SPECPOL Briefing Paper

SPECPOL Briefing Paper Honourable delegates, It is our great pleasure to welcome you to the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL) at the Asia-Pacific Model United Nations Conference 2015. To the veterans of MUN, we promise you a very enriching debate that you ve never experienced before and to the newcomers, we are really excited to be a part of your maiden voyage. The following briefing will intend to familiarise you with the Committee, as well as its agenda. This briefing touches upon all the different aspects that are relevant and will lead to fruitful debate in the Committee. It will provide you with a bird s eye view of the gist of the issue. However, it has to be noted that the briefing guide only contains certain basic information which may form the basis for the debate and your research. You are the representative of your allocated country and it is our hope that you put in wholehearted efforts to research and comprehensively grasp all important facets of the diverse agenda. All the delegates should prepare well in order to make the committee s direction and debate productive. After all, only then will you truly be able to represent your country in the best possible way. Our aim in the committee sessions is to urge you to put your best foot forward and take back an unforgettable experience. We encourage you to go beyond this background guide and delve into the extremities of the agenda to further enhance your knowledge of a burning global issue. Don t forget Position Papers are due by the 19th of June, 2015. Make sure you join the committee facebook group here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/912331175490002/ For any further assistance feel free to contact us at: specpol@amunc.net Best of luck, Rida Ahmed, Secretary-General, Amy Trang, Director of Committees, Kevin Emeraldi and Philip Mallis, Committee Directors. 0

Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL) The Question of the Safe Disposal of Nuclear Waste Introduction to the committee The Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (SPECPOL) is the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly. Its mandate is broad, covering a wide range of topics including decolonisation, outer space and atomic radiation. It was initially formed to administer the UN trust territories as the Decolonisation Committee, but it merged with the Special Political Committee (the seventh committee of the General Assembly) to create the present structure. SPECPOL works closely with the Disarmament and Security Committee (DISEC), the First Committee of the General Assembly, to cover parts of its heavy workload where necessary. No resolutions of the committee are binding, but it does have the power to make recommendations to the General Assembly and the Security Council. Given the broad mandate of the committee, there is little that falls outside of the scope of SPECPOL. While most matters are already covered by one or more other UN agencies, SPECPOL often has the capacity and role to at least consider aspects of these issues. For instance, the topic of the safe disposal of nuclear waste is already largely dealt with under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but SPECPOL still has the authority to consider the issue from a slightly different perspective. 1

Background of the Topic The safe disposal of nuclear waste has presented a significant problem to the world s governments since the opening of the first nuclear facility in 1942 (National Park Service, 2006), with an estimated 7.3 million cubic metres of waste having been produced since then (IAEA, 2010, p.23). It is important to note that the question to be examined is not the relative merits or drawbacks of nuclear energy or weapons, but rather what to do with the existing and future nuclear waste that has been and will be produced. The dangers of nuclear waste There are a number of different types of waste produced from nuclear facilities, with each type differing in their characteristics. Some of the factors to consider when examining the relative hazards of different types of materials include: Half-life - the time it takes for it to lose half of its radioactivity Inverse relationship of time and hazards isotopes that are dangerous for longer periods of time emit less intense radiation than those which have a shorter half-life Source of the material generally speaking, waste from medical and other research facilities will include isotopes that are less dangerous for shorter periods of time and in much smaller volumes than waste from nuclear power stations or military facilities (ANSTO, 2011, p.8) The health and safety impacts from radioactive waste can be far-reaching and significant. Types of nuclear waste Nuclear technology has been used for a wide variety of both civil and military purposes for many decades. Different activities generate different types and amounts of radioactive waste, with some important differences between them. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has developed and refined a six tier system to classify the various types of nuclear waste, including methods to appropriately manage their safe storage. 2

