18/12/2019 - S & T

IAS Parliament 5 years

KEY POINTS

· India has been internationally recognised for its space-faring prowess for decades, given its unique ability to manufacture innovative technology at economical rates.

· The ASAT technology, on the contrary, was purely offensive in nature. It used “kinetic kill” technology, which employs the kinetic energy of the projectile to strike a target at high speeds.

Legal perspective

· A significant risk of ASATs is that their use would likely lead to indiscriminate consequences, as rendering the target temporarily or permanently dysfunctional may impact other objects in the vicinity.

· The Outer Space Treaty, to which India and most nations are party, stipulates that outer space and celestial bodies must be used “exclusively for peaceful purposes,” and prohibits testing of weapons and conduct of military manoeuvres.

Show of force

· Given that there was no imminent threat to justify self-defence, and that Mission Shakti was directed against India’s own space object, the ASAT test would hardly constitute a legitimate use of force under international law.

· If legality of the ASAT itself is considered insufficient to demonstrate the errors of India’s actions, the consequences of the ASAT test arguably violated Article IX, which restricts activities that cause “potentially harmful interference with the activities of other states.”

Damaging debris

· Mission Shakti generated hundreds of pieces of debris; months later, approximately 50 fragments still remain in orbit.

· These fragments are at great risk of colliding with each other, and possibly other satellites, which would result in the generation of even more debris.

· Non-binding instruments, such as the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines and the approved Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities, indicate there is growing consensus on the avoidance of intentional debris generation.