In January this year, China conducted an anti-satellite test (ASAT) by targeting and destroying its meteorological satellite Fengyun-1C. The debris created in outer space by that experiment is still multiplying, with over 2200 objects of size around 5 cms tracked till June. The debris cloud extends from 200 km to 4000 km with highest concentration near 850 km.

The debris orbits are rapidly spreading according to Orbital Debris Quarterly News, and will encircle the globe by the end of the year. These pose a threat to spacecraft operating in low earth orbit (LEO).

If that sounds alarming, consider this: the test was legal!

What was illegal was China not informing the international committee on its intentions. It took China two weeks to acknowledge the test. Experts say the technical department of its space mission underestimated the test fall-out.

The US on its part has not conducted ASAT tests since the 80s but its regular missile tests can reach up to the LEO. The US is against any new international treaty (especially with respect to weaponisation of outer space) if it goes "against national interests and security". And so while there is support for space arms control, the national policy remains. The "space power geometry has changed" as Stephen Kaiser , Germany, noted at the recent IAC 2007.

All this brings to notice the fact that there are no international binding regulations on such missile tests in outer space. This, despite the existence of an Outer Space Treaty which is considered the magna carta of space law.
Another interesting case is that of Columbia staking claim to its geo-stationary orbit and to the electromagnetic spectrum there, as being part of Columbia !

Sample this amusing news reports (which is no joke by the way!): 'In 1980, Dennis Hope sent letters to the United Nations, the United States government and the government of the former Soviet Union, notifying them that he was attempting to claim ownership of all planets in our solar system, and The Moon (not including Earth). As none of those governments   responded to his notice, he assumed legal title over these! Since then he has been selling pieces of paper indicating that the purchaser has acquired plots on the Moon, Mars and other heavenly bodies. Sales have been in millions of dollars, informs E E Weeks of Outer Space Development Research Association.

While the existing international treaty forbids any nations from staking claim to outer space, the contention is that it does not specify if this holds for private entities. This was the reason why Orbital Development, a company filed a claim of ownership to asteroid Eros and when Nasa spacecraft landed on Eros, the company charged Nasa a parking fee of 20 dollars!

All this, while still a largely laughing matter, could become serious issues when capacity is built to reach the moon and beyond.

Yes, there is a law covering outer space framed some 40 years ago, but as many say, with the changing dimensions of the game, it is perhaps time to look at it again. Whether it be asteroids or the moon or mars, the race is on between not only nations but private enterprises to reach first and 'exploit' fast.

The 1967 treaty lays guidelines on activities of states in exploration and use of outer space. It promised that outer space would be free for all mankind, that there would be peaceful purposes and uses and that outer space, including moon and other bodies is "not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignity, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

In Article 1 it talks of international cooperation in the scientific investigation of outer space. But as Jonathan Galloway, an expert says, there is a limit to scientific cooperation. Technologies can be peaceful or warlike, launchers for warheads and for satellites are from the same technology. Hence it is natural that mankind would "seek legal control over technological programs more than pure science." When economic gains and military prowess are to be gained, can one really expect international cooperation?

On its failings, the OST has many ambiguities allowing players to find loopholes. What exactly would constitute 'outer space' or 'exploration and use'? It reposes responsibility on states in general and lacks any sanction mechanism.

The treaty, is also more oriented towards back contamination of earth than protection of the space environment as Article 9 shows.

With regard to the moon, the new destination of this century, the Moon Treaty too, while talking of preventing contamination and adverse changes to the environment of the moon, does not specify what constitutes harmful contamination. Interestingly the Moon Treaty incorporates the Common Heritage of Mankind  principle, the reason why many nations, including the US have not signed or ratified it. India has signed but not ratified it, preferring to wait and watch. The OST on the other hand talks of a more manipulatable 'Province of all Mankind' aspect.

The most worrisome aspect is the weaponisation of outer space. The OST bans some weaponisation but not militarization of space, according to experts. The Chinese ASAT and the US stand that no further arms control measures are needed to provide for common security is seen as contrary to the spirit of the space law.
It is up to every nation and 'citizen of the universe' to keep their eyes open and bring to the table all players to work towards the "benefit of all mankind".