279
© The Author(s) 2024
Scientific Article
DOI: 10.51940/2024.1.279-306
UDC: 341.229:004.8
341.229:343.301
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič*
AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against
Human Lives Arising from Space Objects?
Abstract
With the 1957 launch of the satellite Sputnik I, the first space object reached outer space.
Many more followed, and today space objects are considered an invaluable part of our
everyday lives. Satellites and the data they provide are used for monitoring the environ-
ment through Earth observation, climate regulation, and natural disaster management,
as well as economic activities, for example, agriculture, transportation, communication,
and several others. Despite these numerous benefits, however, space objects pose threats
to human lives in outer space, in airspace, and on Earth. The technological advancement
of the 21st century, especially the increased use of artificial intelligence, brought hope that
these threats would be minimised, mitigated, or even completely resolved. In this paper,
I am going to evaluate whether such hope is reasonable and justified. To do this, I will,
first, identify some examples of the threats to human lives arising from space objects and
provide examples when such threats already materialised in reality. Second, I will present
the applicable legal framework and then, third, evaluate it and show that it falls short
in addressing those threats. Fourth, I will demonstrate how AI is planned to be used in
mitigating these threats. Fifth, I will outline some of the new legal challenges such use
of AI would bring and, against this background, finally assess whether such AI threat
mitigation is going to be as effective as currently predicted.
Key words
AI, space technology, space debris, space objects, terrorism.
* PhD student at the Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, working at the Institute of Criminology at
the Faculty of Law, researching the topics at the intersection of law & technology, with a focus on the new,
under-researched technologies, and their harmful effects on human rights, environment, and society.
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review – voL. LXXXiv, 2024 • pp. 279–306
ISSN 1854-3839 • eISSN: 2464-0077
280
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
On a Halloween night, I sat outside by the fire on the edge of a forest, and I saw
something scary. Not a zombie, or a vampire or, a werewolf, or anything like that, but
something even scarier—a bright spot of light above the trees that was moving noticeably
slower than a shooting star, leaving behind a trail of burning little dots. I assumed I had
witnessed the last few seconds of the life of a space object, entering and burning up in the
Earth’s atmosphere. Nothing happened, the evening went on, and now, in broad daylight,
it probably sounds ridiculous that a distant object, which does not even exist anymore,
could be scarier than a zombie, a vampire, or a werewolf. But a space object could, in fact,
be considered deadlier than all three of these combined. In this article, I will therefore
explain why I believe a Halloween costume of a satellite could easily beat all the afore-
mentioned supernatural creatures, and furthermore examine whether artificial intelligence
(hereinafter: AI) has the potential to become, mutatis mutandis, what garlic is to vampires.
I will, first, identify some examples of the threats space objects pose to human lives
and provide examples of when such threats already materialised in reality. Second, I will
present the applicable legal framework and, third, evaluate it to show that it falls short in
addressing these threats. Fourth, I will demonstrate how AI is planned to be used in mit-
igating those same threats. I will be using the term AI as an umbrella term to describe the
new generation of technologies, mainly characterised by a certain degree of self-learning,
automatization, and autonomy.1 Fifth, I will outline some of the new legal challenges
such use of AI would bring, and lastly, against this background, I will assess whether such
AI threat mitigation will likely be as effective as currently predicted.
1. Identifying the Threats
In this section I will present some examples of space objects with the potential of
endangering human lives. In line with the definition of a space object under Article I(d)
of the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects—
Liability Convention (hereinafter: LIAB)2 and the identical Article I(d) of the Convention
on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space—Registration Convention (here-
inafter: REG),3 as including component parts of a space object, its launch vehicle, and
parts thereof, this presentation will extend to threats arising from such parts as well.
Additionally, as there is no requirement of functionality in the aforementioned defini-
tion, this presentation will also include non-functional space objects and their fragments,
i.e., space debris.
1 Custers & Frosch-Villaronga, 2022, pp. 3–8.
2 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 29 March 1972, 961
UNTS 187 (entered into force on 1 September 1972).
