Committee: DISEC

Topic: Prevention of an extraterrestrial arms race

Country: United Kingdom
The United Kingdom believes that space is meant to be peaceful, harmonious, and
developments made should benefit all of mankind. The UK should advocate for demilitarization and
non-proliferation of space because within a second, mankind has relied upon space too much. If space
becomes the new battleground for warfare, this will be detrimental to national security and render all
of mankind's future endeavors in space futile and collapse any and all systems and resources of which
mankind has become dependent. If the UK follows the Outer Space Treaty (1967), this type of thing
shouldn't be possible.

Weapons of Mass Destruction can't be launched into space or placed on the moon or other
planets, but that doesn't mean the same for developments not of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and
the Outer Space Treaty is silent on dual-use capabilities that essentially weaponize space. Furthermore,
the UK is concerned with reckless ASAT tests—Russia (2021) and China (2007) have been in the wrong
far too frequently—and generating space debris, obscuring space, and jeopardizing satellites and
human endeavors. The UK may not be in favor of a war-like approach to the space domain, but it does
acknowledge the importance of protecting space capabilities—those, in fact, of the UK and its partners.
Satellites do more than orbit and beep. They are intelligence-gathering resources, and if they are
destroyed—on the ground or in orbit—or jammed in their signal connectivity, countries will engage in
global disasters.

Thus, the UK advocates Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures (TCBMs) as an

effective means of lowering international friction with—and among—nations. TCBMs can be applied
through launch notifications, activity transmissions, and the registration of objects of common domain.
In addition, the UK supports global norms of responsible behavior in space drawn from the UN
Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities. This includes debris mitigation, a
ban on kinetic Anti-Satellite Weapon (ASAT) testing, and guarantees of deconflicted activities in space.
Furthermore, the UK stresses that space is open to all and that developing countries should receive
assistance via capacity building and technology transfer. Thus, all UN member states ought to support
the UK's cooperative efforts to prevent increasingly irresponsible behavior from operating in space.
Adhering to responsibility, transparency, and sustainability will keep space a peaceful place for many
more years to come. The UK will pursue such efforts with its partners and with the world.

Long position paper

Position Paper for the United Kingdom

Committee: DISEC
Topic: Preventing an Extraterrestrial Arms Race
Country: United Kingdom

Introduction

The United Kingdom firmly believes that outer space should remain a domain of peace, scientific
exploration, and economic development, free from armed conflict and geopolitical competition. With
increasing global reliance on space-based infrastructure, the potential weaponization of space
threatens not only international security but also the sustainability of space activities for future
generations. The UK recognizes the growing risks posed by the militarization of space and is
committed to working with the international community to develop policies that balance national
security interests with the imperative to prevent an arms race beyond Earth.

As one of the world’s leading spacefaring nations and a key member of NATO, the UK acknowledges
that space plays a crucial role in modern defense, intelligence, and communications. However, the UK
also recognizes the dangers of unchecked militarization, including the escalation of conflicts, the
proliferation of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, and the long-term consequences of space debris. To
address these concerns, the UK advocates for Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures
(TCBMs), the reinforcement of existing treaties such as the Outer Space Treaty (1967), and the
establishment of new international agreements to regulate military activities in space while
ensuring the continued peaceful use of outer space for all nations.

Background and Current Challenges

Space has become a vital component of modern life, with satellites supporting global communications,
navigation, weather forecasting, and defense operations. The increasing reliance on space-based
technologies has made satellites strategic assets for national security, making them potential targets
in conflicts. The lack of clear regulations regarding military activities in space has led to a growing
arms race, particularly among major powers like the United States, Russia, and China.

1. The Risk of an Arms Race in Outer Space

Several key developments highlight the growing risk of space becoming a contested military domain:

• Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Tests: Countries such as Russia (2021), China (2007), India
(2019), and the United States (1985) have conducted ASAT tests, demonstrating the capability to
destroy satellites in orbit. These tests generate thousands of pieces of space debris, posing long-
term threats to other space assets and manned missions.

• Space-Based Military Programs: The establishment of dedicated military space units, such
as the U.S. Space Force (2019) and China’s Strategic Support Force, signals a shift toward
treating space as a potential battlefield. Russia has also tested counterspace technologies,
including jamming and cyber warfare capabilities.

• Emerging Technologies: The development of directed energy weapons, satellite

jammers, and co-orbital “inspector” satellites capable of interfering with other satellites has
raised concerns about potential offensive uses of space assets.

If left unregulated, these trends could lead to increased tensions, potential conflicts, and the
weaponization of space, making international cooperation essential in preventing an arms race.

The UK’s Position on Preventing an Extraterrestrial Arms Race

The UK is committed to preventing conflict in space while ensuring that nations can continue to
utilize space for peaceful and defensive purposes. The UK recognizes that completely demilitarizing
space is not feasible, as many space-based technologies have dual-use applications for both civilian
and military needs. Instead, the UK supports a balanced approach that prioritizes stability,
transparency, and the responsible use of space resources.

1. Strengthening International Agreements

• The Outer Space Treaty (1967) remains the foundation of international space law,
prohibiting the placement of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in orbit and ensuring that
 space is used for peaceful purposes. However, the treaty lacks provisions to address modern
military threats such as ASAT weapons, cyber warfare, and space-based kinetic energy weapons.

• The UK supports strengthening existing frameworks and updating treaties to reflect

current technological advancements. This includes advocating for legally binding agreements to ban
destructive ASAT tests and prevent the deployment of offensive space weapons.