Figure 1 IAEA classification of radioactive waste Source: (IAEA, 2009, p.6) 3

One important point to note is recorded in a footnote of the ANTSO report on the management of radioactive waste: Given that virtually everything is radioactive to some extent, it is obviously not reasonable to regulate all materials as radioactive materials. (ANSTO, 2011, p.5) High-level waste is widely considered to be where the principal problems of safe disposal arise, given their lengthy half-lives and threats to public health and safety. Methods of disposal As outlined in the IAEA s classification above, there are a number of different ways to store different types and amounts of radioactive waste. High-level waste requires purpose-built facilities deep underground designed to last for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years (USNRC, 2012). The initial stage of the disposal of high-level radioactive waste takes 9-12 months to allow the initial radioactivity and heat levels to subside before it can be transported off-site. Most waste is stored in wet storage facilities, which store spent fuel in large cooling pools of water. Next, if the spent fuel is reprocessed, it is moved to the appropriate facility to reprocess the waste for further use. If not, it is transported to an away from reactor (AFR) fuel storage facility. This final stage is where many of the problems of disposal arise. With some radioactive waste having half-lives of hundreds of thousands or even millions of years, long-term storage must be durable, secure and safe. However, there are currently no permanent disposal facilities for high-level waste anywhere in the world. The first to be constructed is proposed to be in Forsmark, Sweden, 500 metres below the ground in solid bedrock (European Nuclear Society, 2009). Given that no human civilisation has lasted for as long as the half-lives of much high-level radioactive waste, safe storage facilities must be designed with long-term safety in mind. It is likely that these facilities will need to survive in an adequate state without maintenance, being passively safe. Institutional control should not need to be relied upon to ensure safety. Existing frameworks and achievements National governments have historically been quite slow to introduce policies or procedures for the safe disposal of this hazardous material. Safety standards and methods of disposal differ widely across borders. For instance, France, Russia, Japan, India and China reprocess most spent fuel while Sweden, Finland, Canada and the USA directly dispose of it through storage (IAEA, 2015). 4

Management of radioactive waste has been within the purview of each national government, with any attempt at an international waste disposal site or binding framework having failed. Australia and Russia have been touted as the most likely locations for such a site, given their stable geological characteristics and large amounts of uninhabited land. While the European Union has been developing a Europe-wide system, nothing concrete has emerged yet. There are only two international agreements specifically relating to radioactive waste: the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management of 1997 was the first legally binding international treaty on radioactive waste (ARPANSA, 2014). It is a wide ranging document, with a number of key points: Parties must adhere to a number of key principles and points to ensure the safety of radioactive waste The Convention does not apply to the spent fuel reprocessing, military radioactive waste or waste from naturally occurring radioactive sources Existing facilities are largely exempt, with a commitment only to review their safety and if necessary to upgrade such a facility Few specific requirements in the document, largely leaving it up to individual parties to the treaty to enforce acceptable safety standards using the guidelines and principles in the Convention Requires signatories to establish their own legislative and regulatory framework to govern the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management, including a regulatory body Covers emergency preparedness and transboundary movement of nuclear waste A number of countries also expressed reservations upon signing the document, including China, Denmark, Japan, Moldova and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM). Before this agreement, the Convention on Nuclear Safety of 1994 was signed, governing safety rules at nuclear power plants. This is less specifically related to nuclear waste, but does include clauses and provisions for the safe management and disposal of such waste. 5

Issues to consider What is SPECPOL s role in this issue? How can the committee constructively contribute to international efforts on the safe disposal of nuclear waste? Should the safe disposal and storage of lower levels of nuclear waste also be considered? What about long-term storage for hundreds of thousands of years? What is not covered under the existing joint convention? Should it be expanded? What are the potential cross-border effects of radioactive waste disposal? How should the international community to respond to this issue? Is it up to national governments to manage their own nuclear waste? References ANSTO, 2011. Management of Radioactive Waste in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. ARPANSA, 2014. The Joint Convention. [Online] Available at: http://www.arpansa.gov.au/aboutus/collaboration/jointconv.cfm [Accessed 05 April 2015]. European Nuclear Society, 2009. The Forsmark NPP, in Sweden, will be first to house a deep geological repository for its high-level radioactive waste (HLW). [Online] Available at: https://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-25/forsmark.htm [Accessed 05 April 2015]. IAEA, 2009. Classification of Radioactive Waste - General Safety Guide No. GSG-1. New York: United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA, 2010. Estimation of Global Inventories of Radioactive Waste and Other Radioactive Materials. Geneva: International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA, 2015. Storage and Disposal of Spent Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste. [Online] Available at: http://www.iaea.org/about/policy/gc/gc50/gc50infdocuments/english/gc50inf-3-att5_en.pdf [Accessed 05 April 2015]. National Park Service, 2006. Site of the First Self-Sustaining Nuclear Reaction. [Online] Available at: http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?resourceid=204&resourcetype=site [Accessed 04 April 2015]. USNRC, 2012. NRC: High Level Waste. [Online] Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/waste/high-level-waste.html [Accessed 06 April 2015]. 6

Further reading Full text of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1997/infcirc0546.pdf Declarations and reservations on the Convention: http://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/conventions/jointconv_reserv.pdf Full text of the Convention on Nuclear Safety: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/infcirc449.pdf The Guardian news section on nuclear waste: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/nuclear-waste Article from The Conversation on nuclear waste: http://theconversation.com/nuclear-waste-is-safe-to-store-in-our-suburbs-not-just-the-bush-28206 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency: http://www.arpansa.gov.au/ 7