3 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 12 November 1974, 1023 UNTS
15 (entered into force on 15 September 1976).
281
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič – AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against Human
Lives Arising from Space Objects?
1.1. Space Object Falling on Earth
The first identified threat to human lives is a space object crashing to the surface of
the Earth, as demonstrated by the Kosmos 954 incident.
In 1978, the malfunctioning Soviet satellite Kosmos 954 re-entered the Earth’s at-
mosphere.4 Instead of burning up in the atmosphere, it intruded into Canadian airspace
while failing to separate from its nuclear reactor containing about 50 kilograms of ura-
nium-235.5 The satellite crashed onto the ground, littering Canadian territory with a
600-kilometre-long path of radioactive debris.6 During the aftermath of the incident—
Operation Morning Light—a search of an area of more than 124,000 km2 resulted in the
finding of several intensely radioactive and potentially lethal pieces of the satellite.7 The
fear arose that civilians might notice the pieces and bring them into their homes, thereby
further spreading radioactive contamination, and that fear was magnified once the most
radioactive piece of debris, which contained enough radiation to have potentially killed
its holder within a few hours, was discovered.8
Luckily, re-entry into the atmosphere was detected early on, and the area where the
debris landed was sparsely populated. The effects of the Kosmos 954 crash would have
been much more devastating if the debris had fallen onto densely populated areas, as
many more people could come into contact with radioactive material. Likewise, if the fall
had remained undetected or hidden, the damage would not be mitigated at all.
Currently, there are more than 5,000 functioning satellites orbiting the Earth, more
than 1,500 of which belong to the private US corporation SpaceX.9 In case of a malfunc-
tion, one of them could enter the Earth’s atmosphere and not burn up completely, and
the debris could hit the Earth’s surface just like in the Kosmos 954 scenario. Moreover,
pieces of satellite could hit populated areas and result in the loss of human lives on Earth.
1.2. Collisions between space objects
A second identified threat to human lives is the chance of collisions between two or
more space objects.
Such collisions have already occurred several times. They often occur unintentionally,
either as part of normal operation (low-speed collisions during rendezvous and docking)
or as a coincidental high-speed collision. However, sometimes the collisions are caused
4 For the detailed description of the event see the Settlement of Claim between Canada and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for Damage Caused by “Cosmos 954”, 1981.
5 Weintz, 2015.
6 Patowary, 2020.
7 Shultz, 2010.
8 Weintz, 2015.
9 Union of Concerned Scientists, 2022; Kizer Witt, 2022.
282
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
intentionally, with a clear goal of destroying the satellites—either to test anti-satellite
weapons (hereinafter: ASAT tests) or destroy satellites that may pose an active hazard to
Earth, aircraft in flight, or other space objects.10 In all cases, the collisions result in an
increased amount of space debris (see below).
These collisions could, in some cases, result in the loss of human life. Such loss could
occur in outer space if at least one of the space objects involved in the collision were
carrying humans on board. An example of such a collision is the 1994 collision between
the crewed Soyuz TM-17 spacecraft and the space station Mir, which was fortunately a
minor collision and did not cause severe damage.11
Loss of life due to a space object collision could also occur on Earth or in its airspace.
In this case, the loss of life would be caused by a space object indirectly; for example,
where one or both of the space objects involved in a collision would be crucial for the
functioning of critical infrastructure, such as telecommunication or navigation systems.
A detected collision between two satellites occurred in 2009, when a functioning com-
mercial Iridium 33 satellite collided with the non-functional12 military Kosmos 2251
satellite.13 Luckily, no lives were lost due to this incident. However, this is no guarantee
that space object collisions will not negatively affect human lives in the future. Moreover,
despite not causing human casualties, the Iridium–Kosmos collision resulted in more
than 1,800 pieces of new space debris, which spread throughout Earth’s orbit, further
endangering human lives (explained next).14
1.3. Space debris
A third identified threat to human lives from space objects is space debris. There exist
many different technical definitions aiming to clarify this term; however, there is, as of
yet, no universally adopted legal definition. Nonetheless, what is common to most of the
existing definitions is that space debris is man-made material (space objects or fragments
thereof ) in outer space that is no longer functional.15 In Earth’s orbit, there are approx-
imately 15,000 pieces of debris larger than 10 cm, about 200,000 pieces between 1 and
10 cm, and millions of pieces smaller than 1 cm, all travelling at incredibly high speeds.16
10 For more on the intentional collisions, definition and types of ASAT tests as well as the challenges
and damages related to or stemming from them, see Ramuš Cvetkovič, 2023.
