UNCSTD - United Nations

Commission on Science and

Technology for Development
Background Guide
 Introduction to the committee

The United Nations Commission on Science and

Technology for Development (CSTD) is a subsidiary
body of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It
holds an annual intergovernmental forum for
discussion on timely and pertinent issues affecting
science, technology and development.

It is composed of 43 members from National

Governments, however civil society contributes to
discussions that take place. Strong links exist with
other UN bodies (The Commission on Status of
Women, Regional Commissions, ITU, UNESCO).

Outcomes of the CSTD include providing the United

Nations General Assembly and ECOSOC with high-level
advice on relevant science and technology issues. The
United Nations Conference For Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) secretariat provides
substantive support to the commission.

The CSTD was established to provide the General

Assembly and the Economic and Social Council with
high-level advice on relevant issues through analysis
and appropriate policy recommendations or options.
This is done in order to enable those organs to guide
the future work of the United Nations, develop
common policies and agree on appropriate actions.
Outer Space Treaty
The Outer Space Treaty was considered by the Legal
Subcommittee in 1966 and agreement was reached in
the General Assembly in the same year (resolution 2222
(XXI)). The Treaty was largely based on the Declaration
of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in
the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, which had
been adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution
1962 (XVIII) in 1963, but added a few new provisions. The
Treaty was opened for signature by the three
depository Governments (the Russian Federation, the
United Kingdom and the United States of America) in
January 1967, and it entered into force in October 1967.

EXISTING PROVISIONS OF CURRENT OUTER

SPACE TREATY:
● The exploration and use of outer space shall be
carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all
countries and shall be the province of all mankind.

● Outer space shall be free for exploration and use by

all States.

● Outer space is not subject to national appropriation

by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation,
or by any other means.
 ·

● States shall not plac e nuclear weapons or

other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or
on celestial bodies or station them in outer
space in any other manner.

● The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be

used exclusively for peaceful purposes.

● Astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys

of mankind.

● States shall be responsible for national

space activities whether carried out by
governmental or non-governmental entities.

● States shall be liable for damage caused by

their space objects.

● States shall avoid harmful contamination of

space and celestial bodies.

·
ISSUES WITH THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE
OUTER SPACE TREATY:

● Since it is primarily an arms control treaty for the

peaceful use of outer space, the Outer Space Treaty
offers limited and ambiguous regulations to newer
space activities such as lunar and asteroid mining. It
is therefore debated whether the extraction of
resources falls within the prohibitive language of
appropriation, or whether the use of such resources
encompasses the commercial use and exploitation.
● OST, in its 50 years of existence, witnessed many
technological and military changes such as the
privatisation of space exploration, dangers of the
excessive satellite debris, the utilization of satellite
technology for unethical breaches of privacy, the
emergence of Quantum physics and quantum
computing which pose challenges, and there is a
need for new treaty as OST does not deal with all
these new advancements.
● Privatisation in outer space, use of domestic laws and
consequent need for their own legal action,
commercial space innovation issues, international
liability regime to protect space tourists from space
vehicle accidents and escalating use of military
activities, all of which are related to advancement of
technology, are beyond the scope and management
of OST.
● As per Art II of the treaty, no country can claim
sovereignty in outer space, but the area remains
undefined in law. Private companies developing
flights to the edge of space will fly to undefined
regions of approximately 100 km above the Earth.If
any accident occurs in this zone which involves
international issues, it is unclear whether the rules of
international aviation will apply or the provisions of
space treaty will apply.

● The outer space treaty is technically binding on

the countries which are party to it, but it cannot be
practically enforced due to the lack of space policies.
The lack of a space law enforcement body, makes the
peace and security aspects delicate.

● The existing international laws don't give

answers to the most important questions raised
under the conditions of space commercialisation like
ensuring the balance of public and commercial
interests among others. But it is essential to
encourage and promote commercial activities at the
same time.
IMPORTANT TREATIES DEALING WITH
OUTER SPACE:

THE RESCUE AGREEMENT:

The Rescue Agreement essentially provides that any state

that is a party to the agreement must provide all possible
assistance to rescue the personnel of a spacecraft who
have landed within that state's territory, whether because
of an accident, distress, emergency, or unintended landing.
If the distress occurs in an area that is beyond the territory
of any nation, then any state party that is in a position to
do so shall, if necessary, extend assistance in the search
and rescue operation.