• The UK remains cautious about legally binding treaties that could restrict defensive space
activities, such as satellite protection and military communications. Instead, it promotes voluntary
guidelines and norms of responsible behavior to reduce tensions without limiting national
security measures.

2. Promoting Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures (TCBMs)

• The UK supports Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures (TCBMs) to reduce

mistrust and prevent miscalculations in space activities. These include:

• Pre-notification of satellite launches and military space activities.

• Establishing a global registry of space objects to track military and civilian satellites.

• Encouraging international dialogue between spacefaring nations to prevent

misunderstandings.

• The UK also calls for cooperative monitoring mechanisms to ensure that nations comply
with space security agreements.

3. Addressing the Threat of Space Debris

• The UK strongly opposes reckless ASAT tests that generate long-lasting space debris.

• The UK calls for an international moratorium on destructive ASAT tests, encouraging

nations to develop non-destructive counterspace capabilities that do not threaten space
sustainability.

• The UK supports efforts to clean up existing debris, including investment in active debris
removal (ADR) technologies.

4. Ensuring Equitable Access to Space for All Nations

• The UK believes that space should remain accessible to all nations, particularly developing
countries that lack space capabilities.

• The UK supports capacity-building programs to help developing nations participate in

peaceful space activities.

• The UK advocates for fair regulations on satellite frequency allocation and orbital slot
assignments to prevent dominance by major space powers.

The UK’s Call to Action

To prevent an arms race in space and ensure that space remains a domain for peaceful use, the United
Kingdom urges all nations to take the following steps:

1. Support the Development of International Norms and Agreements:

• Nations must work together to establish legally binding agreements or voluntary codes of
conduct to ban ASAT tests and limit the development of space-based weapons.

• The UK encourages greater participation in initiatives like the UN Guidelines for the Long-
Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities.

2. Increase Transparency and Cooperation:

 • The UK calls on all spacefaring nations to commit to Transparency and Confidence-
Building Measures (TCBMs) to prevent conflict and misunderstandings.

• Establishing regular diplomatic forums on space security will help maintain global stability.

3. Promote Space Sustainability and Debris Mitigation:

• Nations must take responsibility for their actions in space by reducing debris generation
and investing in debris removal technologies.

• The UK supports a global ban on destructive ASAT testing and the development of
responsible satellite disposal practices.

4. Ensure Fair Access to Space for All Nations:

• The UK supports initiatives to provide technical and financial assistance to developing

nations for space exploration and satellite deployment.

Conclusion

The prevention of an extraterrestrial arms race is essential for maintaining international security and
ensuring the sustainable use of space for future generations. The UK is committed to working
alongside its allies and the international community to develop effective regulations, transparency
measures, and space sustainability initiatives. By fostering international cooperation and
responsible space governance, we can protect outer space as a shared resource while ensuring that
national security interests are safeguarded.

The United Kingdom calls on all nations to uphold their responsibility to prevent space from
becoming the next battlefield and to work collaboratively toward a peaceful and sustainable
future in space.

Delegate of the United Kingdom

To prevent the militarization and weaponization of space, the international community must
implement a combination of legal, diplomatic, technological, and cooperative measures. The
following solutions aim to ensure space remains a peaceful, secure, and sustainable environment
while addressing security concerns of spacefaring nations.

1. Strengthening International Treaties and Legal Frameworks

• Modernizing the Outer Space Treaty (1967):

• Expand the treaty to explicitly ban all forms of space-based weapons, not just weapons of
mass destruction (WMDs).

• Define “space weaponization” to prevent loopholes that allow for military advancements under
civilian programs.

• Developing a Legally Binding Space Arms Control Treaty:

• Establish a new treaty that bans the placement of weapons in space and prohibits
offensive anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon testing.

• Enforce regulations on dual-use technologies that could contribute to military escalation in

space.

• Adopting the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) Resolution:

• Support the United Nations’ (UN) PAROS initiative, which calls for a binding international
treaty to prevent space from becoming a battlefield.

2. Establishing a Global Ban on ASAT Weapons and Testing

• ASAT Test Moratorium:

• Encourage nations to stop conducting kinetic ASAT tests that create long-lasting space
debris.

• Build on existing commitments, such as the U.S. ASAT testing ban (2022), and expand it
globally.

• Promoting Non-Destructive Defense Technologies:

• Shift focus toward non-kinetic ASAT measures, such as electronic warfare, cyber defense,
and satellite maneuverability, which do not generate debris.

• Enforcing Debris Mitigation Rules:

• Nations that conduct reckless ASAT tests should be held accountable for debris cleanup
and mitigation efforts.

3. Enhancing Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures (TCBMs)

• Mandatory Satellite Activity Notifications:

• Establish a global satellite tracking and notification system where countries must pre-
notify the UN or an independent space agency before launching military or dual-use satellites.

• Creation of an International Space Object Registry:

• Expand existing UN satellite registries to include detailed military and security-related

payloads, reducing suspicion and misinterpretations.

• Regular Diplomatic Engagements on Space Security:

 • Establish a UN-based diplomatic forum where spacefaring nations meet annually to discuss
military activities in space.

• Encourage participation from both government and private-sector space actors.

4. Developing an International Space Monitoring and Verification Agency

• UN Space Monitoring Organization:

• Create a global body under the UN to track space weapons developments, military
satellites, and orbital activities.

• Equip this body with access to data from independent space agencies (e.g., NASA, ESA,
Roscosmos, CNSA).