QUESTION OF THE REGULATION OF ARTIFICIAL SATELLITE AND SPACE JUNK Introduction to the Topic In the past few decades, space explorations have accelerated. Having the pride of venturing to where no man has gone before, the marvel of space exploration has been vital for the human race. In alignment with human ambitions of exploring beyond the earth s atmosphere, information and communications technology have also advanced. There are numerous examples of how space explorations have contributed to enhance the life of billions of people at Earth. From our basic day-to-day mobile phones to our advanced surveillance military satellites, they are all can t be separated from our satellites stationed on the outer space. However, as there is no rose without thorns, space exploration also creates its own complications. There are now thousands of spacecraft, satellites, and rockets sent into space that have now deteriorated and no longer functional. Many of these objects have become obsolete beyond repair, and they have been reduced to nothing but space debris. NASA estimates that there are more than 500,000 pieces of debris in the Earth s orbit, travelling at speeds of up to 17,500 km/hour. These pose a significant threat to artificial satellites and other objects that are now essential to the smooth operation of Earthly functions (e.g. GPS satellites). These debris, or some refer as space junk, are now left in outer space, circling the earth, with some of them floating on the collision track of many functioning satellites. Seeing the situation, it is only logical to assume that sooner or later crashes might occur near our atmosphere, causing their debris to launch back towards the Earth. It is also not impossible to consider that there is now a looming threat from these space junks, if they ever fall onto Earth heavy populated areas. Therefore, an immediate action to formulate a plan for their removal is indeed an imperative task that must be addressed by the international community. While some tracking technology exists, there are few international frameworks to work within to regulate and potentially reduce the amount of space junk around the Earth. In addition, there is not any clear division of responsibilities between Member States, especially in considering who is accountable for this debris. It is the imperative task for the SPECPOL to address this ramification and comes up with adequate solvencies to prevent more space junk from entering the Earth s orbit, remove the existing space junk, and creating any possible frameworks to define the role of each Member States. 8

Figure 1.1 Animated image showing the condition of space debris floating on the earth orbit History of the Topic 2.1 - Soviet Union s Sputnik 1 and Apollo 11 At the year of 1957, mankind made a groundbreaking milestone of launching its very first artificial satellites to orbit the Earth. This artificial satellite is referred as the Sputnik 1, owned by the existing Soviet Union with a main function of broadcasting radio pulses. A 58 cm in diameter, four external radio antennas, polished with a metal sphere, the Sputnik 1 marked the very first step of outer space exploration. 12 years after the Sputnik have orbited the Earth; the United States of America also launched a colossal space program of landing the very first men on the moon. The program is referred as the Apollo 11. Many says that the display of space programs between the United States of America and the Soviet Union are nothing more than a display of technological rivalries between two superpowers during the time of the Cold War. By landing its very first men on the moon before the Soviet Union, the United States of America have technically won this technological race. The Soviet Union back there had made four failed attempts to launch a lunar landing craft between the 1969 to the 1972. From beginning to the end, these so-called space races have captivated the international community s attention as various developments from both the United States and the Soviet Union are heavily covered by in their national media. Moreover, this frenzy of interest for the uncharted area of outer space is also further fueled by the new mass medium of communication, the television. 9

In the early 1970s, the space race has finally started to reach its conclusion. By 1975, the Unites States of America is involved in the joint Apollo-Soyuz mission. This mission sent three U.S. astronauts into the outer space aboard an Apollo spacecraft that is docked into the earth orbit using a Soviet s Soyuz vehicle. During the execution of the mission, the two commanders from these two crafts officially greeted each other and their handshake in space symbolizes the gradual improvement of U.S. Soviet bilateral relationship and serve as a milestone for multi-national cooperation in various space missions in the upcoming decades. Figure 2.1 Timeline of space exploration until the 1970s Ever since the Sputnik 1 and the Apollo 11 had successfully venture onto the uncharted area of outer space, there have been many objects which are being launched into the outer space with objectives varying from geopolitical rivalries, information and communication technology advancement, and finding living proofs beyond our solar system. However, since the very beginning of the exploration, the international community has failed to create an adequate review and evaluation of mechanism of their launched objects. Not until recently that many nations have finally realized the apparent danger of launching objects onto the Earth orbit without considering a safe practice for their removal. 10

