Hello. We're going to start now. If the panelists could give me a thumbs up that they can hear me, that would be great. Okay, perfect. Hello and welcome to the 37th annual Norris and Marjorie Benditzen epic international symposium on the topic of problems without passports. It's my pleasure to have you all here today on Zoom in person. Welcome to all the international delegations. I am excited to be moderating this panel on space, the final frontier. Outer space is a burgeoning and largely unexplored domain, still essentially open to all actors. This raises many issues both for states and governments as well as the private industry, and it is an untapped field in terms of international policy. There are critical questions I need to be addressed in terms of the global governance of space, so I'm glad that it could be included in this symposium. Before we start, I first like to apologize to the panelists for starting a little late. I know Mr. Stas, you need to leave a bit early. So I might modify the format of this panel a little bit again. And three of the five of us are unwell. I'm really sorry that Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Goswami, you couldn't make it in person. And I apologize in advance for any nose blowing that I do. So a little into the format. I'm first going to give a brief introduction for Mr. Stas and ask you one question so that you can engage with the audience a bit before we go. And then I'll go on to introducing all the other wonderful panelists we have and then get into the moderated discussion. After that, I'll dive right into the audience Q&A. So our panelists, Mr. Benjamin Stats. Mr. Stats is a second year graduate student at the Space Policy Institute. He has been serving in the United States Army over the last 15 years, the last four of which have been as a space operations officer. His research interests range from the implications of space or national security to the topic of planetary defense. The question I wanted to ask you was related to space debris. So space debris can be created in many ways. There are a lot of questions about space debris from anti-satellite weapons, but there is also space debris that arises from regular space commercial activities. So I was just wondering if you could sort of explain this problem and what solutions can we have in the future to deal with it? Thank you. So starting with that, it's not just the issue of space debris generation that's occurring. It's also efforts to prevent further space debris from happening from collisions or aset attacks like you had mentioned. And then there's also an effort of also the space debris remediation, so removing space debris from the space environment. And so really it's a kind of a three-pronged approach or what a lot of advocates have suggested called it a space sustainability framework. And so, yes, we want to mitigate space debris from growing in space, but we also have to be concerned about generating new space debris on orbit and have to be concerned about how we're going to remove debris from the space environment. And so when you look at that, there's some debate amongst the community of what should be prioritized. You'll see opinions written about how we should be focusing on removing space debris because there's certain large bodies that have been left up in orbit that can generate or collide with other objects and create more space debris. But really, I think that there has to be a deliberate effort across all three approaches to kind of get ahead on some of the issues that are going to continue to emerge because there's going to be more commercial activity with the mega constellations that are going up. We expect over 10,000 satellites to be placed in orbit in the coming years, potentially more than that. And it's isolated in specific low earth orbits. And so it's going to be very challenging to not just prevent more space debris from being generated, but mitigate accidents from occurring that could cause a cascading effect of space debris, and also efforts to remove space debris from those orbits. Thank you so much. I'm going to ask all the other panelists if they have anything they'd like to add before they're introduced, just so that we can move on to the panel introductions. If anyone has anything to add on space debris. What would you like to go first? For me, Benjamin covered pretty much the entire ground of it. We do see, however, in terms of norm building at international level, we do see there are efforts that are being put forward by different countries and that would be something we do have the responsible space debris mitigation guidelines that are something that could be followed. And then there are also states, such as the United States, it says that incorporate the guidelines some days in administration while licensing space activities. So it is not the case that it is completely untapped or people are free to create debris. The only problem that arises, I think, is more so towards the use of ASAP, which has been the recent past, we have seen a couple of tests being done. So besides that, I think Benjamin covered it pretty much in the ground and I do agree that the deep round approach is the way to go about it. And again, I would be saying this a lot. Binding legal norms are the way forward and I would keep stressing on it until we could see the discussion. Yeah, Mira, if I could just jump in on what my panelists have brought up. You know, everyone loves to talk about space debris, space junk. It's an exciting and universal topic. I think what we're seeing is a growing call from at least the space community but probably broader to use space debris and the creation of space debris as a binding agent for international cooperation. So when we talk about destructive ASAP testing, anti satellite testing, the ones that cause the most debris, you know, harm the environment for everybody. And there is a notion I think in the US space community as well as internationally that this is some solid ground that we can all work on to create some of these norms or binding agreements to limit destructive ASAP tests to encourage new norms on disposal of debris or on debris, you know, mitigation or or cleaning up of debris and if you're super interested in this. There were, I'm blanking on who wrote this but there were two scholars who wrote a piece on like the 20 most dangerous pieces of space debris. And when they came out with this I just was like, this is a great guide for nations if we want to do something actively to start with these 20 pieces we are developing the technologies to clean up space debris. And with cleaning up these 20 pieces that have been like scientifically Benjamin says it's Darren McKnight has these pieces that have like actually the most substantial potential to impact either by the fact that they're in super crowded environments or that they're massive and could just cause incredible devastation in the environment. And so, when I think of how the United States should take a leadership role. I think this is one avenue that could be a great benefit to the United States to show that we're very serious about cleaning the environment and keeping it sustainable for the future. So if you're interested, go find it. It was a really good piece. Yeah, I mean, I don't have. Oh, wow. Hello. I don't have much to add other than I think, when we think about this problem we think about it being like you know tragedy of the commons it's so important to be proactive and not reactive. And when you're thinking about customary international law being set by norms and saying well, you know, state practice, you don't want state practice to be well, there was a collision and that resulted in debris and that's how we picked it up in case a so we should do the same thing in case B I think it's important to set these guidelines that are norms that are like Caitlin said binding. So that we can really make sure we tackle the problem on the front end instead of dealing with issues of not just collision but liability. And, and all the horrible other things that happen when space objects are coming at each other at a very high speed, so yeah. I'm sorry this question