• Satellite Inspection Agreements:

• Develop protocols allowing nations to inspect suspicious space objects remotely using
non-invasive satellite monitoring systems.

• Space Treaty Compliance Mechanisms:

• Implement sanctions or diplomatic consequences for nations that violate space security
agreements.

5. Strengthening Space Sustainability and Debris Management

• Adopting and Expanding the UN’s Space Debris Guidelines:

• Require countries to remove defunct satellites and prevent the creation of new debris
through controlled deorbiting.

• Investing in Active Debris Removal (ADR) Technologies:

• Promote international funding for space cleanup missions, including robotic and AI-based
debris removal systems.

• Encourage public-private partnerships with companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and
Roscosmos for cleanup missions.

• Imposing Financial or Diplomatic Penalties for Debris Creation:

• Nations that generate significant space debris, particularly through ASAT tests, could be
required to fund cleanup efforts or compensate affected countries.

6. Establishing Norms for Responsible Military Use of Space

• Banning Space-Based Missile Defense and Weaponized Satellites:

• Prohibit the deployment of any space-based kinetic or directed-energy weapons that

could be used for offensive operations.

• Developing a Global Code of Conduct for Military Satellites:

• Set clear guidelines on safe distances between military satellites, non-interference in

rival satellite operations, and protocols for close-proximity maneuvers.

• Preventing Space from Becoming a Battlefield:

• Reinforce commitments to non-aggression in space and prohibit acts of war or

retaliation in orbit.

7. Ensuring Equitable Access to Space for All Nations

 • Supporting Developing Countries in Space Exploration:

• Provide financial and technological support to developing nations to ensure that space is not
dominated by a few powerful countries.

• Promote joint space research and infrastructure-sharing initiatives.

• Preventing Monopolization of Space Resources:

• Ensure that emerging space activities (e.g., asteroid mining, Moon colonization) follow fair
resource-sharing agreements instead of favoring only wealthy nations.

• Regulating Commercial Space Activities:

• Establish rules for private companies involved in military space projects, ensuring
accountability and compliance with international norms.

8. Leveraging Economic and Diplomatic Incentives

• Encouraging Participation through Economic Benefits:

• Nations that commit to space security agreements could receive funding for peaceful space
projects, priority access to satellite infrastructure, or trade benefits in space
industries.

• Imposing Diplomatic Consequences for Violators:

• Countries that develop space weapons or conduct reckless ASAT tests could face UN
sanctions, diplomatic isolation, or restrictions on access to international space
programs.

• Encouraging Public-Private Partnerships:

• Work with space companies to create ethical space policies that align with international
agreements.

9. Strengthening NATO and Allied Space Security Cooperation

• Enhancing NATO’s Role in Space Defense:

• NATO and allied spacefaring nations should develop joint protocols for protecting
satellites from cyber threats and ASAT attacks.

• Developing Space-Based Early Warning Systems:

• Create a global missile warning network using satellite data to detect potential threats
from space-based attacks.

• Coordinating Cybersecurity for Space Assets:

• Improve satellite security against hacking and cyber warfare, ensuring space-based
infrastructure is protected from cyber threats.

Conclusion

Preventing an arms race in space requires a multi-layered approach combining diplomatic

agreements, technological safeguards, military de-escalation, and international
cooperation. The United Kingdom urges all nations to work together to establish clear legal
norms, improve transparency, and enhance security measures that promote peaceful space
activities.

By adopting these solutions, the global community can ensure that space remains a neutral, shared,
and sustainable environment, preventing future conflicts and securing its benefits for future
generations.
The issue of space militarization and preventing an arms race in outer space has led to
divisions among major spacefaring nations. While most countries publicly support keeping space
peaceful, their actual policies and actions reflect different priorities. Below is a list of key nations and
their general stance on this issue.

1. Countries Advocating for Legally Binding Treaties to Ban Space Weaponization

Russia

• Official Stance: Supports a legally binding treaty to ban weapons in space and prevent
militarization.

• Actions:

• Proposes the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) resolution at the UN.

• Advocates for a Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space
(PPWT), co-sponsored with China.

• Opposes U.S. and NATO space dominance.

• Contradiction: Conducted an ASAT test in 2021, creating space debris that endangered
satellites and the ISS.

• Motivation: Seeks to limit U.S. and NATO’s military space capabilities while maintaining its
own space-based defense assets.

China

• Official Stance: Strongly supports banning space-based weapons and preventing an arms
race.

• Actions:

• Co-sponsored the PPWT with Russia.

• Advocates for international regulations on space militarization.

• Contradiction: Conducted an ASAT test in 2007, creating one of the largest space debris
fields in history.

• Actively develops dual-use satellites and cyber capabilities that could be used for military
purposes.

• Motivation: Wants to limit U.S. space superiority while securing its own strategic advantage.

Developing Nations & Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

• Examples: Brazil, South Africa, Venezuela, Indonesia, India (partially)

 • Stance: Support space disarmament, fair access to space technology, and oppose space
militarization by major powers.

• Motivation: Want space to remain a global commons, not dominated by wealthier nations.

2. Countries Opposing Binding Treaties but Supporting Voluntary Measures

United States

• Official Stance: Opposes legally binding treaties that restrict military activities in space but
supports voluntary guidelines.

• Actions:

• Established the U.S. Space Force (2019), recognizing space as a warfighting domain.

• Opposes the PPWT treaty, claiming it lacks verification mechanisms.