Current Situation 3.1 - Defining Space Junk or Space Debris At 1999, the United Nations through its organs called as the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space managed to publish a technical report on space debris or space junk. Through this technical report, the international community is made aware of the risk that is faced by spacecraft in the earth orbit that is caused by the prevalent existence of space debris. The United Nations has also created a definition for space debris and all its related components as all man-made objects, including fragments and elements thereof, in Earth orbit or re-entering the atmosphere that are non-functional. Statistically speaking, with the population of space junk substantially increasing in the past decades, the probability of collisions as mankind sends more artificial satellites to the earth orbit would also consequently increase. The more alarming facts right now are the risk of damage on Earth ground if the space junks have managed to survive the Earth s atmosphere at re-entry. With a high possibility of space junk hitting heavily populated areas, the necessity for space debris or junk mitigation has become higher than ever. Following United Nations Technical Report on Space Debris, there are now two main sources of space junks on the Earth s orbit. First are the accidental and intentional break-ups from any man-made objects that are being sent into the outer space, in which it produces long-live debris. The second sources of space junks on the Earth orbit are debris that is released intentionally during the operation of launch vehicle orbital stages and spacecraft. With the surging amount of artificial satellites being launched onto the outer space, added with the increasing activity of space mission in the past decades, there is now a consideration of including a third source of these space debris, which are fragments that is generated by collisions by man-made objects on the outer space. 3.2 - Growth of Space Debris Latest statistics from the NASA have shown that there are three main components of man-made objects that contribute the most to the number of space debris. These components are dead spacecraft and satellites, boosters, and weapons. At the year of 1958, the United States of America launched Vanguard 1 into the Medium Earth Orbit (MEO). After communication to the Vanguard 1 was loss in 1964, it solely remains on the Earth orbit as the current oldest man-made satellite. At the year of 2009, one of the most renowned science advocacy organization in the United States, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have managed to obtain a data which estimates that only 902 artificial satellites that orbit the earth are still currently functional. The contrast is very high if we compare it with the fact that there are approximately 30,000 man-made objects that have been deployed to the outer space. With only three percent of our satellite, which are actually still functional on our Earth orbit, then it is very clear that an immediate solvency is required to address the rest of 97 percent artificial satellites, which right now only constitute as a space junk. 11

The second major components that made up the high quantity of space debris on the earth orbit are the remnant of boosters. Boosters, which are usually in the form of strap-on to the rocket, are generally used to launch object like spacecraft onto their desired orbit. Typically used in a multi-stage launch vehicle, booster remnants is considered as a serious space debris as it can only be used for a one-trip launch; making the leftovers got drifted in the outer space. Boosters that mostly become space debris are those who are left after it reaches the breakup post the unpassivated rocket upper stage. On 11 March 2000, Long March 4 rocket that is being used to deploy CBERS-1 got exploded in orbit, creating a debris cloud. The same case also happened to the Russian Federation Briz-M booster that malfunctioned on 19 February 2007. Approximately one year after it went malfunctioned and exploded, scientists have managed to discover that the leftovers broke up to more than 1000 fragments. Post the 1970; there have been numerous weapons testing conducted towards the earth orbit for testing Anti-Satellite Weapons (ASAT). After a careful observation, it turns out that the debris from these weapons testing also made up a huge sum of space debris. The ASAT that is commonly used to destruct non-functioning satellites has been giving a substantial amount of harm in terms of producing a high amount of debris, while at the same time also endangering layers of orbit for its operational survival. It is currently known that countries with the highest of frequency of ASAT testing and thus contributes a significant amount of space debris are the United States of America, Russian Federation, and People s Republic of China. Contentious Issues 4.1 - Detailed Impacts of Space Debris Bearing in mind the increasing frequency of space debris production in the past few decades, the space debris has created a major implication to the human race. In general, the detailed impacts of space debris can be divided into three main categories: 4.1.1 - Impacts to Unmanned Spacecraft Unmanned spacecraft are one of the most vulnerable parties that will suffer the highest impact and be endangered the most by the existence of space debris. Regarding its movement, unmanned spacecraft is always dependent on the control of technology through programmed and computer-based system. Unmanned spacecraft have a very high probability to experience collision with the high quantity of space debris. Though most of the spacecraft s body is protected with a built on shielding mechanism that eliminate potential damage to the body of the spacecraft caused by space debris collision, it is quite impossible to cover parts like the solar panel with this shielding mechanism as its surface needs to have a direct access to the solar energy. In addition, though the shielding mechanism are able to sustain the damage from the small scale debris, a large scale debris is more than capable of causing serious damage to the body of the spacecraft. 12