wasn't on the list that I sent you but there is the liability convention I was wondering how that could be applied to space to bring the future. Especially as far as I know it hasn't been applied before. I know that there was one previous issue of liability but that was sorted by last week. So I was wondering whether the liability convention could be applied to space to bring in the future. Mr stats if you want to start. Sure, I can start. I'm certain by our would have a better viewpoint but given that fault or liability and space in the space domain itself is fault based. You have the issue of attributing that space debris, causing damage on another satellite down the road so the Russian a set test that occurred several months ago. You know, it's I believe in a sun synchronous orbit and there's a lot of important satellites in those orbits and I believe this month, there's a lot of near misses that are occurring from that space debris and so we have a, we can relatively attribute if a debris was supposed to hit one of those satellites, we could potentially attribute but I mean the ability to actually track what tiny space debris piece hit what satellite and where was it from and doing that, especially in a set attack or launch that happened for example China's in 2007. There's debris that will be up there until 2047 and being able to attribute that debris to a, you know, collision or accident that happens a year from now. I think it's really difficult to prove that fault based liability. And I'll kind of stop there because I'm not the legal expert and pass it on. Thank you so much.  Oh, certainly if I believe just a few remarks. I would just like to point out that I think it's very important. I think it's great that space is being discussed in these types of forums. I think similar to what Caleb was talking about there are a lot of opportunities for multinational and multilateral collaboration cooperation. And if you because of the nature unique nature and attributes of the space domain of you look at the fact that you can't claim sovereignty and you look at the so many new actors and activities on going in space that you know that the tech international relations perspective of applying force or coercing coercing or compelling other people to, you know, align with your interest just isn't really a viable pathway forward. You have to rely on persuasion you have to rely on diplomacy leadership and those that's the viable way forward I think it's important to discuss not just the challenges and issues of space but also the many benefits that space capabilities provide to us, you know, terrestrial is not just space research and exploration. There's a lot of benefits that we derive here on earth from those capabilities, whether it's position navigation timing, huge has huge economic safety implications weather data climate monitoring telecommunications and if you look at all those benefits. There's sort of UN sponsored or other multinational multilateral agreement or committee tied to those there's the International Committee for Global Navigation Sally services to, you know, that promotes cooperation and the conflicts amongst all the different constellations that provide services. You have the world meteorological organization that fosters data cooperation with, you know, in support of atmospheric and climatology you have the ITU and international telecommunications union. It goes on even commercial there's non government organizations like the Space Data Association, give all these avenues for their that have generated from the space domain. All these avenues for multinational multilateral cooperation, and so I think that there's a lot of benefit and opportunities moving forward. And I think that's why it's important to talk about space moving forward. So, thank you. Thank you so much. Now we're going to go back to introducing the panelists as you must have already seen this super knowledgeable. So I'm going to start with Miss Caitlyn Johnson, it's my pleasure to introduce you. Miss Johnson is a deputy director and fellow of the aerospace security project at the center for strategic and international studies. Her research specializes in topics such as space security military space systems and commercial and civil space policy. There are more detailed bios on our website. I'm just keeping them short for time. Miss Caitlyn Johnson welcome and I hope that you can give your opening remarks now. Sure. Hi everybody I'm sorry I couldn't be with you today I guess our panel has been struck by some spring illnesses and so we're all taking it for Sophia from home. It is a delight to talk with you though and I just wanted to kind of give a quick introduction of CSIS and our work in case you haven't heard of us before. So like Mira said I work for the aerospace security project at CSIS CSIS is a bipartisan nonprofit think tank here in Washington DC.  And so we do take internships where you know we're just finishing hiring for the summer but we take interns like every semester so it's based policy is something you are interested in learning more about space especially those that can be done virtually like ours or is is a great way to kind of get your foot in the door to see if this is something you want to pursue. We think about our research in kind of three buckets. The first is air dominance and long range strike. The second is space security and then the last is civil and commercial space and I will say my expertise tends to lend to with a bit of an emphasis on space security more than civil and commercial space but I did just do a really deep dive into CSIS lunar and lunar missions that are planned for the next decade or so. But anyway we conduct open source research that helps kind of educate and inform policymakers so that they can make more informed decisions. You know their policymakers are often super busy putting out fires dealing with the chaos of politics that surprisingly they don't have a ton of time to dig into really detailed subject areas and topics and so what we think we bring to the table is that we kind of break down these technically complicated subjects or we do the deep dive of research and then we present the facts and the analysis in a bipartisan way we're never trying to swing anyone one way or another. And it really allows us to have a seat at the table in between and outside of politics, as well as getting all parties involved, you know different ideas, luckily for us spaces relatively bipartisan. And so we don't have to deal with it too much but right now we are just wrapping up the research and publication of one of our flagship reports called the space threat assessment this will be our fifth edition that we have done it's going to get published on Monday. So I'm happy Mira if you want to dive into that to tell you some like early insights that we've found during that research. But that is really what our team is focusing on right now. Thank you so much for definitely going to get to the space threat assessment obviously on I want to ask a quick follow up question on your remarks. Why do you think spaces remain a bipartisan issue. I think it's a, I mean that's a really interesting case study I think it make a really interesting thesis if any of you are out there are looking for ideas. For me, you know we see the bipartisan nature of space as something that's kind of got this historic legacy. Space as a national power has always been a tool leveraged by the US government, not always as out in front as it was in the Apollo area, but we kind of see a resurgence now more with commercial space and then NASA's pivot to the moon with Artemis program and so luckily, you know, there's not too much contention in space will kind of see some based on administration preferences, but relatively they're pretty minimal and I, you know, I wonder if it's because it has this historic legacy of success and of exploration and of community. But so far, I, we haven't seen too many disagreements. I'm going to go on to introducing our next panelist, Mr. Bayar Goswami. Mr. Goswami is an arsenal doctoral fellow at the Institute of Air and Space Law at McGill University. Mr. Bayar is also involved