• Supports Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures (TCBMs) over legally binding

agreements.

• Contradiction: Conducted an ASAT test in 1985 and has developed counter-space

capabilities.

• Motivation: Wants to maintain space dominance and protect military satellites while
deterring threats from China and Russia.

United Kingdom

• Official Stance: Supports peaceful use of space but aligns with U.S. opposition to binding
treaties.

• Actions:

• Advocates for Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures (TCBMs) instead of

bans.

• Supports NATO space security initiatives.

• Concerned about space debris from ASAT tests but does not favor strict legal restrictions.

• Motivation: Balances national security interests with global stability efforts.

Japan

• Official Stance: Supports space demilitarization but aligns with U.S. policies.

• Actions:

• Expanding its military space program.

• Supports voluntary guidelines over strict bans.

• Motivation: Faces security concerns from China and North Korea.

Australia

• Official Stance: Advocates for peaceful space use but supports U.S. military space
policies.

• Actions:

• Strengthening space defense partnerships under AUKUS and Five Eyes alliances.

• Motivation: Wants to maintain security within the U.S. alliance system.

NATO Members (France, Germany, Canada)

• Stance: Support responsible space governance, promote TCBMs, and oppose full
militarization.

• Actions:

• France created a military space command (2019).

• Germany supports de-escalation but relies on U.S. security strategies.

3. Countries with Emerging Military Space Programs

India

• Official Stance: Supports the peaceful use of space but has demonstrated military
capabilities.

• Actions:

• Conducted its first ASAT test (Mission Shakti, 2019).

• Balances non-alignment with security partnerships like the Quad (U.S., Japan, Australia).

• Motivation: Wants to maintain security independence while opposing space weaponization.

Israel

• Stance: Supports U.S. space policies while maintaining its own military space programs.

• Actions: Develops military satellites and missile defense systems.

South Korea

• Stance: Expanding its military space presence due to North Korea’s missile threats.

• Actions: Strengthening space defense cooperation with the U.S.

4. Countries with Oppositional or Unclear Policies

North Korea

• Official Stance: Claims to support peaceful space use but develops ballistic missile
technology under the guise of space exploration.

• Actions:

• Conducts satellite launches suspected to be tests for ICBM technology.

• Opposes U.S. and Western space dominance.

Iran

• Official Stance: Opposes Western militarization of space while pursuing its own space
program.

• Actions:

• Launched military satellites.

• Develops ballistic missile and cyber capabilities.

Conclusion

• The U.S. and its allies (UK, NATO, Japan, Australia) prioritize maintaining strategic
flexibility while opposing binding treaties.

• Russia and China push for legally binding restrictions, aiming to limit U.S. and NATO
space capabilities.

• India and other emerging powers take a balanced approach, supporting peace while
developing their own military space technologies.

• Rogue actors like North Korea and Iran are seen as unpredictable threats, developing
missile and space capabilities under minimal oversight.

This geopolitical divide highlights the challenges of regulating military space activities, making
cooperation on space security a complex and urgent issue.
1. Russia

1. “The delegate of Russia claims to support peace in space, yet in 2021, your country tested an
anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon, creating thousands of debris pieces that now threaten all satellites,
including your own. How is that promoting peace?”

2. “If Russia is truly against the weaponization of space, why has it deployed ‘inspector satellites’
that maneuver close to other nations’ satellites, raising concerns about espionage and sabotage?”

3. “Russia co-sponsors the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) resolution, yet
your government continues to develop space-based military technologies. If you believe space
should remain peaceful, why are you still advancing military space programs?”

4. “The delegate of Russia accuses the West of militarizing space, but wasn’t it Russia that
launched the first-ever military satellite in 1967 and continues to develop space-based defense
systems?”

5. “Russia supports banning space weapons, yet has been accused of testing space-based laser
and jamming technologies. If you truly oppose militarization, why continue these developments?”

2. China

1. “The delegate of China calls for banning ASAT weapons, yet China conducted one of the most
reckless ASAT tests in history in 2007, creating a massive debris field. How can we trust your
commitment to peace when you were one of the worst offenders?”

2. “China claims to oppose space militarization, but it has developed satellites with robotic arms
capable of grabbing or disabling other nations’ satellites. If space should be peaceful, why are you
creating potential offensive capabilities?”
 3. “The Chinese government advocates for space demilitarization while rapidly expanding its own
military space program under the People’s Liberation Army. If you don’t want war in space, why is
your military controlling your space program?”

4. “China criticizes the U.S. for using space for military purposes, yet your Beidou satellite system
is specifically designed for guiding missiles. Isn’t this the very definition of space militarization?”

5. “The delegate of China opposes Western dominance in space, yet your government is
investing billions in moon bases and space stations for exclusive use. How is that promoting fair
access for all?”

3. Iran

1. “Iran claims to support the peaceful use of space, yet your government launched a military
satellite in 2020, violating UN sanctions. How does that align with your call for preventing an arms
race?”

2. “The delegate of Iran condemns other nations for militarizing space, yet your country has been
accused of developing space technologies that could enhance your missile program. Isn’t that a
contradiction?”

3. “Iran opposes military use of space, yet your space agency is closely linked to the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard, which is a military organization. Can you explain why your military controls
your space program if you truly want peace?”

4. “The Iranian government claims to oppose space militarization but frequently tests ballistic
missiles under the pretext of satellite launches. How can you justify using space technology for
missile development while calling for peace?”