Figure 4.1 Cosmos 2251 and Iridium 33 Collision Significant evidence on how unmanned spacecraft would be devastatingly impacted by space debris is the accident that happened on 2009 between a deactivated Kosmos 2251 and operational Iridium 33 on the northern Siberia. The collision has caused destruction to both Iridium 33 that is owned by Iridium Communications Inc. and the inactive Kosmos 2251 owned by the Russian Space Forces. The United Space agency, the NASA, estimated that the satellite collision created approximately 1,000 space of debris that is larger than 10 centimeters. In addition, the International Space Station (ISS) also have to perform an avoidance maneuver to avoid the collision with the debris on 2011. The collision between Kosmos 2251 and Iridium 33 also created a debris cloud. With the consideration that the dominant characteristic of an unmanned spacecraft is on its systemic operation, it is an imperative concern that their operation is hard to control and maneuvering them to prevent clashes with such debris cloud is highly unlikely. Although unmanned spacecraft does not impose an immediate implication on human s live, the growth of debris would only yield to more debris, which will in turn cause a higher ramification on the earth s orbit. 4.1.2 Implications on Manned Spacecraft Adding more complications to the previous case of unmanned spacecraft, providing solvencies to the ramification of manned spacecraft is more crucial as there will be an added factor of human lives. With the alarming level of space debris stationing the earth orbit, lives of astronauts are in danger with the fact that collision can happen anytime. Though several technological advancements like the whipple shield and avoidance collision maneuver has been rigorously developed to increase the astronauts safety in the outer space, it is still not enough to diminish the risk that is caused by small and large-scale space debris. 13

On the other hand, massive scale man-made objects which are orbiting the earth such as the ISS is experiencing a higher level of threat, considering its increase of probability from experiencing a collision with the debris cloud. Parts of the spacecraft that are not possible to cover, such as solar panel and telescope, have the most potential to be damaged. It is common for cosmonauts to take refuge on another spacecraft or other space station to stay secure when debris is surrounding their spacecraft. On several occasions, crews in ISS were asked to leave the main part of spacecraft and take refuge in Soyuz capsule until threats pass. In the end, problem of spacecraft is not limited to the existing objects active and deactivated ones but also for the future objects that are planned to be launched to the outer space. The disturbance caused by the increasing number of space debris has been very alarming. Aside from its devastating direct impact to the live of astronauts on duty around the earth orbit, its indirect implications also deteriorate the function of operating satellites, communication, and transmission of network that will for sure be hampered as the collision happens. Many experts stated that if this alarming situation were not being solved in the upcoming future, the possibility of human race to further embark on more space explorations would gradually decrease. This is because that it might be impossible to send further manmade object to outer space, as a result of the thickening debris cloud. Figure 4.3 Map created by researcher from Braunschweig University of Technology to picture the amount of man made debris that currently orbits the earth 14

4.1.3 Direct Threat to the Earth Surface Another form of ramifications following the threat caused by the existence of space debris on the earth orbit is the ideas of its possibility to enter the atmosphere, projecting towards the earth in a very fast velocity, then in the end making contact with the earth surface. Though in theory small-scale debris will be burnt to ashes in the atmosphere due to frictional force and heat, large-scale debris can actually slip into the atmosphere and hit the earth with an immense force and velocity. A perfect example of such case would be the 1979 Skylab wreckage that landed in Australia. During the late 1970s, the Skylab space station with the weight of 77 tons was the largest object ever orbited, and it fell back into the earth atmosphere, disintegrated in a blaze of fireworks over the Indian Ocean, and showered tons of debris across the Great Australian Desert. Figure 4.4 Article from New York Times reporting the Skylab debris that hits Australian Desert 15

The case of Skylab wreckage has caused a rising concern amongst the Australian, and President Carter of the United States of America sent an immediate apology. In addition, President Carter has also instructed the Department of State to be in touch with the Australian government and offer any assistance that might be needed. The after effects of the Skylab wreckage had caught the attention of the international community, as it has the potential to rain havoc over a wide area, causing an immense destruction in the process. During its final procedures of orbiting the earth, the Skylab provided some anxious moments for space officials who had sought to steer it away from populous areas. Another tragedy caused by the existence of space debris occurred in Columbia at the year of 2003 and 2007 when LAN Airlines witnessed the wreckage of satellite in a flight crossing Santiago and Auckland. The pilot estimated that the distance between the debris and the plane was 8 kilometers, validating how threat indeed exists in a very close distance. There were also cases back then in 1969 where 5 sailors on a Japanese ship were hit by space debris, and in 1997 where an Oklahoma resident named Lottie Williams was hit by debris that was later confirmed as part of Delta II rocket launched in 1996. The random pattern of the incident, added with its unpredicted time of occurrence has shown how terrifying are the terrors that might be caused by space debris. Incidents can happen anytime, at anyplace, and the possibility of it to drop in a crowded residential area is also a ramification that must be addressed. 16

