FOR PEACEFUL USES OF OUTER SPACE.. UNOOSA

Photo Credit (c) UNOOSA Official page on facebook

The UN Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) was initially established on 13th December 1958 by a General Assembly resolution as a expert unit within the Secretariat for providing services to the ad hoc UNCOPUOS. It was later transformed due to increasing demand, and became an Office for Outer Space Affairs within the department for Political Affairs. It is the United Nations office responsible for promoting international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space. In 1993 relocated to Vienna and assumed responsibility for substantive secretariat services to the Legal Subcommittee (previously it had been provided by the Office of Legal Affairs in New York).

Now UNOOSA represents the main organisation for space affairs within the United Nations, which implements the decisions of the General Assembly and the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS), and is the primary international forum for the development of laws and principles governing outer space. Its field of activity is to support intergovernmental discussions and the Committee and its Scientific and Technical Subcommittee and Legal Subcommittee. 

Moreover, it assists developing countries in using space technology for development and also follows all scientific and technical developments relating to outer space affairs. It maintains the Register of Space Objects on behalf of the Secretary General and also collects other relevant data and documentation. 

UNOOSA provides sufficient information to other specialised agencies of UN to coordinate their activities. In order to fulfil this goal more efficiently, UNOOSA organises an annual UN Inter-Agency Meeting on Outer Space Activities since 1980. The aim of these meetings is to discuss current and future activities, newest technologies and all other relevant matters. After the meeting two reports are produced and one is sent to UNCOPUOS and the second one is a report on the coordinated space-related activities of the UN system. 

The UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) was established in 1958 as an ad hoc committee by the General Assembly, who recognised the need for a mechanism ensuring cooperation on a global level in outer space activities. At the beginning UNCOPUOS had 18 member States and over the years this number increased to 77 in 2014. 

54th Legal Subcommittee of UNCOPUOS, 2015

UNCOPUOS contains one full committee and two subcommittees, the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee and the Legal Subcommittee, the Legal Subcommittee usually being responsible for the initial drafts regarding legal matters. Each subcommittee prepares a report that is given to main committee, and the main committee prepares the final annual report. The final report then goes to UN General Assembly and every year a resolution is adopted. UNCOPUOS normally proceeds by consensus. In practice this means that a proposal is made inside the UNCOPUOS and this is then negotiated and revised until all are willing to accept it and allow it to go to forward...

A general belief that US ratification of the CTBT would produce a series of subsequent ratifications creating a so-called domino effect

Although the verification machinery required to monitor the CTBT is eighty percent installed, as mentioned, 163 countries in the world have ratified the treaty, still proving to be problematic.

The United States has five primary, twelve auxiliary, eig

CTBTO Office at Vienna Intentional Center 

ht infrasound, two hydroacoustic and eleven radionuclide stations. All of them are certified except for three of the infrasound stations, which are in the planning stage.

United States still needed to ratify the treaty for it to enter into force, such as North Korea and Iran, will ratify the treaty even if the United States ratifies. U.S. ratification is a critically needed circuit-breaker: it would have an immediate impact on other holdout states, and add major new momentum to both disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. This may seem overly optimistic; however, international norms impose a powerful influence on states. International instruments and pressures have helped prevent a number of countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. Regarding the other holdouts referenced above, Indonesia had stated that it would ratify as soon as the United States becomes a state party; however, it announced at the May 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that it would proceed to ratify on its own. Indonesia signed the treaty the day it was opened for signature, and its six auxiliary seismic stations in the IMS are all certified. 

It is widely believed that China will ratify the treaty soon after the United States. Like the other P5 countries, China signed the treaty the day it opened for signature, and the treaty has been awaiting ratification in the National People's Congress for thirteen years.  China was active in the negotiations in the CD and has participated in the work of the CTBT PrepCom, including on OSI. A high level Chinese diplomat in Vienna said, China fully cherishes the international norm that any nuclear test after the CTBT is a violation, including for those countries outside of the CTBT. 

In 1954 Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru became the first to call for a nuclear test ban. India has supported the elimination of nuclear weapons for many years and participated dynamically in the negotiations in Geneva, serving as Friend of the Chair on verification and legal issues. However, the treaty did not include India's call for a time-bound framework for nuclear disarmament and did include India on the list of countries required to ratify for entry into force. India responded by withdrawing its four monitoring stations from the IMS and declaring that it would not approve the treaty in the CD.  

In 1998, India and Pakistan conducted a series of nuclear tests. India has since observed a moratorium on testing, and this is considered a condition of the United States for cooperation on the civil nuclear agreement of 2006. In 1999 Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee told the United Nations General Assembly that India would "not stand in the way" of the treaty coming into force. 

Nevertheless, others are not so optimistic, in view of a strong public opinion attached to the nuclear capability. Pakistan was also active in the negotiations and has attended a number of meetings of the PrepCom and three of the bi-annual Conferences on Facilitating Entry into Force of the Treaty (Article XIV Conferences) as observer. Pakistan has supported the conclusion of a test-ban treaty for many years, and voted for the treaty at the United Nations in 1996, unlike India. It has also observed a moratorium on nuclear testing since its tests in 1998. It was thought that Pakistan would sign the treaty in tandem with India; however, Pakistan has recently claimed that the US-India nuclear deal has affected the imbalance in their capabilities and that it will act according to its own security interests. Israel also participated actively in the negotiations in the CD. 

As an observer it was not permitted to break consensus; however, it contributed papers and proposed language that were reflected in the treaty. It was especially interested in the provisions for on-site inspections, being concerned about the non-abusive nature of the OSI regime, equal status in the Executive Council and adherence to the treaty by other Middle Eastern states. As the Executive Council is composed of regional blocs, Israel is concerned that it will never be given a seat in the group encompassing the Middle East and South Asia. Although many do not think that this will prevent Israel from ratifying, Israel is unlikely to let its rights be compromised. 

Israel continues to participate in the deliberations in the PrepCom, in particular on the OSI operational manual, training, and exercises. Iran served in the negotiations as Friend of the Chair on aspects of verification and on-site inspections. It signed the treaty on the day it opened for signature, voted in favor of the CTBT resolution in 2009 and has engaged in the meetings of the PrepCom, in particular in the Working Group on Verification. 

Iran contends that its activities are related to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and has insinuated that it will link ratification to the CTBT with the establishment of a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction. The argument has been made that if Iran is serious about its claim that it is not developing nuclear weapons, it would ratify the CTBT. It is one of the 118 members of the Non-Aligned Movement, which has voiced its support of the CTBT on a number of occasions. It holds the view that it has been in good standing with the NPT, and until Israel ratifies the NPT to address what Egypt sees as an imbalance in regional nonproliferation and disarmament, it will not support further arms control agreements, including the CTBT, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Pelindaba Treaty, or the IAEA Additional Protocol. 

One of the priorities for Egypt is the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. 

North Korea is very difficult to assess, due to its closed and secluded situation in the international arena. It participated in the negotiations and voted for the UN resolution that adopted the treaty. It conducted two nuclear weapon explosions, in 2006 and 2009, and has not indicated plans in regard to the CTBT.