in the project to curate the McGill Encyclopedia for International Space Law, very important, giving that there are not many definitions for things in space, and also in the research and publication publication of the McGill manual on International Space Law applicable to military users of space. Mr. Goswami, would you like to start with your opening remarks. Thank you. Thank you so much for the kind introduction. I'm so sorry I couldn't be there in person. I apparently managed to stay COVID free for two and a half years and just towards the side end of it, I managed to contract it. But then I'm delighted to be joining virtually and thank you so much for the kind introduction again. With regards to, I mean, we'll obviously talk about, I'd be happy to talk about the Encyclopedia project that we're working on, and also Melamos, which is one of the flagship project that we are doing at McGill, and going to be quite cutting edge once it's published. We are very soon, and we are very close to publishing it in the coming month. With regards to my opening remarks, I think I would take a position, and this would perhaps be a good starting position to open the discussion. It would be that the way titers face the final frontier, we have to de-escalate the conversation. We have to de-weaponize and think about space. Of course, think about space from security perspectives, but also not forget the negotiating history of the outer space treaty. Where does the fundamental or fundamental principles of space law come from? They come from the outer space treaty, which was drafted and negotiated in times when the world was just coming out of the world wars. There was an ongoing Cold War. We were also just coming out of the entire process of colonization. So there was a huge movement against decolonization, as we see, and we see all of these reflections of the recent learnings in history embedded in the outer space. We see non-appropriation because we wanted to avoid space to be erased towards resources. We wanted to de-conflict or de-escalate conflicts or not have a race towards weaponization or militarization of outer space. So you find provisions in outer space treaty which are towards more cooperative and peaceful uses of outer space. So while, of course, the realities and the geopolitical tensions tend to lean on the side that space is becoming a war fighting domain, but it only becomes so if you continue to push it towards that and forget where the outer space law and where the international cooperation vertically in terms of outer space got started from. So there are many activities that are still happening in outer space, which may be in the gray area of outer space treaty, but then we always have to draw the links back to the negotiating history and the circumstances that the treaty was brought in, particularly for the members. So with that as an opening remark, I would just say that as we move on to different discussions, I would keep bringing back that whatever we find in outer space treaty as a very significant position and history in what was happening in the world at that point in time and why a certain provision that we find in outer space treaty is to be found. There is a very solid logic and rationale and there are statements by countries who are negotiating and drafting the treaty to that effect, to show their commitment towards the peaceful nature of maintaining outer space for peaceful purposes, or let's say, avoid a race to resources or militarization of a planet. So with just that background, we should head to next up. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you so much. And with that, I'm going to introduce our last speaker who's here with us today. Thank you so much for joining in last minute. Our fourth panelist is Mrs. Sophia Warner. Mrs. Warner is a first year graduate student at the Fletcher School studying security and technology with a concentration in space law and policy. Sophia's research focuses on the role of low earth orbit satellites in digital connectivity and security. And she's also writing a master's thesis on the future of lunar governance and great power competition over lunar resources and lunar resource resource management. Given that, Caitlin, you just came out with a paper on that, I'm sure we can talk about the moon later as well. I love talking about the moon. Thank you. Thank you for having me and I, I'll preface this by saying I am not an expert. Your experts are here but I am a wannabe expert and it's been really great on the student side and I'm just assuming a lot of you are students here at Tufts and I'm at Fletcher just down the road. And it's been really great to explore this new domain specifically not just in the security sense and technology sense but also in academia as well. And I think for me the interest really did start just I was a teacher for two years in Berlin and it was great talking to my students about robots and AI. And I realized in the course of those two years, especially when COVID hit and I had a lot of time to do research and I always would check the news and what was going on in the States just because I was a little homesick and I was trying to not only, you know, prepare lessons like, you know, stay connected it was great to see the rise of space and space exploration and changes in the news and I think something that we talk about a lot at Fletcher is that you can't separate land from sea from cyber and space it doesn't happen in a vacuum and it's been really great to get that multidisciplinary approach, you know, right down the road, and the support obviously that I've received and not just from the Fletcher community, having talked to Caitlin home before and having reached out to experts in the field. And I think something for me that's really important of course low earth orbit satellites the moon so fun to talk about, but you see a lot of these conversations, conversations happening top down so you see NASA, you see these think tanks and they have great research and they share, there's not much that we're doing an education to really shape the culture of space and to shape, like how our nation sees itself. Like in this in this in this world or in this space and I think that you sort of need to teach yourself or at least we should all try to teach ourselves how to speak space and start early so even if you're in a class on. Oh, I don't know it's been a while if you're talking about the Cold War if you're if you're talking about even you know, I'm thinking about Fletcher classes but we have classes on mergers and acquisitions. We have classes on strategy and grand strategy and I think that space can't be separated from that. And of course, I know it's, it's a scary domain. There are a lot of threats, but it's really important to get excited about the opportunities as well and you can't get there if you don't really teach yourself how to. Yeah, speak, speak the language of space and so I guess as a graduate student and happy to talk about my experiences and the conversations being had at Fletcher and how you all as you know butting space scholars are just people who want to be better in the loop with all of this can connect your field to space. Thank you so much. We're going to dive right into the questions now. Mr. Goswami since he spoke a little bit about the history of the space domain. I wonder if you can talk about what are the space laws and norms that govern the domain as well who are the primary actors. That's a very interesting but also a very broad question. I don't know how much that's upon that. But in terms of let me get the simple ones out of base though in terms of who are the actors today we definitely see. So state space started from being a very state dominated domain that only countries, or what we in the politics of law because states, it started from there, but today the scenario is, of course, all of us know is continuously changing and we do see private actors. We do also see international organizations who have their separate identity as such an international law participating as in a space activity as an independent being. So we at the moment I think we have at least three very identifiable