4.2 - Division of Responsibilities to Various Nations In addressing these issues as a whole, we are required to first find out the concept of To whom should this problem be addressed? It is quite clear that active removal of space debris from the earth orbit would require a high amount of funding, and thus Member States financial ability is one of the most important issues to be addressed. In addition to the active removal process, the cost of possible Research and Development that is necessary to develop superficial technology to carry out such activities is also very high. Technologies like producing new spacecraft that possesses the ability to gather debris in the outer space and bring them back to Earth is one of the grand solution that the international community should consider. Without doubt, this initiative requires a global and gigantic funding. Therefore the question left to be answered is about who will be willing to allocate their budget in order to clean the outer space that was once littered by super power nations. In calculating the number of nations who have launched objects to the outer space, most of which were first world nations with arms race motives or geopolitical rivalry. Yet, severe impacts are not exclusively felt by those nations, it also poses global threats. Nations like the United States, Russian Federation, and China are deemed as the most responsible for the abundance of space debris. In a sense of parallelism, the problem of dealing with space debris correlates with the problem of emission that is causing climate change on the Earth. Some says that it is possible to replicate the currently established rule in the problem of climate change, The Kyoto Protocol, to address the issues of space debris. The Kyoto Protocol has been one of the most widely saluted solutions in mitigating the increase and regulating the number of global emission. It is implemented by having a shift of responsibility with the establishment of parties like Annex 1 and Annex 2. The silver lining between the Kyoto Protocol and the ramification of space debris is how responsibility can be shifted to the one who causes and contributes more to the problem. This mechanism is known as common but differentiated responsibilities. In this mechanism, all nations will have the same responsibility to solve the problem, however, their level of responsibility differs from one to another. It has been regarded as one of the possible principals to be used in constructing the framework and solution related to space debris problem. On the other hand, there is another perspective that is contrary with the ideas of common but differentiated responsibilities. The marvel of space exploration conducted by developed nations such as the United States of America and Russian Federation has contribute in bringing the world to a whole new level of technological advancement. The space exploration has contributed to an era of global networking and borderless communication range. Benefits that are experienced by all nations range from television, internet, and numerous other global networks. Such benefits are not exclusively experienced by developed nations, as it has been made available to all nations across the world. Thus, it entails a new perspective not to only shift this responsibility to the active nations but to every nation who benefits from the exploration. It is considered to be a global responsibility to solve problems caused by space debris. There have been no specific rules about any object launch in the past and it was a total freedom for nations to deploy and experiment with the outer space. Yet after becoming aware of the externalities of massive space exploration, there should be a motive to control and rule all nations best interest in this field. A simple form of responsibility needs to be set for nations who launch objects to the outer space, starting from controlling the condition of launched objects, bringing them back to Earth, and making sure that their object will not be a future threat toward other objects in the outer space and, not to mention, become debris. Overall, it is very important to create a sense of carefulness in this moral hazardous situation. 17

4.3 - Possible Monitoring Mechanism A perfect example of how technological development is necessary to track the position of the thousand and million of space debris is the latest Air Force Space Based Surveillance System (SBSS) created by the United States of America. However, the project has proven to be very expensive with the total budget of $500-million USD. Scheduled for a July 8 launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base, in California, the SBSS will continuously monitor the traffic around the Earth, providing an unobstructed view day or night. Currently, the ground-based radar and optical telescopes used to track satellites and space junk can only be used on clear nights, and not all the observatories are powerful enough to detect objects in high or geosynchronous orbits. While the Air Force is the primary user of the SBSS satellites, the US Department of Defense will also use data from the eventual satellite system to support military operations, and NASA can use the information to calculate orbital debris collision-avoidance measures for the International Space Station and Space Shuttle missions. The new satellite will be in orbit 627 kilometers (390 miles) above the Earth, and has an optical camera on a swivel mount, so the camera s view can be changed without burning fuel to move the satellite, and will concentrate on satellites and debris in deep space. The information from the satellite will be sent to a command center at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado. The Secure World Foundation says there could be millions of pieces of debris in total around the Earth. Debris at altitudes above several hundred kilometers can stay in orbit for decades or even centuries, and those about 1,500 kilometers will remain in orbit for thousands of years. Even very small particles of space debris can have a devastating effect on anything they hit because of their high relative impact velocities. Figure 4.7 Chart of orbital debris quantity by NASA 18