The Rescue Agreement was considered and negotiated by

the Legal Subcommittee from 1962 to 1967. Consensus
agreement was reached in the General Assembly in 1967
(resolution 2345 (XXII)), and the Agreement entered into
force in December 1968.

The Rescue Agreement has been criticised for being

vague, regarding the definition of who is entitled to be
rescued and the definition of what constitutes a spacecraft
and its component parts.The cost burden of a rescue
mission is also not addressed in the agreement.
THE LIABILITY CONVENTION:

States (countries) bear international responsibility for

all space objects that are launched within their territory.
This means that regardless of who launches the space
object, if it was launched from State A's territory, or
from State A's facility, or if State A caused the launch to
happen, then State A is fully liable for damages that
result from that space object.

The Liability Convention was concluded and opened for

signature on 29 March 1972.It entered into force on 1
September 1972. As of 1 January 2021, 98 States have
ratified the Liability Convention, 19 have signed but not
ratified and four international intergovernmental
organizations have declared their acceptance of the
rights and obligations provided for in the Agreement.

THE REGISTRATION CONVENTION:

The convention requires states to furnish to the United
Nations with details about the orbit of each space
object. A registry of launchings was already being
maintained by the United Nations as a result of a
General Assembly Resolution in 1962.
Relying on the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Law, courts
sentenced to death individuals who had been
convicted of targeting and killing activists and
journalists in Baghdad and Basra in 2019 and 2020.
However, beyond the limited information provided
on these cases, no further information was given,
including as to whether any steps were taken to
provide redress to any of the victims’ families.

Members of security forces and PMU factions

threatened activists and their families with violence in
Baghdad and the southern cities of Basra, Nasriya and
Diwaniya, forcing tens of individuals to flee into
hiding.

DISRUPTION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

The KRG used national security reasons to justify

systematically targeting critics, journalists, human
rights defenders and other civil society activists
through prosecutions. KRG security forces arbitrarily
arrested tens of people for social media posts, news
articles or reporting on demonstrations.
The register is kept by the United Nations Office for
Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) and includes-

● Name of launching State.

● An appropriate designator of the space object or

its registration number.

● Date and territory or location of launch.

●Basic orbital parameters (Nodal period, Inclination,

Apogee and Perigee).

● General function of the space object.

THE MOON TREATY:

The Moon Agreement or Moon Treaty, formally the

Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the
Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, is the last of five
international treaties regarding space activities that were
negotiated in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The intent of the Moon Treaty was to offer more specific

regulation of the activities of nations in space. To be clear,
the Agreement does not prohibit the use and exploitation
of natural resources in space. Instead, it requires parties to
establish an international regime to govern such use.
Many consider the Moon Agreement a failure. To date, it
has been ratified by only 18 nations – none of which has
completed a mission to the Moon. Notably missing are
the countries which are most active in space, including
the United States, Russia, China, Japan, and Germany.
India and France have signed but not ratified the
Agreement.
IMPORTANT ARTICLES RELATING TO
OUTER SPACE:

● ARTICLE I(I) OF OST

● ARTICLE II OF OST

● ARTICLE III OF OST

● ARTICLE IV OF OST

● ARTICLE VI OF OST

● ARTICLE VIII OF OST

● ARTICLE IX OF OST
CASE STUDIES:
1) DIFFERENT COUNTRIES WITH DIFFERENT
INTERPRETATIONS OF OST

The OST is a shining example of diplomacy between

competing states with vastly different agendas.
However, the diplomatic process resulted in
ambiguities that are resolved by varying national
interpretations. For example, the United States and
Russia disagree on the meaning of the “peaceful
purposes” upon which the OST is premised. The
United States interprets peaceful purposes broadly as
“non-aggressive,” and Russia interprets peaceful
purposes narrowly as “non-military.” The United
States’ interpretation is in agreement with Article IV
of the OST, which expressly condones the use of
military personnel for peaceful purposes. Because
there is no international consensus on the meaning of
peaceful purposes, each state conducts their affairs in
accordance with their own sometimes conflicting
national interpretations. Several problems follow from
the uncertainty. For example, dual-use technology like
satellites are not prohibited by the OST because they
have a legitimate–albeit nonexclusive–peaceful
purpose. Destruction of satellites is similarly
unprotected. Because the use of military personnel for
peaceful purposes is allowed under the OST, and the
United States’ interpretation of peaceful purposes
does not exclude military activity, the Space Force is
arguably legal under international law.
2) LOOPHOLES PRESENT IN OST