5. “The delegate of Iran accuses the West of weaponizing space, yet your government has
conducted GPS jamming that affects commercial and civilian satellites. Isn’t interfering with space
technology also a form of space militarization?”

4. North Korea

1. “The delegate of North Korea speaks about keeping space peaceful, yet your government has
launched satellites suspected of being cover-ups for ballistic missile tests. If space should be
demilitarized, why are you using it for missile advancements?”

2. “North Korea claims to support peaceful space use, yet your government refuses to sign the
Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits space weaponization. If you truly oppose militarization, why
won’t you commit legally?”

3. “North Korea accuses other nations of space militarization, yet you have developed and
launched military satellites without transparency. How can we trust your calls for peace when your
space program is entirely controlled by your military?”

4. “The delegate of North Korea opposes space warfare, yet your government has been accused
of cyberattacks on space infrastructure, including GPS and satellite communications. Isn’t that an
act of aggression in space?”

5. “North Korea regularly criticizes space dominance by the U.S., yet your own leader has spoken
about building military space capabilities. Isn’t that the very militarization you claim to oppose?”

5. India

1. “India claims to support keeping space peaceful, yet in 2019, it conducted an ASAT test,
creating debris and escalating tensions. If you oppose militarization, why did you choose to
contribute to the problem?”
 2. “The delegate of India promotes space cooperation, yet your government is rapidly increasing
military satellite launches. If space should remain demilitarized, why are you expanding defense-
related space projects?”

3. “India speaks about fair access to space, yet its space program is heavily invested in missile
guidance and defense surveillance. How does that align with your stance on keeping space
peaceful?”

4. “The Indian government criticizes Western nations for their military space activities, yet India
has developed and tested space-based defense technologies. How can you call for arms control
while actively pursuing military space projects?”

5. “India supports diplomatic space policies, yet your government has opposed legally binding
treaties that would prevent an arms race in space. If you truly want peace, why not commit to
stronger regulations?”

I. Introduction

The rapid advancement of space technology has transformed outer space from a purely exploratory
domain into a critical arena for global security, economic development, and military strategy. As
nations increasingly rely on space-based assets for communication, navigation, surveillance, and
defense, the risk of space becoming militarized has grown significantly. While international
agreements such as the Outer Space Treaty (1967) were established to prevent an arms race in
space, gaps in regulation and emerging military technologies threaten to destabilize global security.

The issue of preventing an extraterrestrial arms race revolves around the question of how space
should be governed—whether through legally binding treaties, voluntary agreements, or
military deterrence. While some nations, such as Russia and China, advocate for legally binding
treaties that ban space weaponization, others, such as the United States and the United Kingdom,
prefer voluntary transparency measures to regulate space activities while maintaining strategic
flexibility.

II. History of the Issue

1. The Cold War and the Militarization of Space (1957–1991)

The space race began as a technological competition between the United States and the Soviet
Union (USSR) during the Cold War, with both nations developing space capabilities that had both
civilian and military applications.

Key Milestones:

• 1957: The USSR launched Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite, demonstrating the potential
of space-based military applications.

• 1963: The U.S. and USSR considered deploying nuclear weapons in space, but diplomatic
efforts led to the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which prohibited nuclear explosions in
outer space.

• 1967: The Outer Space Treaty (OST) was signed, banning the placement of weapons of
mass destruction (WMDs) in orbit and ensuring that celestial bodies would be used exclusively for
peaceful purposes.

• 1985: The United States conducted its first Anti-Satellite (ASAT) test, destroying a satellite
with a missile launched from an F-15 fighter jet.

• 1980s: The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), also known as “Star Wars,” was proposed
by the U.S. as a missile defense system using space-based interceptors. Although never fully
implemented, it set a precedent for military investments in space.

Despite agreements to limit nuclear weapons in space, both superpowers continued to develop
military satellites for reconnaissance, communication, and navigation, laying the foundation
for modern military space operations.

2. The Post-Cold War Period and New Space Powers (1991–2007)

After the Cold War, space activities expanded beyond the U.S. and Russia, with new spacefaring
nations such as China, India, and private companies entering the domain.

Key Developments:

• 2001: The U.S. labeled space a “warfighting domain,” increasing investments in military space
technology.

• 2007: China conducted its first ASAT test, destroying a weather satellite and creating over
3,000 pieces of space debris—one of the largest debris-generating events in history.

• 2008: Russia and China proposed the Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of
Weapons in Outer Space (PPWT), calling for a ban on all space-based weapons. The U.S. rejected
the treaty, citing verification concerns.

During this period, space became more congested and contested, with growing commercial and
military interests.

3. The Modern Space Race and Growing Tensions (2008–Present)

The 21st century has seen a resurgence in military space programs, with nations expanding their
space capabilities for security and economic purposes.

Key Events:
 • 2019: The U.S. established the Space Force, officially recognizing space as a warfighting
domain.

• 2019: India conducted its first ASAT test (Mission Shakti), destroying a satellite and
drawing global criticism for escalating military tensions in space.

• 2021: Russia conducted an ASAT test (Kosmos 1408), creating over 1,500 trackable
debris fragments, forcing astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS) to take shelter.

• 2022: The U.S. announced a self-imposed ban on destructive ASAT tests, urging other
nations to follow suit.

The growing militarization of space, coupled with the lack of updated treaties, has led to rising
tensions among spacefaring nations.

III. The Current Situation

1. Space as a Military Domain

• Space is now considered the fifth domain of warfare (alongside land, sea, air, and cyber).

