SPACE: PROBLEMATIC ASPECTS

This paper examines the efficiency of the international legal framework governing activities of States in outer space in view of the existing gaps within it allowing for space weaponization and the use of force in outer space. Purpose: the paper attempts to answer the following question – is there a clear line between peaceful exploration and militarization of outer space, and is it legally permissible to deploy anti-satellite and anti-missile systems in outer space? Methods: the study employs general scientific methods, legal interpreting and forecasting. Results: the following conclusions have resulted from the study: the 1967 Outer Space Treaty does not cover potentially harmful activities of States in outer space; there is no general agreement on the definition of «space weapon»; the line that's drawn between peaceful space exploration and militarization appears to be blurry; the emphasis in understanding the term «peaceful» has shifted towards the meaning of «non-aggressive»; non-aggressive military uses of space allow for the deployment of defensive weapon systems in space.

Who Owns Space?

Space mining is no longer a figment of fringe science fiction. Due to the recent passage of the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015 (SREU Act), U.S. domestic space companies now have a semblance of legislative backing to launch commercial resource acquisition ventures in space. Previously, such companies floundered as capital from investors was reasonably sparse. Uncertainty created by the previously untested Outer Space Treaty (OST) perpetuated worry surrounding the existence of private property rights in space. With the passage of the recent SREU Act, many domestic worries were dismissed by the definitive granting of commercial property rights to U.S. citizens, yet equally many worries continue to surround the legitimacy of the SREU Act itself, as certain legal experts both inside and outside the U.S. argue the Act to be a violation of U.S. international obligations. In contrast to the OST, the SREU Act explicitly grants Americans the right to hold and obtain material resources from celestial bodies such as asteroids and minor planets. This paper examines the implications of such a legal gray area by examining the extent to which select clauses of the OST may or may not conflict with such definitive legislation. Ultimately, it is concluded that the issue is far from settled, as the existence of celestial property rights may not presently be as clear as investors might hope.

Právní režim přírodních zdrojů na nebeských tělesech

The aim of this article is to describe the legal regime of the natural resources of celestial bodies. In recent months and years, there has been an increase in debates regarding mining on the moon and asteroids. This article is dedicated to the analysis of the legal regime of such activities. In particular, whether such activities are possible from the point of view of international law, how they are regulated and what are the potential future developments in this area. The article offers an analysis and comparison of the legal regime governing the natural resources of celestial bodies based on the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement, respectively. The Moon Agreement is given special attention despite its limited international significance, and arguments are presented in favour of its possible recognition by more states in the future. In both cases, arguments are presented that the non-appropriation principle regarding the outer space and celestial bodies, as expressed in both international treaties, does not apply to the natural resources.

Could future COP talks help to de-junk near-earth space?

Space debris has reached alarming proportions and is growing at a frightening pace, because of the expanding number of satellites circulating in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), designed to increase global Internet coverage and provide earth observation data. LEO satellites are now being launched in mega-constellations, including by Elon Musk's company SpaceX. It is time to completely overhaul the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which was not designed to deal with current problems. The COP forum should therefore include the near-earth environment within its concept of the earth's climate, enabling the UN to acknowledge, as a collective, the growing menace of human-made debris in near-earth space, and, in partnership with the UN-Outer Space Affairs Office (UN-OOSA), call for a new declaration on LEO.

The Development of Space Law: Applying the Principles of Space Law and Interpreting ‘Peaceful Purposes’ in the Outer Space Treaty 1967

This study analyzes the relevance of the proportionality, non-intervention, and unnecessary suffering principle's in the outer space perspective; and analyzes the 'peaceful purposes' at Outer Space Treaty 1967. This legal research uses primary and secondary legal materials to obtain an appropriate analysis of legal issues. This research states that the principles of international law must be applied in space activities by outer space actors. Furthermore, the ambiguity of the phrase 'peaceful purpose' in the Outer Space Treaty gives rise to different interpretations by each state. For this reason, a convention on outer space is needed to affirm the orientation of 'peace' in space activities. In the title, you focus on peaceful purposes meaning, but in this abstract, you extend it to the broader focus.

THE ARTEMIS ACCORDS: EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION IN INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAW?

Adopted in October 2020, the Artemis Accords are a set of 13 provisions establishing a principled framework for the sustainable human exploration of the Moon and the other celestial bodies, including the exploitation of their natural resources. This article examines the extent to which the Artemis Accords comply with international law and international standards. It argues that, while rooted on the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty, the Artemis Accords introduce a significant innovation in international space law by replacing the anticipatory approach to the regulation of outer space activities with the staged principle of adaptive governance.

Tanggung Jawab Perusahaan Dalam Komersialisasi Ruang Angkasa dan Implikasinya Terhadap Outer Space Treaty 1967 (Studi Tentang Wisata Ruang Angkasa)

The exploratory utilization of outer space is currently take a place following the development of science and technologies. At first, the exploration was done by government only, in this time, private companies also take part to do the outer space exploration.The outer space tour activities is one form of outer space commercialization. This time, those activities is still in the developing process for the better future business, especially in the law aspect for the outer space tour activities. So that, an explanation of the outer space tour activity is one particular part that should be extremely clear and understandable for the sake of tourist’s security. Such as, how far the responsibility is given by government and private companies in case of an accident during the outer space tour activities.The conclusion of this research is to mention that Outer Space Treaty 1967, Rescue Agreement 1968, Liability Convention 1972 and Registration Convention 1975 are all be able to applied as basic law for the outer space tour activities. Therefore, the outer space tour activity is something that could have been done routinely in the future and that makes the laws and regulations must be evident, equitable, and liable in order to ensure comfort and safety for the outer space tourists.

Could an optional protocol be the way to stop the weaponization of outer space?

Since the early 1980s, the United Nations General Assembly and its affiliated forum, the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, has had the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space issue on its agenda. In the intervening years, the threat of weapons being introduced into the outer space realm has waxed and waned, but, in the main, a benign environment free from man-made threats has prevailed, allowing for great strides in the exploration and use of space. Recently, a renewal of great power rivalry including the development of offensive ‘counter-space’ capabilities has resurrected the spectre of armed conflict in space. With widespread political support for the non-weaponization of outer space, has the time come to give legal expression to this goal by means of an optional protocol to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty?