Letter from the Secretary General

Esteemed delegates,

It is my sincere pleasure to welcome you to the 12th annual

United Nations Society Fall conference, CarleMUN 2015. This year, I

have the distinct honour of serving as the Secretary General of

CarleMUN, and I hope to meet all of you throughout the conference.

For those of you who are new to the UNS, CarleMUN will be a new

experience – full of surprises and excitement – and will hopefully

inspire you to continue participating in MUN for years to come.

While the initial research may seem overwhelming, the background

guides may seem immense, the committee room may seem

daunting and large; you will find your feet.

The United Nations Society has always seen Model UN as more

than just a chance to debate contemporary issues in international

affairs; more than simply a chance to take what you have learned in

class and apply it to the real-world. It is an opportunity to engage

with a diverse range of students in an academic and social context

and refine your skills of negotiation, diplomacy, communication,

creativity, collaboration, and quick thinking.

As you navigate the conference weekend, both inside and

outside of the committee room, I would encourage you to consider

the role that your participation will play. As I will repeat throughout

the year, you will only get out of MUN what you are willing to put in.

Though somewhat cliché, it is appropriate for an activity that relies

almost exclusively on delegate participation.

I will leave you with one final thought before you join us on

September 25th for the Opening Ceremonies of CarleMUN. Whether

you have been doing Model United Nations for years, or whether this

is your first, brave venture into the unknown, you will be stepping

into a room of people each with their own passions, perspectives and

philosophies. Embrace the opportunity to meet new people, gain

new experiences and hone your skills as a global citizen.

Sincerely,

Alex Berryman

President, United Nations Society

Secretary General, CarleMUN 2015

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS)

A Word from Your Chairs

Hello delegates,

Welcome to the committee. My name is Simon Hunt and I am over

the moon to be your vice-chair for COPUOS at CarleMUN alongside

my good friend, Kiernan McClelland.

For my part, I have been a stalwart member of the UN Society for 4

years, and modestly consider myself a clear sign of the good Model

UN can bring to a delegate. I entered my first In-House - a GA,

representing Kazakhstan, sandwiched between Israel and Korea

DPRK, with Palestine fuming over their shoulder - a stuttering;

incoherent mess and emerged, several conferences later, a

sufficiently cogent mess.

In the last two years I've traveled to 14 conferences in 3 countries -

by the end of the year I plan to have represented Carleton in every

city the Society has ever traveled to - and as your Co-Director of

Training for 2015-2016 I hope to spark the same love of travel,

debate and good cheer that I've been given by my predecessors.

I've known for a long time that I was going to be involved in

academics – at an early point in my life, childhood debates about

superheroes turned into questions about the kind of topics MUN

engenders. I hope that you leave this committee with a similar

passion, and am willing to help your preparation in any way I can.

If you feel lost at any point in the CarleMUN process, please feel free

to get in touch via email (simon.training@unsociety.com) or in

person.

I look forward to meeting you all and getting to know you through

the year, at CarleMUN, at our training sessions and at our external

conferences. If you have any questions – any at all – feel free to get in

touch.

And with that, I quote the best captain of all time – Malcolm

Reynolds – in telling the delegates of COPUOS that “no matter how

long the arm of adversity gets, get a little further”. I have every faith

that you all will.

Thank you,

Simon Hunt

Hello everyone,

I am still saddened to see that although humankind has progressed

so far scientifically as to breach the heavens and land on the barren

surfaces of extraterrestrial planets, we still a have not perfected the

means of telling a funny space pun.

With that out of the way, hello everyone. My name is Kiernan

McClelland. Over the course of the conference I will be acting as the

co-chair for COPUOS. My academic expertise surrounds the

application of space power, space weaponization, and the future

dynamics of modern warfare. As such, I am absolutely thrilled and

honored to help chair this truly exceptional and unique committee.

Before we move on, I would like to quickly express to the delegates

attending COPUOS, as well as those new and returning members

attending the other committees, the importance of the committee

you all are about to embark on. Before I explain the importance,

however, there is one truth that I would like to make known to all of

you right now and right here in this introduction:

Now, this is a truth that may come hard to a few of you but it is a

truth which is grounded in the very reality of your own existence

within this particular era of human history. You will likely never go

into outer space. You will likely never see, with your own eyes, the

blue sphere that we call Earth. Nor will you likely ever walk on the

moon, or on Mars, or on any other planet.