• Nations rely on military satellites for:

• Surveillance and reconnaissance: Spying on rival nations’ activities.

• Navigation and targeting: Using GPS and other satellite systems for precision-guided
missile strikes.

• Communications and cybersecurity: Securing military data and preventing satellite

hacking.

2. The Risk of Space Weaponization

• Kinetic ASAT weapons: Missiles that physically destroy satellites, creating hazardous debris
fields.

• Directed-energy weapons: Lasers and microwaves that can disable satellites without
causing debris.

• Co-orbital threats: Satellites equipped with robotic arms or jammers capable of interfering
with other satellites.

3. The Growing Space Debris Crisis

• ASAT tests have significantly increased space debris, which can collide with operational
satellites and threaten future space missions.

• The Kessler Syndrome predicts that continued debris accumulation could make some orbits
unusable for generations.

IV. Key Stakeholders and Their Stances

1. Supporters of Binding Space Weaponization Bans

• Russia and China: Propose legally binding treaties like PPWT to limit military activities in
space.

• Developing Nations (Brazil, South Africa, Venezuela): Support a peaceful space agenda
and fair access to space resources.

2. Opponents of Binding Treaties (Favoring Voluntary Measures)

• United States, United Kingdom, Japan, NATO nations: Prefer voluntary transparency
measures to avoid restricting national security operations.
 • India: Balances diplomatic engagement with military space development.

3. Emerging Space Powers

• Israel, South Korea, Iran, North Korea: Expanding military space programs with uncertain
transparency.

V. Challenges to Preventing an Arms Race in Space

1. Lack of Verification Mechanisms: Nations oppose binding treaties due to the difficulty of
verifying compliance.

2. Geopolitical Rivalries: U.S.-China, U.S.-Russia tensions hinder cooperation.

3. Private Sector Involvement: Companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin are shaping space
governance, making regulation harder.

4. Space Debris: ASAT tests continue to add to the growing orbital debris problem.

VI. Potential Solutions

1. Updating the Outer Space Treaty to explicitly ban ASAT tests and space-based
weapons.

2. Establishing an international space monitoring agency to verify compliance with space

treaties.

3. Imposing economic sanctions on nations conducting reckless ASAT tests.

4. Encouraging spacefaring nations to adopt self-imposed ASAT bans like the U.S. in
2022.

5. Investing in space debris cleanup technologies to mitigate past ASAT damage.

VII. Conclusion

The preventing of an extraterrestrial arms race is a critical issue that requires global
cooperation. As space becomes more militarized, the risk of conflict increases, threatening both
national security and the sustainability of space exploration. Nations must find common
ground through diplomacy, transparency, and technological innovation to ensure that outer space
remains a peaceful and accessible domain for future generations.
GSL

Honorable chairs, esteemed delegates,

The UK believes that treaties such as PAROS have a great frame

OFFLINE RESEARCH
Treaties & Resolutions That Nations Signed but Later Violated

Throughout history, nations have signed legally binding treaties and international
agreements, only to break, ignore, or withdraw from them when it suited their
national interests. Below is a list of non-space-related treaties that have been
violated by major global powers.

1. Treaty of Versailles (1919) – Violated by Germany

• What It Said:
• Ended World War I and imposed strict conditions on Germany,
including:
• Severe military restrictions (no air force, a 100,000-man army, limited
navy).
• Demilitarization of the Rhineland.
• Reparations payments to Allied nations.
• Violation:
• Germany (1930s):
• Rebuilt its military beyond the treaty limits.
• Remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936, violating the demilitarization
clause.
• Stopped reparations payments under Hitler’s rule.
• Expanded aggressively, leading to World War II.

2. Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) – Violated by Almost Everyone

• What It Said:
• Signed by Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.S., the UK, and France, among
others.
• Declared war should not be used as a tool for national policy.
• Aimed to prevent future global conflicts.
• Violations:
• Germany (1939): Invaded Poland, starting World War II.
• Japan (1931-1941): Invaded Manchuria, China, and Pearl Harbor.
• Italy (1935): Invaded Ethiopia.
• Soviet Union (1939-1940): Invaded Finland and Poland.
• United States (2003): Invaded Iraq, arguing it was a preemptive war.

3. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939) – Violated by Germany

• What It Said:
• A non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
• Secretly divided Eastern Europe into Soviet and German spheres of
influence.
• Violation:
 • Germany (1941): Broke the pact by launching Operation Barbarossa,
the largest military invasion in history, attacking the Soviet Union.

4. The Geneva Conventions (1949) – Violated by Multiple Nations

• What It Said:
• Established rules of war, including:
• Protection of civilians, prisoners of war, and medical workers.
• Ban on torture and inhumane treatment.
• Violations:
• United States (2000s): Torture at Guantanamo Bay and CIA black sites.
• Soviet Union (Afghanistan, 1979-1989): Targeted civilians and
prisoners of war.
• Syria (2011-Present): Use of chemical weapons on civilians.
• Russia (Ukraine War, 2022): Targeting civilians and mistreatment of
POWs.

5. The Biological Weapons Convention (1972) – Violated by the Soviet Union

• What It Said:
• Prohibited the development, production, and stockpiling of biological
weapons.
• Signed by the U.S., USSR, UK, and others.
• Violation:
• Soviet Union (1970s-1991):
• Ran a massive secret bioweapons program under “Biopreparat”.
• Weaponized smallpox, anthrax, and plague, despite having signed the
treaty.

6. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) (1968) – Violated by India, Pakistan,

and North Korea
• What It Said:
• Countries that did not already have nuclear weapons agreed not to
develop them.
• Countries that had nuclear weapons (U.S., USSR, UK, France, China)
agreed not to spread nuclear weapons technology.
• Violations:
• India & Pakistan (1998):
• Conducted nuclear tests, despite global efforts to prevent nuclear
proliferation.
• North Korea (2003):
• Signed the treaty but withdrew and developed nuclear weapons.
• United States (2020s):
• Developed new tactical nuclear weapons, arguably violating the
treaty’s spirit.

7. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (1987) – Violated by Russia & the
U.S.
• What It Said:
• Banned land-based nuclear missiles with ranges between 500-5,500
km.
• Signed by the U.S. and Soviet Union to reduce Cold War tensions.
 • Violations:
• Russia (2010s): Developed and deployed 9M729 cruise missiles,
violating the treaty.
• United States (2019): Withdrew from the treaty, citing Russian
violations.

8. The Budapest Memorandum (1994) – Violated by Russia

• What It Said:
• Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of
sovereignty and security from Russia, the U.S., and the UK.
• Violation:
• Russia (2014): Annexed Crimea, directly violating its commitment to
Ukraine’s sovereignty.
• Russia (2022): Launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

9. The Chemical Weapons Convention (1993) – Violated by Syria & Russia

• What It Said:
• Banned the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons.
• Violations:
• Syria (2013-Present): Used chemical weapons against civilians, despite
claiming to have destroyed its stockpile.
• Russia (2018): Used the Novichok nerve agent in assassination
attempts on political opponents.

10. The Paris Climate Agreement (2015) – Violated by the U.S. & China
• What It Said:
• Countries agreed to reduce carbon emissions to combat climate
change.
• Violations:
• United States (2017): Withdrew from the agreement under President
Donald Trump.
• China (2020s): Continues to build coal-fired power plants, increasing
carbon emissions.

Conclusion

Many countries sign treaties with good intentions or for political gain, only to violate
them when it suits their national interests. These historical examples highlight how
international agreements can fail without strong enforcement mechanisms.

Whether related to war, nuclear weapons, human rights, or environmental policies,

the pattern remains the same: nations prioritize security, power, and strategic
advantage over treaty commitments.

Treaties & Resolutions That Nations Opposing the UK’s Stance Have Signed but Later Violated

Many nations that oppose the UK’s stance on preventing an extraterrestrial arms race—such as Russia,
China, India, Iran, and North Korea—have a history of signing international treaties and agreements,
only to later violate them when it served their strategic interests. Below is a list of treaties and
resolutions these countries have signed but then acted against, exposing their hypocrisy in diplomatic
discussions.

1. Russia – Signed Treaties but Later Violated

A. Budapest Memorandum (1994) – Violated by Russia

• What It Said:
• Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its
nuclear weapons.
• Violation:
• 2014: Russia annexed Crimea, directly violating the agreement.
• 2022: Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, completely disregarding its
commitments under the memorandum.

B. INF Treaty (1987) – Violated by Russia

• What It Said:
• Banned intermediate-range nuclear missiles to prevent an arms race between the U.S.
and the USSR.
• Violation:
• Russia (2010s): Developed and deployed 9M729 cruise missiles, violating the treaty.
• 2019: The U.S. withdrew from the treaty, citing Russian violations.

C. Outer Space Treaty (1967) – Violated by Russia

• What It Said:
• Prohibited the placement of WMDs in orbit and promoted peaceful uses of space.
• Violation:
• 2021: Russia conducted an anti-satellite (ASAT) test, creating thousands of debris
fragments that threatened global space assets.
• Russia has tested electronic warfare capabilities in space, violating the treaty’s spirit of
peaceful cooperation.

D. Chemical Weapons Convention (1993) – Violated by Russia

• What It Said:
• Banned the use of chemical weapons.
• Violation:
• 2018: Russia used the Novichok nerve agent to poison political opponent Sergei Skripal
in the UK.
• 2020: Russia used Novichok again in an attempted assassination of Alexei Navalny.

2. China – Signed Treaties but Later Violated

A. Outer Space Treaty (1967) – Violated by China

• What It Said:
• Space should only be used for peaceful purposes, and no country should create
harmful debris.
• Violation:
• 2007: China conducted an ASAT test, destroying its own satellite and creating one of
the largest space debris clouds in history.
• China has developed military-controlled satellites with potential offensive capabilities.

B. World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements (2001) – Violated by China

• What It Said:
• Required China to follow fair trade practices and protect intellectual property rights.
• Violation:
• China was repeatedly accused of currency manipulation, trade imbalances, and IP
theft, violating WTO rules.
• Continues to use forced technology transfers, requiring foreign companies to share
technology in exchange for market access.

C. Sino-British Joint Declaration (1984) – Violated by China

• What It Said:
 • Guaranteed Hong Kong’s autonomy under the “One Country, Two Systems” principle
for 50 years after the UK handed over Hong Kong in 1997.
• Violation:
• 2019–2020: China passed a National Security Law, cracking down on protests and
violating Hong Kong’s promised autonomy.
• China has repeatedly ignored the treaty, claiming it is now “invalid.”

D. Chemical Weapons Convention (1993) – Violated by China

• What It Said:
• Banned the production and use of chemical weapons.
• Violation:
• The U.S. has accused China of maintaining an undeclared chemical weapons program
despite being a signatory.
• Reports suggest China has transferred chemical weapons materials to North Korea.