There is a very high hope that the SBSS would be an initial start towards human effort of cleaning their junk around the earth orbit in the long run, and in the short run this satellite will increase human capabilities to avoid collisions with any orbiting debris. Past Actions 5.1 Various Resolutions and Actions In regards to the space exploration and regulation of object launching to the outer space, United Nations already performed proactive steps in catering issues related to space sustainability. Here are several resolutions and actions made by United Nations in assisting the problem of space debris: 5.1.1 UN COPUOS The making of Space Debris mitigation guidelines of the United Nations Committee on the peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) (A/62/20) that aims at mitigating the potentially harmful space debris and preventing further pollution in the space environment. The UN COPUOS oversees the implementation of five UN treaties and agreements relating to activities in the outer space, which are the followings: Outer Space Treaty - The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies Rescue Agreement - The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space Liability Convention - The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects Registration Convention - The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space Moon Treaty - The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies 5.1.2 UN GA Resolution 62/217 2008 The UN General Assembly in 2008 also adopted resolution 62/217, promoting Space Debris mitigation that is already listed within the COPUOS. The voluntary guidelines set the planning, design, manufacture and operational phases of spacecraft and launch objects. The guidelines also call for the limitation of long-term presence of spacecraft in LEO, up to 1,600 kilometers above earth s surface after the end of the mission. This guideline also call for the removal of spacecraft from orbit for their expired period, this is intended to avoid their long term presence in LEO (Lunar Exploration Orbiter), where numerous of active satellites are placed and in greatest danger for collision. 19

5.1.3 NASA Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris This Procedural Requirement is intended to provide regulation and also requirement in implementing the policy of limiting orbital debris generation, beside this procedural requirement is aligned with US Governmental Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices, it is also in line with the NASA s policy in the mission assurance and safety program. 20

Recent Developments 6.1 The Collision of Satellites Threats are not exclusively posed into the case of collision with the Earth, but more dangerously, as satellites are used to transmit networks and signals, and their positions are on the same orbits and layers with these space debris. Nowadays world societies have become very dependent towards technologies that require the power of satellites from Internet, television, to banking transaction. Nowadays, most of world s populations are heavily dependent towards the usage of technologies that transmit signal, from cellphone to personal computer. In addition, there are national and international transactions happening every second, such as trading, production, and operational activities of companies that would be effectively shut down without the transmission of signals from satellites. Back in May 1998, a malfunctioned satellite directly cut off communication services in North America. This case turned down 40 million pagers, blocked automated teller machines and credit card payments, and terminated network transmission of radio and television. This whole complex problem is not just a threat to security, but also gives a bad name towards investment in space exploration. Potential of collision is getting bigger as now we are facing major coverage of debris in the layers of Earth. Figure 6.1 Simple diagram showing how satellites collide on the earth orbit 21

6.2 The Anti-Satellite Test The launch of explosive rockets and weapons to the outer space has become a trend in the 21 century. Several reasons made to justify these acts, from the destruction of defunct satellites and objects, to the test of power from weapons developed by nation. China and the United States are two dominant parties involved in the case of Anti Satellite Test. Both of nations consecutively conducted anti-satellite missile test in 2007 and 2008. China is considered as the largest contributor of single space debris by producing more than 2.300 of tracked space debris in the size of golf balls, and also 1 million pieces of 1mm debris. In addition, the weapon was launched into a very close distance with active satellites orbiting the Earth. China was condemned and protested by international societies regarding that launch, it was believed as one of the largest contributors of space debris. This practice of launching Anti-Satellite test adds more debris to the space environment, which simultaneously endangers the space object population and also the population in Earth through a bigger possibility of collision. 22

Proposed Solutions Solvencies to address the issues raised by the existence of space debris go deep into several layer and steps. Brief descriptions on possible strategies to solve the situation are as follows: Tracking The initial way to start cleaning the space environment is by finding out the locations of existing space debris. It is also important to stay updated about possible periodical reports, tracking of space debris growth, and the condition of objects in the outer space. For the moment, we do not know the specific number of debris that exists in the outer space and where exactly they are located. This information affects the efficiency in conducting the mission. With an uncertain number of tracked debris, it might jeopardize the process of cleaning, making a significant amount of debris left out in the outer space. Active Removal The direct action to clean space is always the core of discussion. Active removal has always been the most promising yet is one of the hardest ways to be implemented. Besides the consideration of cost associated with pulling down debris back to Earth, there is also the need to think about specific technologies that might be able to perform this mission. Self-Removal Another possible solution will be the self-removal, which sounds the most simple yet has been regarded as an interesting idea. The idea is that satellites will have a self-removal process when they have reached their expiry date. The mechanism that is being deliberated is to direct the expired satellites into the graveyard orbit the place to put satellites when they reached their retirement age, where this orbit is especially intended to prevent collision between inactive and active satellites. 23