11 Harland, 2022.
12 Because Kosmos 2251 was put out of its functioning, it was technically considered space debris. For
more on space debris, see section 1.3.
13 NASA, 2009; David, 2013.
14 NASA, 2009.
15 Sheer & Li, 2019, pp. 425–429.
16 Gregersen, 2022.
283
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič – AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against Human
Lives Arising from Space Objects?
The incidents in which space objects are destroyed—collisions or ASAT tests—contrib-
ute enormously to the amount of space debris in orbit.17
The most obvious and direct threat that space debris poses to human life is that it
significantly contributes to space object collisions. Pieces larger than 1 cm can already
affect a space object, whereas pieces larger than 10 cm can seriously damage or even de-
stroy a space object.18 It has been reported that astronauts aboard the International Space
Station (ISS) have already had to take shelter and cancel a spacewalk after a dangerous
sudden increase of space debris caused by an ASAT test.19 The ISS, moreover, had to take
avoidance manoeuvres to move out of the way of space debris several times, and has even
been hit by a piece of debris that damaged its robotic arm.20
Space debris can, and already has, caused damage on Earth, as some pieces have hit
houses in villages and, in at least one documented incident, even a person.21 It has been
estimated that the risk of space debris resulting in human casualties upon its re-entry
into Earth’s orbit is increasing, noting that even a small piece of debris can cause extreme
devastation if it hits places with a high population density in a relatively small area, such
as large cities or airplanes.22
The amount of space debris is, furthermore, rapidly increasing. Not only because
that more and more space objects are launched every year, but also due to the Kessler
syndrome—a process of continuous fragmentation of existing pieces into ever-smaller
fragments, which can, in the worst-case scenario, result in a dense debris cloud around
the Earth.23 Such a dense presence of space debris negatively impacts the climate, as
re‐entering debris burning in the atmosphere contributes to stratospheric O3 depletion,
and could therefore worsen the effects of climate change.24 Furthermore, it would likely
cause the malfunction of all satellite services, impairing or completely disabling the func-
tioning of critical infrastructure. In this way, space debris indirectly endangers human
lives in the long term.
1.4. Misuse of space objects
The fourth identified threat is the misuse of space objects. By this, I mean the use of
space objects with the purpose of directly and specifically targeting human lives—either
17 David, 2013.
18 Chen, 2011, pp. 538–539.
19 Chow & Mitchell, 2021; Mukherjee, 2021.
20 McFall-Johnsen, 2021.
21 Byers et al., 2022, p. 1093; Zander, 2022.
22 Byers et al., 2022, pp. 1093–1095.
23 Kessler & Cour-Palais, 1978, pp. 2637–2646.
24 Ryan et al., 2022, pp. 10–11.
284
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
by an entity controlling the space object, or by another entity gaining control over the
space object (for example, by means of cyber-attacks). In the past, such misuse has al-
ready occurred in practice.
Although the technology that would enable direct strikes on humans from space
objects does not yet exist, space objects can, and have, already been indirectly used to
target human lives. Data collected through space objects is already extensively used to
determine military targets on Earth.25 This demonstrates that it is possible to endanger
human lives by means of using space technology, as such data could be misused for
harmful or even unlawful purposes, such as, for example, the deliberate targeting of the
civilian population.