actors which are the states. Now states can be civil or military states can be from civil and military side. It could also be from a private actor point of view that we have space sites we have different other other different corporations who are now taking part in space activities so we do have that. In terms of laws. Now that we come to it's very important to also understand that a few fundamental principles that would that do go on out of space, and space is not as lawless as people who don't know about the space of making In terms of what are the fundamental principles, most of them would be I think the most important one is the freedom of exploration and uses of. Out of space remains free to be explored and used for all countries and in the interest of all countries alike it does not matter if somebody is if a state is a party to the treaty or not that provision in the marketplace really the very first provision talks about the right of all the states alike to explore and use the In terms of the second most important provision that I would say or the law that goes out of space would be the appropriation principle. It basically says that no state or no private cooperation on nobody by any means can claim out of space by any means it could be by sovereignty it could be by commercial exploration. Anything by any means nobody can claim any part of our space for perpetuity or for exclusive uses as such. Third or fourth most I would say that is definitely a hint of peaceful exploration where the outer space treaty defines to. Facial grounds on which this distinguishes what can be exclusively peaceful purpose, so the celestial body, the moon and the other celestial bodies have to remain exclusively be there can be no military activity, no matter what on the surface of the moon and the other celestial bodies, except for scientific purposes and peaceful exploration so no military activities on the celestial body basically, however, in the vacuum of space what we call the orbit or the deep space, there can be certain military activities, however, you are still prohibited to deploy nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in outer space, however, conventional weapons are still allowed, not allowed in the sense that the outer space treaty actually says that this would be allowed but it's allowed by implication because outer space treaty only talks about that weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons are prohibited in the space. I think one of the most again important principle that one should bear in mind and when we talk about outer space law is the principle or the rule of responsibility. So no matter who in terms of after when we talk about actors, whether it's basic, whether it's a private corporation or an international organization, it would always be the case that these are responsible for activities originating in their territories or so far as they have a connection with the actor. So it is never the case, which is unlike international law in general actually because in international law there is a principle of attribution that you have to determine what was the connection between the state and the private entity, but in space law it's a very clear cut principle that a state would always be responsible for the activity of national. So that could be private, that could be a state being taken part in an international organization itself. So a state basically becomes responsible. Now, the last I will say, I mean, then I could keep talking about it, but then the last and one was one of the other most important principles would be the principle of liability that when a damage is caused by a space object of state to other space objects, then there are rules to determine liability. In terms of when it happens in space you have to, what Benjamin said, you have to fix a fault as to who was at fault to create that damage and the states would be liable for causing such damage in terms of when the damage is caused in a space or on surface of the earth. As it happened in the Soviet Union, in the Kosovo's 9-54 case, where there was a space object that had fallen onto Canadian territory and it had nuclear radiation, a state that means absolutely liable. You don't have to fix fault as so far as you can ascertain that this space object belongs to the state. Any damage following in airspace or on the surface of the earth would be affected to the state in question. So those I think would be the most fundamental principles that we do talk about in other space among many other, but then I'm sure we'll get to them once we get into that more. Thank you so much. That was a very good broad understanding of an even broader topic. Miss Johnson or Miss Warner, do you have anything additional to add on actors in space or laws and policies? I mean, I don't really have much to add. I think Bayer gave a great overview. I would just say that, you know, I would reinforce what he said that the space domain is changing in its nature of actors. And while the origins of space or what we like to call the first space age was primarily the domain of nation states, the United States, Russia, and a few others. It is now not only more diverse in different countries acting in space, but the commercial capability is so much that they have as much or sometimes more responsibility and satellites on orbit than nations do. Starlink, for example, SpaceX, the satellite constellation, they have more satellites on orbit than China and Russia, I believe. I mean, it's incredible. And yes, these are small satellites and low earth orbit, but the stake of commercial companies is equal to that of nation states right now, which is causing a really interesting dynamic. As we look at, I think, you know, as the lawyers look at the legal stuff, but as policymakers as we look at the different policies and regulations, at least in the United States that we have for liability for insurance for other culpability, security practices, there's a lot of questions up in the air, especially that we're seeing right now with so many commercial actors involved in the conflict in Ukraine. It's throwing a lot of this into question and it's a really interesting time to be studying this. The only thing that I would add, and Caitlin touched on it a little bit, but if anyone is, and this is from one moot court space moot court competition experience that I have the extent of my legal knowledge, but if you're have, you know, time for some light reading and want to learn more about kind of this commercial side of space, definitely look into the space assets protocol in the Cape Town Convention, because that really kind of changed the game. Looking at these private actors and Mark Sundall has a great book on it that you can find at the Ginn library. So if anyone really wants to read not just the outer space treaty, the liability convention, but then look at these additions that are happening and that are also part of the conversation. I highly encourage you to go that way. Thank you so much. Since Mr stats left us on the militarization of space I was hoping to get back into that topic. This Johnson you mentioned that ASP releases the space threat assessment every year. This question isn't too bad. Could you talk about the existing existing space warfare and anti satellite capabilities, how they've evolved and some insights from the upcoming report. And on the other hand, Mr Goswami you touched on this a bit, but Caitlin could you speak about how does how does the militarization of space fit into the requirement in the outer space treaty for space to be used for primarily peaceful purposes. Two really big questions I can assuredly tackle the first, the second we might need to leave to the lawyers but I'll give you my by two cents. So, yes, CSIS along with our good friends at the secure world foundation publish a annual report looking at the developments and testing of counter space weapons. We have a framework for defining those we have developed frameworks of like what kind of weapon and what kind of impact they can have are they reversible how hard is it to tribute lots of things so if you're really interested in this, I would look there. I