So then, why are the topics covered in COPUOS so important? Our

generation lives during an era of supreme importance to the future

ventures of those space-faring humans that will be our ancestors.

We are, in fact, the progenitors of space policy that will govern the

activities of humankind for centuries to come. We, at this point of

human history, hold in our hands the ability to both protect and even

destroy the natural destiny of humankind to explore not just our

universe, but those areas of our existence that we can’t even

comprehend. And that, delegates, that’s really exciting.

And with that, I quote the best star fleet captain of all time - Jean-Luc

Piccard - in telling the delegates of COPUOS to “make it so”. I have

every faith that you all will.

Thank you,

Kiernan McClelland

What is Model UN?

Model United Nations (also Model UN or MUN, as it will be

referred to both here in this background guide and elsewhere

throughout the year) is an academic simulation of an international

body, which aims to educate participants about current events,

topics in international relations, and diplomacy. As the name

suggests Model UN started as simulations of bodies of the United

Nations but many conferences will contain non-UN bodies – as

featured at CarleMUN this year, with committees like Canada 1984,

France 1792, and the International Press Forum.

Delegates, as participants of Model UN are called, will

generally represent a country as its ambassador to the committee at

hand. Delegates are tasked with representing their nation's position

through both speeches and resolutions – formal policy documents

that are released on behalf of the entire committee. It is easy in a

committee, particularly one such as COPUOS that deals with a

scientific topic, to become mired in the details and lose sight of the

true purpose of effective policy. That is, to be useful enough to cover

both current issues and those that may arise in the future,

accessible enough that it can be understood by a layperson, and

efficient enough that it can be executed well without too much need

for evaluation or interpretation in terms of meaning. Before we go

any further in this background guide I want to provide a

reassurance that no delegate is required to be an expert in any of the

physics that underpin this committee. While research is incredibly

important, we are not expecting you to have an encyclopedic

knowledge of scientific technobabble. This is a committee about

policy, and policy is rarely specific to technology. A basic

understanding of space and the orbits will be enough for any

delegate.

Ambassadors are not expected to be experts on every matter

assigned to them – for example Cheng Jingye, the current Chinese

ambassador to COPUOS has previously served on the International

Narcotics Control Board, the UN Industrial Development

Organization and just last month made a statement on Iran's nuclear

situation. It would be unreasonable to expect more of you as

delegates than we expect of the people that you represent.

How does COPUOS work?

COPUOS is generally a consensus body, which means that any

decision must be unanimously agreed on by every delegate.

However article XV of the Outer Space Treaty allows for it to be

amended by a simple majority (50%+1 of the States party to the

Treaty). As such the majority of decisions and documents handled by

this committee will be in the form of amendments to the Treaty.

Technology in Committee

Laptop Policy

No laptops are to be used during formal committee discussion.

Laptops may be used during breaks, outside the committee room

and during unmoderated caucuses. Resolutions will be expected to

be submitted electronically. Chairs will provide more information

regarding methods for submitting working papers and resolutions

during the first committee session.

Twitter

The society (@Carleton_UNS) and International Press Forum

(@UNS_IPF) will be live-tweeting the events of the conference. Both

will be tagging their tweets #CarleMUN, as well as reading and

retweeting other tweets in #CarleMUN throughout the conference.

A live Twitter feed will be featured in committee rooms to allow for

inter-committee interactions and updates. Be sure to follow

@Carleton_UNS and @UNS_IPF for updates throughout the

conference.

Introduction The world's first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, launched on October 4,

1957 from the wonderfully Soviet-titled No1/5 Site in what is now

Kazakhstan. It was the size of a beach ball, weighed 83kg, cost

around the equivalent of $32 million and could orbit the earth in 98

minutes. Sputnik orbited the earth for exactly 3 months before it's

batteries ran out, it's orbit decayed and it crashed into Earth's

atmosphere at 8.1 km/s, in which time OKB-1, the Russian Space

Agency, had already sent up a second satellite carrying the first

living animal, a dog named Laika. In late January 1958 the

Americans had launched their own satellite, Explorer I, and the

Space Age had truly begun.

The defining feature of the early Space Age was what is now

known as the Space Race – a continued effort by the USA and USSR

to reach spaceflight milestones faster than the other. Both nations

had an interest in ensuring free access to space, while preventing a

nuclear arms race as was being seen terrestrially.

The United Nations created the Committee on the Peaceful

Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) in December 1959. Since that date,

COPUOS has passed 5 resolutions and has been tasked by the

General Assembly to implement two more. This committee will be

tasked with the discussion and possible amendment of the very first,

the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the

Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other

Celestial Bodies, or TPGASEUOSMOCB for short, commonly

referred to as The Outer Space Treaty.

Since its inception, COPUOS has operated as a consensus

body, meaning that for any decision to be accepted it must either

receive the support or abstention of every single delegation – an

incredible task of diplomacy. Article XV of the Outer Space Treaty

allows for the amendment of the Treaty by a simple majority, but if

COPUOS members wish to create new treaties, they will be expected

to follow the correct procedure.

It is worth noting here that delegates to COPUOS do not have

the power to simply rewrite major international treaties with a

majority vote. In order for treaties to become law, they must be

ratified by the parties to it, and the same is true of major

amendments to a treaty. Instead, you will be creating

recommendations to the states party to the treaty on how it should

be amended. In this scenario, the recommendations you make here

would be discussed in a separate summit on the treaty, where they

might be ignored, or where additional diplomacy may have to be

done to convince the major parties to adopt the amendments to the

treaty. Finally, the delegates to the treaty summit bring home their

copy of the signed treaty to be approved, or ratified, by their

governments. This is part of the reason why the United States is not

a party to many international treaties, as their executive branch,

which attends summits on matter such as but not limited to space, is

separate from their legislative branch, who do not necessarily share

their enthusiasm on all issues.

All that notwithstanding, delegates can be fairly confident that

the recommendations they make will be adopted, eventually, into

international law. We must, however, understand some aspects of

international law before continuing for a number of key reasons.

Firstly it must be emphasized that while substantive matters will be

decided by majority vote, individual countries, especially those that

already have expansive space programs, still retain a great deal of

power regarding whether or not to actually agree to these

recommendations as a matter of law. While this fact won’t be built

into the actual committee structure, CarleMUN prides itself on the

creation of a realistic diplomatic simulation and the successful

delegate will keep these intricacies of international diplomacy in

mind while conducting negotiations. Placing the cost or

responsibility for a program in a resolution is – though often

convenient – rarely a valid solution, and will not be looked upon

favourably by the dais.

The UN – much less Model UN – does not mandate or demand.

Instead delegates will be recommending changes to the treaty or

reaffirming the existing clauses. This is because in the United

Nations power flows, slowly and begrudgingly, from its member

states and not the other way around. The United Nations is not a

worldwide legislative body, but is rather a place where

representatives of fully sovereign, independent countries meet to

try and build consensus on important and pressing issues of the day.

The purpose of this committee is to provide a fun, realistic

simulation of international politics. Now on to the topics themselves!

Topic One: The Outer Space Treaty

The Outer Space Treaty is a rare example of major powers coming together in the spirit of the United Nations to limit their own powers in the common interest of the whole planet. However, the Outer Space Treaty was created in 1966, and is concerned with the issues of the Space Age and of course of the Cold War. COPUOS is the body responsible for reviewing and overseeing international treaties related to outer space. As delegates to COPUOS, you will be tasked with updating the Outer Space Treaty in order to meet the challenges of the modern day, as seen in two separate subtopics of discussion: asteroid exploitation and space colonization.

Subtopic One: Asteroid Mining

By the time the Outer Space Treaty was written two important

spaceflight milestones had been reached – the first week-long

mission and the first docking of two objects in space. While these two

factors pointed to the conceptual possibility of a space station,

national governments would not admit to development of such

technologies for another 13 years, though the USSR had been

developing technologies as far back as 1903. As such, the Treaty's

language requires interpretation to be applied to permanent objects

in space.

Article I of the Outer Space Treaty declares space “the

province of all mankind” and declares space “free for exploration

and use”, with “free access to all areas of celestial bodies” and

“freedom of scientific investigation”, States being obliged to

“facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such

investigation”. Space is “not subject to national appropriation by

claim of sovereignty”, according to Article II and while “A State Party

to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space

is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and

over any personnel thereof” according to Article VIII, Article XII

states “All stations, installations, equipment, and space vehicles on

the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives

of other States Parties to the Treaty on a basis of reciprocity”.

