The United States, for the first time, publicly confirmed that it has weapons deployed in orbit, with the US Space Force saying the systems are capable of protecting American and allied forces against
hostile action. The disclosure raises questions over whether international law permits countries to deploy weapons in orbit.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the principal framework governing activities in outer space, prohibits countries from placing nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around Earth or stationing them in outer space. It also prohibits the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, as well as the testing of weapons and conducting of military manoeuvres, on the Moon and other celestial bodies.
However, the treaty does not establish a blanket prohibition on all conventional weapons in Earth orbit.
Read more: US Confirms It Has Weapons In Space For The First Time, Citing Threats From China, Russia
What Does International Law Prohibit In Space?
The Outer Space Treaty places clear restrictions on the deployment of certain categories of weapons. Article IV prohibits states from placing in orbit around Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. It also prohibits the stationing of such weapons in outer space. The treaty further states that the Moon and other celestial bodies must be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits military activities including weapons testing and military manoeuvres on them. The treaty, however, does not expressly prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons in Earth’s orbit.
What Weapons Has US Deployed In Orbit?
The US has not disclosed the nature of the systems. A US Space Force spokesperson said that the United States has “on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the Joint Force against hostile adversary action.” Officials did not identify the weapons or provide details about their number, location or capabilities.
The term “space control” encompasses capabilities intended to protect friendly space assets and counter hostile activities in the space domain. Such systems could potentially include non-kinetic capabilities designed to disrupt or interfere with adversary satellites. However, without an official description, it cannot be established whether the weapons acknowledged by the US involve electronic warfare, cyber capabilities, physical destruction of spacecraft or another form of counter-space technology.
Could Use Of Such Weapons Still Violate International Law?
The absence of a blanket ban on conventional weapons in orbit does not mean their use would be unrestricted. The legality of military action in space can also be assessed under broader principles of international law governing armed conflict. Questions of proportionality, distinction and the potential effects of an attack on civilian or commercial space infrastructure could become relevant during an armed conflict.
The use of a weapon that physically destroys a satellite could also create large quantities of orbital debris which can remain in orbit for years or decades and potentially threaten other spacecraft, including satellites belonging to states or private companies that are not parties to the conflict.