3. India – Signed Treaties but Later Violated

A. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – Violated by India

• What It Said:
• Countries that did not have nuclear weapons agreed not to develop them.
• Violation:
• 1998: India tested nuclear weapons, despite international calls to prevent nuclear
proliferation.

B. Outer Space Treaty (1967) – Violated by India

• What It Said:
• Space should remain peaceful and free from weaponization.
• Violation:
• 2019: India conducted an ASAT test (Mission Shakti), destroying a satellite and
contributing to the growing space debris crisis.

4. Iran – Signed Treaties but Later Violated

A. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA/Iran Nuclear Deal, 2015) – Violated by Iran
• What It Said:
• Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of economic
sanctions.
• Violation:
• 2019: After the U.S. withdrew, Iran resumed uranium enrichment beyond agreed limits,
violating the deal.

B. Outer Space Treaty (1967) – Violated by Iran

• What It Said:
• Space should be used for peaceful purposes only.
• Violation:
• Iran has launched satellites suspected of being covers for ballistic missile tests,
violating the peaceful use principle.

5. North Korea – Signed Treaties but Later Violated

A. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – Violated by North Korea

• What It Said:
• North Korea agreed not to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for diplomatic
recognition.
• Violation:
• 2003: North Korea withdrew from the NPT and developed nuclear weapons.
• 2006–Present: Conducted multiple nuclear tests, violating international agreements.

B. Outer Space Treaty (1967) – Violated by North Korea

• What It Said:
• Space should be used for peaceful purposes.
 • Violation:
• North Korea’s satellite launches are widely believed to be covers for ICBM missile tests,
violating the treaty’s peaceful purpose principle.

Conclusion

The nations opposing the UK’s stance on preventing an arms race in space—particularly Russia, China,
India, Iran, and North Korea—have repeatedly signed and then violated international agreements when
it suited their national interests. Their actions expose deep hypocrisy when they call for space to
remain peaceful while conducting military space tests, violating non-aggression pacts, or ignoring
arms control treaties.

In diplomatic debates, these past violations can be used to challenge their credibility, forcing them to
justify why their commitments should be trusted in space governance discussions.

OPERATIVE CLAUSES

Operative Clauses for a Resolution on Preventing an Extraterrestrial Arms Race

Submitted by: The United Kingdom

The United Kingdom encourages all Member States to work collectively to prevent the weaponization
of space and ensure its peaceful use through the following measures:

1. Strengthening International Legal Frameworks

1. Calls for the modernization of the Outer Space Treaty (1967) to explicitly prohibit the
development, deployment, and use of all forms of space-based weapons, including kinetic anti-satellite
(ASAT) weapons and directed-energy weapons;
2. Encourages the establishment of an international legal agreement to prohibit the
testing and use of ASAT weapons, which generate long-term space debris and pose risks to all nations;
3. Proposes the development of an International Space Security Treaty (ISST) that would:
• Prohibit the placement of offensive weapons in space,
• Define military and dual-use technologies in space to reduce ambiguity,
• Establish an enforcement mechanism for compliance;

2. Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures (TCBMs)

4. Urges nations to commit to transparency in military space activities by:
• Implementing a global pre-notification system for space-related military tests,
including missile launches and ASAT operations,
• Establishing an International Space Object Registry where countries disclose the
purpose and functions of military-related satellites to prevent misunderstandings;
5. Supports the creation of a UN-led Global Space Monitoring Agency (GSMA) responsible
for:
• Tracking and reporting on military activities in space,
• Monitoring compliance with space security agreements,
• Investigating potential treaty violations;

3. Space Debris Mitigation

6. Encourages the adoption of a global moratorium on destructive ASAT testing, similar to
the United States’ 2022 ASAT ban, to prevent further debris generation;
7. Recommends that nations responsible for space debris take accountability by:
• Contributing financially to international debris clean-up programs,
• Cooperating on research and technology for debris removal missions;
 8. Calls for mandatory post-mission disposal plans for satellites, requiring all spacefaring
nations to deorbit defunct satellites or move them to designated graveyard orbits to prevent long-term
orbital congestion;

4. Promoting Peaceful Use of Space

9. Supports international cooperation in space exploration and technology-sharing to
ensure space remains a domain of peaceful innovation rather than military competition;
10. Recommends the establishment of a United Nations Committee on Space Security
(UNCSS) to facilitate diplomatic discussions on space security, monitor compliance with space treaties,
and resolve disputes;

5. Preventing the Militarization of Space

11. Encourages Member States to limit the deployment of space-based military assets that
could be perceived as offensive, to prevent unnecessary escalation of conflicts;
12. Urges nations to refrain from developing space-based missile defense systems that
could lead to a space arms race and destabilize global security;

6. Ensuring Equitable Access to Space

13. Encourages developed nations to assist developing countries in accessing space
technology for peaceful applications, ensuring that space remains a shared resource for all humanity;
14. Proposes the establishment of a UN-sponsored Space Innovation Fund to support
research into peaceful space technologies, such as satellite-based climate monitoring, disaster
response, and sustainable space exploration;
15. Recommends that private space companies comply with international space security
guidelines, ensuring that commercial space activities align with peaceful and sustainable space
exploration.

Conclusion

This resolution seeks to prevent an arms race in outer space by promoting legally binding agreements,
transparency, peaceful cooperation, and responsible space behavior while ensuring that all nations
have equitable access to space for peaceful purposes.