The spirit of the Treaty – space as an international realm, not

owned by any single state is a beautiful one, and one that was easy to

adhere to in 1958, as the technology nations were willing to admit

ownership of was concerned with the Space Race, as mentioned in

the introduction. Today's zeitgeist is significantly different. If a

nation – or indeed a company – wants to mine an asteroid should

they be entitled to a location that they scout? The Outer Space Treaty

as written would say no – if one of the three leading corporations in

the race to privately mine space (Planetary Resources, Deep Space

Industries, and Kepler Energy and Space Engineering) were to

spend time and energy scouting the composition of an asteroid, they

would be powerless to stop either of their rivals from simply waiting

until the scouting company sent mining equipment to the asteroid

and simultaneously mining it.

This is assuming that asteroid mining is even allowed under

the treaty – Article IX states that “A State Party to the Treaty which

has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by

another State Party in outer space, including the Moon and other

celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with

activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space,

including the Moon and other celestial bodies, may request

consultation concerning the activity or experiment”, which implies

that any State Party to the Treaty can veto the actions of another,

given that mining an asteroid would prevent it's use by another.

Asteroid mining is an incredibly relevant technology. The

science of asteroids is not fully understood, but many were not

created in the same manner as Earth – a formation in incredible

heat causing a surface that was largely liquid and thus have valuable

heavy metals close to or on their surface, as they sunk below the

Earth's crust. This means that the mining of such asteroids could be

an incredibly lucrative exercise, especially given that there are no

known environmental concerns to be had. However asteroid mining

is incredibly cost-prohibitive, and the long-term impacts are not

fully understood.

Further complicating this issue is the language of Article VI.

“When activities are carried on in outer space, including the Moon

and other celestial bodies, by an international organization,

responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by

the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty

participating in such organization” is a sentence that would fill

many company shareholders with dread – to ensure compliance it

would not be difficult to argue their company's doings should be

wholly overseen by their government, especially as the government

seeks to enter as a market competitor.

All three previously named companies are American, and the

American National Aeronautics and Space Administration Institute

for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) has announced its' intentions to

launch a Robotic Asteroid Prospector, which would compete for

resources but with the fundamental advantage of complete

oversight of all private companies in the USA. While the committee

is a United Nations one, and as such non-state actors will not be

present at the table, it behooves a delegate to consider how this

treaty effects their nation, future and present. Too much oversight

can lead to a company moving overseas, losing the important

income stream that taxation will bring.

The present state of rights in space is anathema to a Capitalist

worldview of how property rights ought to be. This is not

fundamentally bad, but is a state of affairs that must be considered –

when the final document is considered, will there enough

justification to create and maintain a company that will push the

envelope of technologies in space?

Subtopic Two: Space Colonization

The major hurdle standing in the way of asteroid mining is the

cost – NASA's OSIRIS-REx study showed that it would cost just over

$1bn to return $3600 worth of materials to Earth. Discussion of

asteroid mining tends to predicate on the idea that materials would

not return to Earth – the majority of the aforementioned cost is sunk

into ensure survival upon re-entry – and instead be processed at a

space colony.

There are three hypothetically parts of the Earth-Moon

system which could be colonized, in rough order of feasibility they

are: Earth-Moon Lagrange Points 4/5; the Lunar poles and Sub-

Lunar surface. While the detail of why each area will or will not be

feasible is not relevant to this committee, the important thing to note

is that there will be a distinct first-mover's advantage for the states

that begin a colony. As previously mentioned, a hypothetical space

colony would be difficult to justify as being owned by a single nation

given the Outer Space Treaty as written, delegates should consider if

the current environment is healthy for the development of a truly

international colony, or if it is worth considering single-nation

ownership.

Thus far the rules of the Outer Space Treaty have been

repeatedly referred to, but not the force behind it, and what is a law

without a force behind it? If a nation violates the Outer Space Treaty,

they and the aggrieved party will each appoint an arbitrator to a

commission, and then the nations will collectively appoint a third

arbitrator. This commission will come to a conclusion that will be

presented before COPUOS, and if no decision can be reached the

Secretary General is invited to be presented the facts and come to

his own decision. For example, in 1977 when Kosmos 954, a USSR

satellite, crashed into Canada near Yellowknife a commission was

formed. Canada initially demanded $6m to pay for the clean-up; the

commission agreed to award Canada $4m and the USSR eventually

paid $3m. This highlights one of the major issues in Space Law –

there was and remains no means for Canada to challenge for the

remaining $1m, as there is no backing to the decisions of the

commission – it is not appealable by the ICJ or backed by the threat

of jail or an enforcement of the fine. That said, there are obvious

concerns with giving a Space Law commission the right to an

enforceable sentence.