A misuse of a space object occurs, moreover, when space objects become targets of
cyber-attacks.26 Cyber-attacks are, for now, mostly aimed at obtaining satellite data but
could also gain complete control over a satellite and turn it into a lethal weapon.27 In
both cases, such cyber-attacks could result in losses of human lives. For example, it has
been claimed that the cyber-attack on the KA-SAT satellite, providing communication
services in Europe, including Ukraine, occurred on 24 February 2022—at the beginning
of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.28 A cyber-attack disrupting communication at a time
when evacuation of civilians was needed demonstrates how such attacks could easily con-
tribute to mass losses of human lives. Even a mere disruption of a space object’s activity
due to a cyber-attack could turn lethal if the satellite failed to perform essential services
on which humans rely, for example, predictions of extreme weather conditions or natural
disasters, enabling medical activity, water or electricity networks, traffic management,
etc.—or if it crashed into another space object enabling such activities.29
Another threat to human lives is that space objects are used for the purpose of a
terrorist attack. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (hereinafter: LTTE), considered a ter-
rorist organisation by several states, hijacked an INTELSAT satellite and used it for pub-
licity.30 This demonstrates that satellites and other space objects have already gained the
interest of non-state actors linked to terrorism, and that they are likely to become even
greater objects of interest for such entities in the future.
25 Lee & Steele, 2014, pp. 71–73; Bt & Cummings, 1991, pp. 46–52; Dunlap, 2021; Borowitz,
2022, pp. 1–4.
26 Puttré, 2022.
27 Hobe, 2019, p. 101.
28 See ESPI, 2022. See also Burgess, 2022; Viasat, 2022; Jewett, 2022.
29 Akoto, 2020.
30 Miller, 2019, p. 39; Stuart, 2015.
285
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič – AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against Human
Lives Arising from Space Objects?
2. Outlining the Safeguards in the Applicable Legal Framework
In this section, I will outline the legal principles and rules applicable in outer space
that contribute to minimising threats to human lives arising from space objects. The
main focus will be on the principles enshrined in the Treaty on Principles Governing
the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon
and Other Celestial Bodies—Outer Space Treaty (hereinafter: OST),31 the fundamental
space law instrument, supplemented by other relevant provisions of space law treaties
and customary international law.
2.1. The Freedom of Exploration and Use, the Obligation to Carry out
Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interests of
all Countries, and the Province of Humankind
Article I of the OST sets out important principles governing the use and exploration
of outer space. It provides that the exploration and use of outer space are free to all states
without discrimination of any kind. It further establishes that they shall be carried out
for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, and that outer space shall be the
province of all mankind. These two principles together form the so-called “common
benefit clause”, conditioning and limiting the freedom of exploration to the common
benefit of all states. 32
For the topic at hand, namely threats to human lives arising from space objects, these
principles carry special relevance as they provide fundamental guidance for conducting
space activities. They entail that even though there is freedom to use and explore outer
space, including the freedom to launch space objects, such freedom is subject to limita-
tions, such as taking into account the freedoms, benefits, and interests of other states.33
Even though it has not been precisely determined what that means for every case of space
activities in practice, it has been claimed that it can at least be concluded that the benefits
and interests of other states are not respected when pursuing merely one state’s military
objectives, such as, for example, conducting ASAT tests.34 This is further relevant for
the threat posed by space debris, as it has been argued that these obligations in Article I
preclude states from conducting their activities in a way that could potentially close ac-
31 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space,
Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 27 January 1967, 610 UNTS 205 (entered into force
on 10 October 1967).
32 Hobe, 2009, p. 36.
33 Ibid., pp. 34–38.
34 Zedalis & Wade, 1978, pp. 466 and 480. For more on the (in)compatibility of the ASAT tests with
the legal framework established by the OST, see Ramuš Cvetkovič, 2023.