want to start with saying that space has always been militarized the first satellites launched into space for military purposes primarily nuclear command and control early missile warning, and that remains true to this day. What is changing is the weaponization of the space domain. And there are a couple ways we can talk about space weapons and my boss Todd wrote a really great report looking at a very simple framework of outlining space weapons which is based on where they're located at the located on the ground. Are they located in space and then where is the impact is impact on the ground is impact in space lays it out kind of nicely and simply what we're finding in our counter space our space threat assessment is the growing proliferation and use of ground based counter space weapons. So this is primarily jamming technology and technology electronic forms of counter space weapons. Jamming is when you, you know, create a lot of radio frequency noise that's of a similar radio frequency as the satellites communicating. And you can affect ground stations or ground receivers and basically block them from getting that signal spoofing is when you trick that receiver thinking that your signal is the real one. And both of these have proliferated and interesting ways, both by like the sheer number of instances we've found and the amount of use that we've seen, but also in the diversity of actors that we've seen using these so when we started this research five years ago. Jamming technology was primarily used by nation states like Russia and China, the US obviously has jamming technology as well. But very like state oriented. Now we're seeing jamming and spoofing technology used by non state actors used by individuals not for like nefarious purposes but for their own reasons one of my favorite stories from this year space threat assessment. Is that there's actually a lot of like food delivery drivers in Indonesia who use a app that spoof their GPS location. So that they are that their phone is giving off a signal that they are closer to whatever checkpoint or restaurant that they need to be at so that they don't have to wait in a parking lot in the rain. So that they can wait like under shelter a mile away or something like that it's amazing and so between that and like I found a spoofing manual on GitHub, I mean it's just like it's everywhere. And it really to me shows that this technology is not necessarily affecting the satellite in space it's not damaging the satellite but it's damaging your, your use of the satellite. And that is what we're seeing around Ukraine and in Ukraine with Russian invasion we saw it for a couple months before. If the Russian jamming was affecting drones from the OSCE from taking off and performing overflight, you know, kind of humanitarian safety missions. And so it was jamming the GPS signal, basically, and so we continue to see that today in Russia. I'm sure that story will evolve, we only kind of got to scratch the surface with our publication deadlines. The other worrisome trend that we're seeing is the frequency of destructive kinetic physical direct ascent asets. So basically what you probably think of when you hear ASAT which is a missile launched from Earth that just that hits a satellite on orbit. So we saw Russia in November of 2021 attack one of the so dead Soviet Union satellites that was in low Earth orbit. It caused substantial space debris. That debris was launched into the same orbit as the International Space Station and put the astronauts and astronauts at risks. The Chinese have said that it put their space station at risk as well. And then, you know, that was surprising and damaging. We had assessed at least that they had this technology and we knew that. India had also conducted a test in 2019. The United States conducted a similar test in 2008 and China in 2007. There's a lot of guesswork of like why the countries are now testing this technology again. But I think what's really noticeable is that to test this technology, you don't actually have to hit a satellite in space, right? You can kind of point at a point in space that's not occupied by anything and say we're going to hit there. And if you can hit it, you know, it kind of proves the technology without having to cause all of this damaging space debris. And so there are a couple reasons of like signaling national pride, being grandfathered in if anyone, you know, agrees to a ASAT, a direct descent ASAT ban, kind of like the nuclear grandfather in other states, things like that. You know what this means for peaceful uses of out of space? I will leave to the lawyers. I'm sure there's a lot of legal terms there. So far we have not seen any state attack a different states satellite, like actively attack their satellite. We have seen them block GPS signals. We have seen dazzling attempts or cyber hack attempts in the past but nothing that has been like a full front attack in space on another satellite. That fits in to the legal conversation, but I certainly don't think it helps. Thank you so much. Mr. Goswami, if you could take the peaceful use question and also introduce Milano's that would be great. And I would ask that we keep the answers to say three to four minutes so we can get more of them before the time elapses. Sure. So in terms of peaceful uses, it's a it's a very simple logic that our space really establishes. So from a legal point of view, our space is not exclusively people. So the when when the treaty was being drafted and negotiated. There was a lot of conversation around whether to make outer space entirely exclusively peaceful to say that no military activity ever is allowed. And that's not the case that got denuded into or got the principle that got accepted as a treaty binding obligation. Again, like I said, the treaty establishes to hierarchies. The moon and the other solicited bodies are exclusively peaceful, and you can have no military activity or weaponization whatsoever. But the outer space in the void and the orbits remain non aggressive views right so that that's the interpretation that was given to the peaceful purposes. So in the orbit and in the deep space, you would still have weapons that are not weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons, and you could have conventional weapons. And of course, we talk about the kinetic or non kinetic asad. So we do have that problem in space law that to certain extent military activities and weaponization is by implication and out. So we do have to tackle that in terms of responsible behavior. And like I mentioned that while the technology, particularly the kinetic asad, which actually have a physical impact on the entity, those could be tested without actually creating debris. Why do state choose to go around shooting their own satellites and creating debris that poses threat to everybody's use in access of space. So that's something to be part about from what international policy and legal, legally binding norms point of view.  