One final thought on Topic One: only 30 countries have

astronaut programs, and only 13 have launch capability (though

France extends its launch facilities to the rest of the European Space

Agency), with 5 more planning to follow (a Pan-Arab League group

based in the UAE, an African Union group based in South Africa, a

united South American agency based in Brazil, the Philippines and

Sri Lanka). The Outer Space Treaty has 103 signatories, and any

language that loosens regulation and allows a sudden expansion of

programs will benefit those 13 above the other 90, particularly the

73 without astronaut programs.

Topic Two: Space Weaponization Subtopic One: Space to Earth Weapons

Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty prohibits the placement in

orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any

other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, installation of such

weapons on celestial bodies, or stationing of such weapons in outer

space in any other manner. The concept of space weaponization was

far from science fiction during the Cold War – Boeing had been

developing kinetic energy space-to-earth weapons since the 1950s

and in 1961 Nikita Khrushchev, then leader of the Soviet Union had

said "You do not have 50- or 100-megaton bombs, we have bombs

more powerful than 100 megatons. We placed Gagarin and Titov in

space, and we can replace them with other loads that can be directed

to any place on Earth."

The SALT II treaty represents the only attempt to clarify the

language of the article, with the USA and USSR bilaterally agreeing

that “weapons of mass destruction” means include chemical,

biological, nuclear and radiological weapons. However, the treaty

expired in 1985 and no attempt has been made since to clarify the

language. There are many indicators that a space arms race is

imminent – some suggesting that it could come as soon as 2020.

COPUOS will be expected to find a reaction to this: prevention of an

arms race, tempering of its technologies or allowance. Bear in mind

that choosing to do nothing is still a choice.

Space is asserted by certain governments to be a medium in

which a state can gain and exert influence, not unlike land, air, and

sea. By gathering influence in the space environment through the

acquisition of space-power, a state could validate to its population

and the world its technological aptitude and its ability to influence

international affairs through the strategic medium of outer space.

The tactical rationale behind the deployment of space weapons is

clear – the speed that a weapon could traverse the earth in space is

phenomenal, as a threat could go from assessment to destruction in

well under 150 minutes.

Conversely, COPUOS must consider the effect that the

allowance of arms in outer space could have on global peace. No

more than 4 countries – China, Russia, Switzerland and the USA –

have the technology to be involved in space armament, and such

weapons are incredibly destructive. Delegates must consider the

threat that a belligerent or non-state actor gaining access to a space-

to-earth weapon might be, given metrics of destruction previously

stated.

Subtopic Two: Anti-Satellite Technology

Anti-satellite technology actually predates the first launched

satellite – OKB-1 began work on the concept in 1956, the year before

launching Sputnik. The first systems consisted of a missile, deployed

from an airplane, launched upwards in an intercept course with a

target and all three successful satellite destructions have used

similar concepts.

There are considerations for the proliferation of anti-satellite

technologies aside from the obvious military ones. The Kessler

syndrome describes a theoretical situation where too many objects

are launched into space, and space debris becomes so dense that a

single piece colliding with another might set off a chain reaction,

cascade – each collision generating space debris that increases the

likelihood of further collisions. One implication is that the

distribution of debris in orbit could render space exploration, and

even the use of satellites, unfeasible for many generations. On the

other hand, space programs are expensive, particularly inimitable

assets like astronauts. A COPUOS resolution calling for the

proliferation of anti-satellite technologies could slow down the

development of human spaceflight, as governments take a cautious

approach to exploration and research in a world where assets could

be destroyed easily.

A Final Note

Space law is complicated, and difficult to begin researching. While

we have the utmost confidence that all delegates will be ready to

debate by CarleMUN, if any of you have trouble figuring out any of

the details of the committee, we will be here to support you. When

assignments are finalized we will be emailing a personalized guide

regarding where to begin research to each of you, and we are happy

to chat about the concepts, in person or via any description of

communication.

Once again, we look forward to meeting all of you, and sharing an

amazing CarleMUN.