286
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
cess35 to outer space to others, meaning that they must reduce space debris emissions and
actively work to maintain outer space usable for all, including future generations.36 There
already exist several soft-law mechanisms aimed at limiting the generation of space debris
and ensuring greater sustainability of space activities,37 but they are usually not directly
enforceable, unless translated into a legally binding document, as has been done, for ex-
ample, by Austrian38 and Slovenian39 national laws governing space activities. However,
concrete and precise legally-binding rules effectively defining the scope and governing
the enforcement of all the principles enshrined in Article I of the OST have not yet been
established. By aiming to eliminate obstacles to the freedom of use and exploration of
outer space, and by putting forward the benefits and interests of all states, the obligations
set out in Article I of the OST therefore to some extent increase the protection of hu-
man lives against the threats posed by space objects. However, it cannot be claimed that
Article I in itself is a sufficient mechanism to fully eliminate such threats.
2.2. The Obligation to Carry on Activities in the Exploration and Use of Outer
Space in Accordance with International Law
Article III of the OST dictates that activities in the exploration and use of outer
space must be carried out in accordance with international law, including the Charter
of the United Nations (hereinafter: UN Charter), in the interest of maintaining interna-
tional peace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding.
This Article, therefore, provides that international law applies to all human activities in
outer space, including launching, operation, and return of space objects.40 It can, more-
over, be deduced that space objects shall not be used so as to jeopardise international
peace and security. 41
35 It must be mentioned here that Article II of the OST explicitly prohibits national appropriation
of outer space. It is yet to be determined whether disabling other states access to outer space could
constitute de facto appropriation in contradiction with Article II.
36 Palmroth, Tapio & Soucek et al., 2021, p. 4; Niewęgłowski, 2021; Hobe, 2009; p. 43.
37 See, for example, UN COPUOS Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities,
2018, A/AC.105/2018/CRP.20 and IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, 2021, IADC-02-01.
38 See Article 5 of the Federal Law on the Authorisation of Space Activities and the Establishment of a
National Registry (Outer Space Act), BGBl. I No. 132/2011 (Austria), which demands compliance
with ‘state of the art and in due consideration of the internationally recognised guidelines for the
mitigation of space debris’.
39 See Article 5 of the Space Activities Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, 43/22
(Slovenia), which states that space activities must ‘envisage measures for limiting the generation of
space debris in accordance with the applicable UN Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines and for lim-
iting adverse environmental effects on Earth or in outer space or adverse changes in the atmosphere’.
40 Ribbelink, 2009, pp. 64–66.
41 Ibid., pp. 66–67.
287
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič – AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against Human
Lives Arising from Space Objects?
The applicability of international law through Article III, however, raises issues re-
garding the lex specialis42 nature of space law, as well as the scope of the applicability of
international law.43 Even though there is no doubt that a substantial part of international
law applies in outer space, its applicability in toto remains disputed.44 For now, it is agreed
that not only the long-established rules of customary international law and the explicit
rules enshrined in the UN Charter (including non-aggression, prohibition of the use of
force, self-defence and the peaceful settlement of disputes), but also subsequent generally
accepted principles—such as, for example, the precautionary principle—apply.45 It has
additionally been established that specific sub-branches of international law, including
human rights law, environmental law and international criminal law, apply as well, even
though the scope of their application is not yet precisely determined.46 This could mean
that, to rely on a specific rule or principle from these sub-branches of international law, it
would first need to be established that such a rule is indeed applicable through Article III.47
In short, this provision, therefore, demands that space objects are operated in accord-
ance with international law. Thus, at least to a certain degree, human rights and envi-
ronmental principles must be respected. This means that international legal safeguards
aimed at protecting human lives principally apply to the handling of space objects; how-
ever, the precise scope of their application will have to be further defined to enable a
direct and undisputed applicability of various rules and principles of international law in
outer space through Article III.
2.3. Limitations on Weaponising Outer Space
Article IV(1) of the OST imposes certain limitations on the weaponisation of outer
space. It prohibits placing in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weap-
ons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, installing such weapons on celes-
tial bodies or stationing them in outer space in any other manner. It has been stressed
that even though only space objects carrying such weapons are prohibited, this provision
must be understood as covering the weapons themselves as well.48
The issue arises in defining precisely which weapons are prohibited by Article IV(1). It
is clear that this prohibition does not cover space objects carrying conventional weapons
42 For more on the lex specialis nature of space law, see Ramuš Cvetkovič, 2021.
43 Ribbelink, 2009, p. 67.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid. For more on the concrete issue of the application of precautionary principle to space activities,
see Novak, 2022.