So it's not a data still conflict which only impacts the dual view of the space, but in space, any impact which creates physical debris affects every other states freedom to use and explore outer space. So we have to keep that in mind, states have to comply. Then mind while, you know, potentially define their behavior in outer space. In terms of now coming to Milamos, what we are doing is we are identifying laws which are applicable to the military use. We at outer space city is the outer space city and the other convention that we have in space law are the only governing dictation rather to the militaries of nation states and they can be interpreted one way or the other. Not every time space law tells that militaries can do this or that, but there is an a certain able amount of law existing that can be defined by national experts to say that this is the existing law that would apply to this military activity. And that is the entire exercise that we have engaged in with respect to Milamos where we have international experts from around the world who represent their own geographic and understanding of law, geographical understanding of law. And basically we all of us arrive at consensus on the principle what is the law about national law, what is the law about appropriation and what is the law about regular frequency jamming or what is the law about laser dazzling. So the experts come to a consensus about this is the existing law and it is then supplemented by commentary, the legal basis of the rule statement, the commentary and the future issues and ongoing challenges. So that is where the project is situated in and it is basically a manual to aid and assist the military activities in outer space so that there is a more clear understanding of law who are actually two people who are actually engaged in doing space activity from a military point of Thank you so much. I really look forward to reading the manual on the militarization of space. I'd like to ask you if you could speak a little bit about the dual use nature of space and satellites in low earth orbit and how could that play out in the future in terms of space warfare. Oh, okay. Yeah, so I so everyone sort of or it seems to me these days, kind of talking about low earth orbit satellites. And they're different for a few reasons they're kind of constantly orbiting the earth obviously they're closer. But the thing is, and this is something that I'm exploring in one of my classes actually in a privacy class is that they are more susceptible to kind of infiltration and data breaches. And due to their inherently I think I don't know if they're smaller and of course experts can correct me if I'm wrong. As I just started this research but they have to they you can't equip them with a lot of like technology like they can't hold as much as you know the the the higher earth orbit orbit satellites and so when we look at kind of like I was talking jamming and spoofing it's not just one satellite it's a whole constellation because they work better when there's there's more of them kind of constantly rotating. So I've started started looking at things such as you know space based blockchain and kind of looking at like quantum encryption and I think again sort of tying it back to what I said at the beginning when you look at military services and that the space force right now is looking to get a constellation of military satellites in low earth orbit. It's not just the regulations up there like yes responsibility and liability but actually making sure that they not only comply with the regulations that exist right now, but their, their systems on board are proactive enough to make sure that we, you know, are are not hacked, because of course a lot of these conversations they're difficult to have because it is national security concerns. So I think that transformation is not available and so again I think his name he left Ben Ben was talking about compelence and deterrence and all that good you know the functions of force that we talk about in our like those all change. So I think the conversation in space especially when now like the defense is inherently the offense when it comes to cyber and being proactive but I think the conversation, especially about satellites is that it's not just military purposes and that sort of why I started using you know LAO satellites and the Starlink fleet and bridging the digital divide and how helping people, you know, in hard to reach places get Wi Fi and access to the internet, helping you know indigenous communities and their schools be better connected, especially when we look at inclusivity and issues of just like social justice and education, especially now with COVID people need to be connected and if the FCC, you know is preaching these things of like yes get everyone on the grid and digital connectivity. I think LAO satellites are a great, great opportunity for that. And so I think that a huge of course like we can talk military all day long and talk about all those challenges, but don't forget the aspect as well or especially in, you know, humanitarian challenges. I think Spire, I think what I saw inspire companies that are doing great work with satellites when it comes to just like monitoring climate change and looking at that data so again, yeah none of it happening in a vacuum and I like to consider you know it's like really not just dual use but multi purpose technologies that have a lot of potential. In the future I think the companies that are really leading that conversation need to figure out really where their market is and how they can collaborate with other other actors but also make sure that they're getting the most benefits like out of their market so love satellites happy to talk happy to talk but I know that we're running out of time. Yeah, on that I want to ask my last moderated question on similar notes of your answer right now. So space exploration requires huge capital investments. And a worry I personally have is that it will not only reflect the inequalities or not like development of space will not only reflect the inequalities or not but also exacerbate them. How can we ensure that space is developed equitably. Do you want to start with Sona. Wow. Um, I mean, yeah, it needs to be and I think when we look at the outer space treaty and I think kind of like. Mr this mommy was saying like the use for all right, and I think that's going to require not just, you know, UN copus like you and usa outer space agency not just those agencies, but having everyone work in tandem and share projects and share information because that's in the outer space treaty as well. Article 11, maybe I knew it last week for the competition. But it's it's not just about having these capabilities and profiting. But it's also about being able to share information and I think we have to strike that right balance and it's it's not a difficult thing to do it's definitely going to take time. And that is why I kind of lean back to again space is this academic domain that should be explored on all levels from kindergarten all the way up you know grad school law school and so if we start the conversation of you know, space is something that touches on everything that humanitarian actors to military actors can be involved I think that opens the door, and I hate to be the person I think when people said this on panels and I'm on a panel saying it but like really starts with the youth like it really does like getting people excited just the fact that you're having something like this, and then allowing more opportunities for research allowing more grants that are not just on the stem side but also on the policy side, I think will really help kind of bridge the gaps that exist. Thank you so much. Mr Goswami do you want to go next. Sure. Oh well I could talk about this endlessly. In terms of how to strike equity and responsibility in terms of benefit sharing and I mean people have written pieces and books about it and what we don't need to understand is how do we understand what benefit sharing or means. So while one may say that, you know, only the advanced nation or the first world countries are getting to exploit or explore and use our space to best of their capabilities. But then I mean there also is a conversation to be had in terms of how those technologies and information that we gain, or the scientific advancement that we make are then shared with the world in generally. And there is also an entire conversation about how spin off of space technologies has benefited different countries who would have never thought about that this technology is coming from actually a space domain but is now being utilized to do something else. So that there are a lot of spin off technologies that are coming from building space technology. So it's not just about it's not the conversation shouldn't just be about a limited to the idea of that, you know, the third world countries or the countries that have access to outer space also need to reach space, the benefit sharing and the interest of all countries can easily be tied and weaved into, you know, the broader understanding of how space has benefited the entire globe and countries altogether. So in terms of whether it is a buddy that post world countries or the space powers would continue to dominate dominate outer space. Again, this is a conversation which I can