In 2006, China targeted a U.S. satellite with a laser, which

was interpreted as an anti-satellite experiment. In 2007,
China destroyed one of its own satellites in an ASAT
weapon test, creating an international enormous amount
of dangerous space debris. Although China’s actions drew
international condemnation, the conduct was found not
to violate the OST, and no country took legal action.

3) POLITICAL SUFFICIENCIES OF OST

In 2018, Finland and Norway experienced airspace

interruptions in GPS and suspected Russia of engaging in
strategic disruption during a military exercise as part of
the NATO war games.The political insufficiencies of the
OST are compounded by its inapplicability to private
actors.

4) COST EFFECTIVENESS

Taking an example of ISRO and NASA, it costs about

$5000 to launch a pound of payload into space by ISRO
whereas it costs double the amount, $10000 for NASA to
launch the same amount of payload into space. Though
both organisations are working towards reducing their
costs, as of right now this difference in costs is huge and
in the end proves to be the deciding factor as to how
much money should actually be spent on sending objects
to space.
5: ENERGY USAGE
On 28 January, 2021, the UR Rao Satellite Centre (URSC)
of Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) invited
proposals for the three phase development of a 100
Watt Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG). As
ISRO’s lead centre for design, development, fabrication,
and testing of all Indian-made satellites, the centre
envisions using RTG for power generation and thermal
management of ISRO’s deep space missions. With plans
of setting up a space station, and launching the first
Indian human space flight mission, Gaganyaan; the first
Indian solar observatory, Aditya L-1; the second Indian
space telescope XPoSat; Mangalyaan-2 to Mars;
Chandrayaan-3 as an attempt to land on the Moon; and
the Venus orbiter mission Shukrayaan; ISRO has
embarked on a monumental journey of exploring
remote and challenging environments.

Against this backdrop, the decision to invest in nuclear

thermal propulsion (NTP) appears inevitable. RTGs are
not new but the use of nuclear energy for launching
rockets had been long given up, though small
nuclear-powered rovers like the US’s Perseverance have
been in use.RTGs provide power by using thermocouples
to convert thermal energy generated by the natural
decay of radioactive isotopes into electrical energy. They
are highly reliable and maintenance-free as the absence
of moving parts in thermocouples reduces the chances
of failure and wear out. Nuclear-propelled rockets are
more fuel efficient and lighter than chemical rockets.
Hence, they would travel further, are faster, and would
shorten the trip time.
At the India Energy Forum, the US Energy Secretary,
Dan Brouillette, emphasised this when he claimed that
the new fuel would allow a trip to and from Mars on
‘one tank of gas’. “What would take years, would take
only months (now),” he said. This would also prove
beneficial for human space travel. The astronauts’
exposure to harmful space radiation would be lessened,
thereby, decreasing the mission’s overall risk.

Nuclear or radioactive energy can be employed both as

an alternative to and a complement of other sources of
energy. This is seconded by former ISRO Chairman, AS
Kiran Kumar, who calls RTG ‘futuristic’.

QARMA:
1) How is the OST being exploited? How can the
committee stop these exploitations?
2) How can the cost of sending objects and people to
space be reduced?
3) What are the ways to make sure all treaties are
acceptable by all space traversing nations?
4) If new laws are brought into picture, how can
these laws be made in such a way that they can be
changed easily in the future in order to comply
with that time period’s technological
advancements?
5) How can the laws be executed in a fair and proper
manner through various space policies?
6) With rising issues of climate change, what new
ways can be implemented in order to cut down on
energy usage and pollution of the environment?
REFERENCES:
https://www.ebr.edu.pl/pub/2006_1_54.pdf

https://www.projectstatecraft.org/post/fifty-years-o
f-the-outer-space-treaty-challenges-and-need-for-a-n
ew-treaty#:~:text=The%20outer%20space%20treaty
%20is,peace%20and%20security%20aspects%20del
icate.

Credits - Madhava (vice chairperson) and Annika

(deputy secretary general)