46 Ibid.
47 For more, see Hoe, Umar & Kamarudin, 2018, p. 336.
48 Schrogl & Neumann, 2009, p. 78; Gorove, 1973, p. 117.
288
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
or military satellites.49 The use of satellite data for military activities on Earth is therefore
not prohibited by Article IV.50 Less clear, on the other hand, is what precisely constitutes a
“nuclear weapon” or a “weapon of mass destruction”. It has been claimed that for a nuclear
weapon, all arms utilising atomic energy would qualify.51 Even though the concern has
been expressed that, for a space weapon to qualify as a weapon of mass destruction, the
number of human lives lost would have to be greater than in the case of a biological or
chemical weapon,52 there is no reasonable ground for such a distinction, especially from
the perspective of protecting human lives from the threats arising from space objects.
Further uncertainty arises as to whether the prohibition in Article IV(1) extends to
all space objects capable of causing a nuclear reaction or severe devastation, or merely to
those intended to be used as weapons. Relying on an ordinary-meaning interpretation
in accordance with Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (herein-
after: VCLT)53 of the term “weapon”, it has been concluded that only objects intended
to be used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy, that can cause a
nuclear reaction (nuclear weapons) or widespread devastation and loss of life (weapons
of mass destruction), are prohibited by Article IV(1).54 That means that space objects
that contain a nuclear component but not for the purpose of attacking and overcoming
the enemy—for example, using small atomic bombs for propulsion—do not qualify as
prohibited.55 However, after the Kosmos 954 accident, the Principles Relevant to the
Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space (hereinafter: NPS Principles)56 were ac-
cepted, aimed at regulating precisely these types of space objects (e.g. space objects with
non-weaponised nuclear components). Even though the NPS Principles are soft-law
guidelines of a non-binding nature, they introduced important safeguards, such as the
obligation to conduct and make public a comprehensive safety assessment (Principle 4),
notification of re-entry of radioactive materials to Earth (Principle 5), and an emergency
assistance responsibility (Principle 8).57
Another dilemma arising from Article IV(1) and the use of the word “weapon” con-
cerns the definition of the word “enemy”. This dilemma was sparked by the debate on as-
49 Schrogl & Neumann, 2009, p. 78; Zedalis & Wade, 1978, p. 459.
50 Hobe, 2019, p. 106.
51 Gorove, 1973, p. 115.
52 Ibid., pp. 115–116.
53 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force on 27
January 1980).
54 Schrogl & Neumann, 2009, pp. 75–77.
55 Ibid., p. 76.
56 UN GA Res. 47/68, Principles Relevant for the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space, 14
December 1992 (not yet entered into force).
57 See Hobe, 2019, pp. 153–154.
289
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič – AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against Human
Lives Arising from Space Objects?
teroid mitigation programmes and planetary defence.58 In that case, it is unclear whether
targeting a natural object in outer space with the use of a space object carrying a nuclear
device (thus transforming the space object into one carrying nuclear weapons prohibited
under Article IV(1)) would constitute a breach of Article IV(1).59 The main question here
is whether a natural threat could be considered the “enemy”, in the sense that the means
to tackle such a threat would be considered a “weapon”.60 Even though such an interpre-
tation is possible, the question whether the use of a space object with nuclear power in
such a non-military way is allowed or prohibited by Article IV(1) remains unresolved.61
Article IV(2) of the OST regulates weaponisation on celestial bodies, stating that the
Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, prohibit-
ing the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any
type of weapons, and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies. However,
the exclusively peaceful purposes clause pertains only to celestial bodies. Therefore, it is not
applicable to space objects not situated on celestial bodies. That means that even though
Article IV(2) prohibits the testing of weapons, this does not apply to ASAT tests aimed
at satellites. It has been expressed that even Article IV(1) does not prohibit ASAT tests.62
As demonstrated by this analysis, despite the fact that Article IV of the OST provides
certain safeguards against threats to human lives stemming from space objects, it does
not explicitly and unambiguously eliminate all potential threats.
