The Outer Space Treaty 1967
Article IV and the Desire to Keep Space Peaceful
Due to a desire to keep space peaceful, the Outer Space Treaty 1967 was created to provide a basic framework of international space law.
The Outer Space Treaty 1967 was created to provide a basic framework of international space law, at the heart of which was the desire to preserve outer space as the province of all mankind and to ensure that space remained peaceful.
Desiring a robust legislative basis for the prohibition on the use of force in outer space, COPUOS drafted the Outer Space Treaty 1967, Article IV (1) of provides:
“State Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner”.
The Meaning of ‘Peaceful’ in Article IV (2)
“The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes.”
From the standpoint of the USA, at the time of the drafting of the Outer Space Treaty, the idea of building telecommunications centres and also of training soldiers on the moon was certainly within contemplation and so its diplomats were keen to ensure that all military activity was not explicitly banned. The greatest hurdle that they faced was the precedent set by Article I of the Antarctic Treaty which, if carried forward into the Outer Space Treaty, would have the effect of banning all military activity, not just on the moon and other celestial bodies but in the whole of outer void space too.
A direct comparison of the wording of Article IV (2) of the Outer Space Treaty with that of Article I of the Antarctic Treaty shows that it was the obvious intention of COPUOS that Article IV (2) would lay down basically the same kind of obligation in regard to celestial bodies as Article I of the Antarctic Treaty created in respect of Antarctica. Further, given that acts for aggressive or aggression purposes were already banned anywhere in the universe under international law and the United Nations Convention, it follows that the specific provision found in Article IV (2) must have some other meaning than simply the prohibition of aggressive military activities in space.
Sentence Two of Article IV (2)
“The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.”
Given that the word ‘peaceful’ in the first sentence of Article IV (2) can be seen as meaning ‘non-military’, it seems obvious that the second sentence serves purely to provide an example of what has been said before, effectively that no military activity whatsoever is permitted on the moon or other celestial bodies. There is no need for the moon to be specifically mentioned once again since throughout the Treaty it has been included as one of the celestial bodies.
The Last Two Sentences of Article IV (2)
“The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.”
The end of Article IV (2) is a nod towards practicality since, without exceptions for some level of military involvement in space exploration, neither the USA nor the USSR would have signed the Outer Space Treaty. Further, COPUOS, the UN General Assembly and the rest of the international community were keen that further exploration of space should continue and had to acknowledge that, generally, it was only the military that had the finances and personnel necessary for such exploration.