have for hours together but then we do need to understand what philosophy or what understanding of society, are we taking two out of these. So I usually talk about on earth we have seen as the problem of most things that we think that anything or any natural resource that we see out there is for us to consume and exploit, and is that the philosophy that we want to take into our space because on earth that philosophy or that style of exploring or exploiting the earthly resources has led us into the scene where we now see that humanity in totality has become a geophysical force affecting the forces of the earth. So have we become a global force against the nature of itself and is that the philosophy that we want to take to outer space is that a value paradigm that we want to take to outer space and exploit outer space in a way similar fashion is something more broader than just law and policy conversation or a stem conversation. So I completely agree with what was said before that space has to be opened up for social scientists and social scientists need to be very invested and see very carefully and critically what is happening in outer space and how to assess humanity's role in exploration and humanity's involvement in outer space as to what is going to happen next, and it is not purely now just a domain for the stem or space sciences as we used to know about it. Thank you so much, Miss Johnson. Yeah, I don't have too much to add I think. My fellow panelists really hit the highlights of these issues and there are experts studying this all over the place who are much more informed than me I'll just say that kind of to the end of by our comments of what concerns me is the the resource exploitation and the attitude that at the United States is taking towards it so we've seen with several legal statements and documents but also is primarily in the Artemis Accords that the United States is sanctioning the idea of kind of finders keepers with what resources you can extract from the moon and other celestial bodies. Research on this is lunar and lunar missions that are planned, most are devoted to science and building long term logistical structures to have kind of a more long term presence on the moon. The science is really like most of it is focused on finding water and ice, especially in the polls, which is an incredible resource that could again be exploited. And so I have to agree that it's a worrisome outlook that the United States as well as the like 15 or 16 other nations have signed on to the Artemis Accords are taking in this and I think, you know, I worry that it's driving competition. Sorry, I worry that it's driving competition between actors and it's promoting this this worry that nations could have a first mover advantage of who gets to which place on the moon first, as well as other, you know, valuable assets. So it's a hard balance to because you think of the economies that are out in space, the potential that is out there as well to develop new technologies to discover new things and new resources that could alleviate some of the strife we have here on earth. It's just it's a hard question, and we need, like my handle said everyone to be at the table to think and talk about these issues. Thank you very much. And now, now I'd like to open the floor to questions if you could come up to the mic. Hello, good afternoon. Thanks, everybody. Thanks for the panelists for introducing us to this field of how humanity go, only go where no one has gone before. My question is for Mr. Goswami initially but happy to hear other panelists comments as well and it is on space mining. You mentioned two principles that govern the, you know, general rules of international cooperation on space law, two of them are the freedom of exploration and discovery and know the rule of no appropriation. There it is. Is it better now doing me to repeat, or, okay. Well, first, I forgot to introduce myself. My name is Anton of Vienna, I am a law student at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. And I was commenting on one thing that Mr. Goswami mentioned, but which are the two principles, two of the principles that govern international cooperation in space, the idea of freedom of exploration and discovery and the rule of no appropriation. And I imagine situations in the future when we talk about space mining where those two principles collide when states or even private companies start to, you know, be interested in exploring economically goods and asteroids and celestial bodies that are in in the space. How do you see ways for us to balance those principles, like how can we incentivize economic exploration without bringing, you know, the same problems that we see in climate change on earth to other planets and outside. So that's a very interesting question and very important one as well. So in terms of space mining, when we talk about the outer space theory, there is no pattern conflict in terms of article one or article two when we talk about freedom of exploration and use versus the non appropriation principle, because when freedom of exploration and use is being talked about or being embedded into outer space theory, it is for the interest of all countries without discrimination of any kind. Right. So that is one principle that is embedded in our space. When we talk about non appropriation, it's a prohibition on any claim that is made in exclusivity. So when you talk about the mining or when you talk about resource extraction, whether it is about asteroid capturing an entire asteroid or mining lunar base. So it is not so much in the interest of all countries because then what a state is engaging in is engaging in private venture, let's say for its own commercial purposes. So that is somewhat not somewhat but completely prohibited. So there is no as such a pattern conflict between the two principles. What we do now see is because of the that there is now a new space age if we want to say that the new space age is triggering new interest and evolving with evolving technology we do see a lot of vested interest in terms of outer space and space resources. So a lot of countries including the US have come out and said that space resources whoever finds it will keep it. It's like the old California gold rush, but it is not the case as such because then when we really interpret the outer space really the right way if I may say which includes the background and the circumstances that the treaty was drafted in including the statements from the US ambassador. It is very clear that it is appropriation is prohibited for any need of no commercial activity or no private activity or no state or military activity can appropriate any part of space for whatever purpose. So yes there is now a changing narrative that is being ascribed on to outer space treaty with with what we see in our terms of code it is a unilateral against the interpretation of the invention of interpretation of outer space treaty and that means to be seen how well does that float whether that changes the interpretation that is embedded in the outer space treaty or that requires a complete upcycle or formation of a new law and understanding in terms of what is already in place. I think a great way to go about it could be the moon agreement that is another agreement which is not so successful in outer space but it's called the moon agreement that the treaty governing the moon and such bodies and which basically prescribes that resources are common heritage of all mankind or all humankind. And there would be a mechanism to distribute the resources equitably and more appropriately once it becomes a reality or a possibility so maybe that's a way to go about it but there is no clear answer as to how at the moment we stand in terms of based on these practices because there are western interests and there is a very clear law that prohibits so that would be my response. Thank you very much. Is this one on yeah okay fantastic. Hello my name is Isabella I'm a senior studying political science at Tufts and this question was directed for Miss Johnson. So alongside international efforts to create legal norms in space many governments are creating national space