Questions a Resolution Must Answer 1. Bearing in mind all of the concern that is raised by the increasing quantity of space debris in the outer space, the very first question that must be addressed by the delegate is on what Member States can do to eliminate the sources and mitigate further growth of space debris? In addition, delegates must also be able to deal with ramification of the current existing space and find out on what are actually the most feasible and possible solutions that Member States can do in regards for their removal. 2. There are right now numerous information regarding the threat that is caused by space debris, making various Member States having a different opinion about the level of threat and concern that is caused by the existence of such debris. How urgent are the threats spread by space debris? What are the threats and possible impacts imposed? And how can member states act in order to reduce the threats given by space debris? 3. To whom should the responsibility of dealing with space debris be addressed? Is there any specification or grouping in deciding the actors who are responsible in this particular problem? And should there be a layer-based mechanism in creating a proportional responsibility for the solution? 4. How can we ensure nations to comply with the possible global framework? Do we need another update or revision on the existing framework concerning the space debris? Should there be any incentive given to nations who want to contribute in solving the problem? 5. Do we need to have specific mechanism in protecting and preventing collision for manned and unmanned weapons, also threats given to Earth? How would the mechanism be framed? (From warning mechanism, periodical status, assistance and recovery, etc.) 24

Bloc Positions Producer of Space Debris Countries like the United States, Russian Federation, China, and other super power nations are informally deemed as being responsible for having created space debris. To uphold the principal of proportionality, they are held responsible to take debris back in order to restore the balance of the outer space with a clean environment. Not limited to the purpose of technological development, they also launched several weapons to the outer space known as the act of ASAT, which has become crucial in causing debris. In the end, to hold responsibility for previous actions, how are we going to measure the appropriate level of responsibility? And what are their roles in solving the problem of space debris? Is nation classification necessary to determine the weight of responsibility, or maybe this will only be a harmful idea? Non-Space Object Nations As there are several nations who do not even pursue space development and space exploration, their positions are currently endangered by the threats spread by space debris. Moreover, these nations have the calling and responsibility to join the movement in cleaning the space environment, not limited to the elimination of current debris, but most importantly to actively cooperate in the mitigation of debris. Apart from financial support, there are things that these nations can probably contribute to the solvency of space debris unrest. Nations With Space Object Without Producing Space Debris Around 40 nations who have their objects orbiting earth in the outer space are in a very dilemmatic situation. There exists the possibility that their objects collide with space debris. As for this nation, what can they do to possibly cooperate in the mitigation and solvency of space debris? Furthermore, having interest towards the performance of their objects in the outer space, there is a big threat that the functions and benefits delivered back can be uncertain for a period of time. How can these nations act in responding to the existence space debris? 25

Further Research 1. COPUOS, S. a. (1999). Technical Report on Space Debris. New York: UN: http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/un_report_on_space_debris99.pdf 2. Development, T. N. (1995). Interagency Report on Orbital Debris: http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/iar_95_document.pdf 3. ESA. (n.d.). Space Debris. Retrieved May 11, 2015, from esa.int: http://www.esa.int/our_activities/operations/space_debris 4. INTER-AGENCY SPACE DEBRIS COORDINATION COMMITTEE. (2007). IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines. Steering Group and Working Group 4: http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/iadc_mitigation_guidelines_rev_1_sep07. pdf 5. NASA. (2012, February 2). NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. Retrieved May 11, 2015, from orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov: http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/ 6. UN OFFICE FOR OUTER SPACE AFFAIRS. (2010). Space Debris mitigation guidelines f the committee on peaceful uses of outer space. Vienna: UN: http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/space%20debris%20mitigation%20guideline s_copuos.pdf 26

References NASA. (2009, April 28). The Threat of Orbital Debris and Protecting NASA Space Assets from Satellite Collisions. Retrieved December May 5, 2015, from spaceref.com: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/odmediabriefing28apr09-1.pdf McKie, R., & Day, M. (2008, February 24). Warning of catastrophe from mass of 'space junk'. Retrieved May 5, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/24/spaceexplorationspacejunk UCS. (2009, July 16). UCS Satellite Database. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from Union of Concerned Scientist: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/solutions/space-weapons/ucs-s atellite- database.html Iannotta, B., & Malik, T. (2009, February 11). U.S. Satellite Destroyed in Space Collision. Retrieved May 5, 2015, from Space.com: www.space.com/news/090211-satellite-collision.html NASA. (2009). NASA Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris. David, L. (2007, February 2). China anti-satellite test worrisome debris cloud circles Earth. Retrieved May 5, 2015, from Space: www.space.com/news/070202_china_spacedebris.html 27