policies that feature commercial interests. This comes from the rapid development of space technologies like you said privatization of data venture financing in the private sphere. Can you speak a little bit more to how commercial interests are playing a part in forming international space policy and the risk of tech giants in this sphere like SpaceX Blue Origin and others monopolizing space technologies. Yeah, it's a great question I'm going to be honest with you it's not something that I've studied super deeply so I'll just kind of give you my two cents. I think we're seeing the impact of commercial space in several ways. I do think that they that commercial companies have engaged with the UN there are several outlets in the UN right now that are focused on space. Whether that is the Office of Outer Space Affairs or the open ended working group that's about to start on space weaponization in the conference of disarmament. And I know there's a lot of forum there I think in the United States from what I've been hearing about US based companies. Their their avenues are to lobby and discuss with the government so we see a lot of space companies and new space companies who have VPs of business development or government affairs whose job it is to kind of talk with policy makers about their concerns about regulation or where they think the government could better protect industry or better give industry more leverage to develop new technologies and lean in so one area that I've seen this recently is with nuclear propulsion, which is a good opportunity for new space companies. It's something that we are going to need if we want to have long term sustainability and people living and working in space, but the way the US government regulations have been structured is that nuclear material is really managed really carefully and often only within government hands and so allowing the commercial companies to have access to new material to test and develop these propulsion technologies is something that they've been working towards and I think it's something that the Trump administration picked up and it's something that I think the Biden administration is going to move forward with is allowing companies to start developing this now it's not the same material in grade that you would need for nuclear weapon but you know it's still dangerous. So things like that I, you know, as on the international skill I haven't seen too much other than like the impact of Elon Musk's Twitter, but mostly, you know, mostly it's internal it's working with their own congressmen and senators and working with the different committees, as well as you know they have avenues and discussions with people at state, people at NASA, people in DOD. The interesting thing about space in the United States at least is that there are a dozen different agencies and offices that cover different pieces of the United States space portfolio, I guess you could say and so a lot of companies are having you know staff on hand who have like have expertise and have those connections, so that they can better understand the policies that are getting passed and then kind of leverage, you know their connections so that they can get policies that are maybe in favor of their interest. Thank you. Okay. My name is Janya. I'm majoring in computer science and international relations and I'm a member of the epic colloquium. This question is directed at Miss Warner. You discussed the role of satellite technology and I was really interested in looking at how it can be applied to the issue of space debris, specifically looking at the existence of computer programs to track where space debris will travel to. I'm wondering if you conducted any research on this and know about this innovation at all. Yeah, I was actually reading about this the other day. But I know so space so satellites I know can obviously contract and they can also think or they have the potential to have like debris medic mitigation or at least like removal capabilities. And that's something that's a budding technology and the low earth orbit, the overcrowding and low earth orbit is a huge concern as we kind of talked about earlier and so I think not something definitely something that I want my research to touch on. I kind of pivoted and looked at that digital divide and that was sort of what my low earth orbit experience was to the time being but I think that if we can find a way to allow these technologies of course it would be great if they could move debris to a different planet or take it and then bring it back to study right and again like further scientific research, but issues of liability do like arise there right because if there's an issue something breaks and then more, you know, debris spreads and also again tying it back to issues of security. I think that if the satellite is compromised. And so I think with a lot of these things I know someone talked about mining I know someone that we've talked about all these things that seem kind of meta. And for me as someone who wants to be a future policymaker you really have to ask yourself like why does it matter right now and think short term and long term. So, all of these are great ideas should definitely be explored like the R&D should definitely be there, but there's a lot of regulation and compliance that needs to be met. Before we get to the point where you know, Starlink says oopsies and then one web says it's all right we got it dude like it's not going to be that simple. So, great opportunities again. I definitely support them, especially as like crowding is an issue but again we'll see. Thanks so much. Hi. Can I just jump in real quick Mira. So, there are a lot of different organizations that are trying to track space debris it's much easier to track it. Once it's our once the event has happened, you know, the United States military just in the past couple years brought online and mission architecture called space fence, which consists of a lot of ground but also a lot of a couple in space satellites that track satellites and debris in low earth orbit, as well as the NGO we can track much smaller pieces that used to be we could only track to the size of a softball now you can go much smaller. And what it's done is created this like immense amount of data that the 18th, which is a space force. It has to deal with and that all shows up in space track. I think you've got a couple of places like astrograph TS calso select track that are doing this on the outsides and then you've also got companies that are seeing this SSA the space space environment. I think the biggest challenge from what I've heard from my, my engineering friends is that it's really hard to predict where the debris will go. Prior to impact. And that's what makes ASA testing really damaging is that you can actually predict where for that debris might spread to. I think the biggest challenge from what I've heard from my, my engineering friends is that it's really hard to predict where the debris will go. Prior to impact. And that's what makes ASA testing really damaging is that you can actually predict where for that debris might spread to. Yeah, I would just jump in and throw in a name Jonathan McDowell he's one of our Milamos beliefs and he does this amazing work in tracking all kinds of space objects including debris for definitely a resource to check out he maintains his own website so definitely go check his work out phenomenal bit of detail. He provides that available publicly Jonathan McDowell. Thank you so much thank you for joining us miss johnson Mr. Goswami and Miss Warner I really appreciate you taking the time to be on our panel. We have the expert led small discussion breakout rooms happening right now starting at fall. You can come up if you need to recheck who are the speakers but I'm just going to quickly announce them. The workshop on climate refugees is in room 260 the workshop on nuclear proliferation is in room 601. The global energy transition workshop is in room 180 and governing Bitcoin is in 160 I have this paper up here so you guys can come and take a look at it and head to whichever breakout rooms you're interested in. Thank you so much.