2.4. Assistance to Astronauts
Article V of the OST contains several provisions aimed at protecting the life and
health of astronauts. Firstly, it dictates that States Parties to the Treaty shall regard astro-
nauts as envoys of mankind in outer space and shall render them all possible assistance
in the event of accident, distress, or emergency landing on the territory of another State
Party or on the high seas (Article V(1) of the OST). Secondly, it adds that in carrying
on activities in outer space and on celestial bodies, the astronauts of one State Party shall
render all possible assistance to the astronauts of other States Parties (Article V(2) of the
OST). Lastly, it obliges States Parties to the Treaty to inform other States Parties to the
Treaty or the Secretary-General of the United Nations immediately of any phenomena
they discover in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, which could
constitute a danger to the life or health of astronauts (Article V(3) of the OST).
58 Schrogl & Neumann, 2009, p. 76.
59 Ibid., pp. 76–77.
60 Ibid., p. 77.
61 Ibid., p. 77.
62 Ibid., p. 78.
290
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
It is clear that Article V, therefore, provides a certain level of protection to human
lives from the threats posed by space objects. However, the extent of that protection
depends on the interpretation of the text. In this regard, the question arises whether all
humans in outer space fall under the definition of an “astronaut”, or merely trained pro-
fessionals. This dilemma was non-existent at the beginning of the space era, when only
professional astronauts were sent to outer space, but with the changed nature of space
activities and the introduction of private actors to outer space, as well as space tourists,
three categories of space travellers have to be distinguished:
1. The classical professional astronaut, bearing certain fundamental responsibilities in
relation to the spacecraft and its operation;
2. The professional spaceflight participant, entrusted with a special job to perform in
outer space, that is not related to operating the spacecraft; and
3. The private spaceflight participant travelling to outer space for leisure reasons and
essentially paying for the trip.63
A subsequent dilemma concerns whether all three categories are entitled to the rights
and obligations accorded to astronauts in Article V of the OST. Several authors agree
that it is not appropriate to confer the status of an astronaut on completely untrained
personnel travelling to outer space exclusively for private leisure purposes, especially in
light of the fact that astronauts are considered envoys of mankind by the OST.64 It has
also been agreed that categories 2 and 3 should not be blurred into one, as there are
important distinctions between them.65 As the OST leaves us with little guidance on
how to resolve the dilemma of which rights and obligations pertain to the three afore-
mentioned categories of humans in outer space, a subsequent Agreement on the Rescue
of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer
Space—Rescue Agreement (hereinafter: ARRA) must be consulted.66 This document,
concretizing Articles V and VIII of the OST, mentions “astronauts” in its Preamble (as
a reference to earlier documents) but in the operative part of the text uses only the term
“personnel of the spacecraft”.67
Views differ on whether the protection accorded to astronauts by both the OST and
the ARRA applies to space tourists as well. Arguments following an ordinary-meaning
interpretation conclude that an astronaut is only a highly trained, state-employed profes-
sional, whereas arguments following an object-and-purpose interpretation—which seeks
63 Von der Dunk & Goh, 2009, pp. 97–98.
64 Ibid.
65 Ibid.
66 Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched
into Outer Space, 19 December 1967, 672 UNTS 119 (entered into force on 3 December 1968).
67 Marboe, Neumann & Schrogl, 2013, pp. 33–35.
291
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič – AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against Human
Lives Arising from Space Objects?
the broadest possible human welfare—find that no distinction should be made.68 The
second view is further supported by the Agreement Governing the Activities of States
on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies—Moon Agreement (hereinafter: MOON),69
which clarifies that, for the purposes of that document, any person, whether professional
or private, on the Moon is regarded as an astronaut.70 It seems that, for the purposes of
minimising the threat posed to human lives by space objects, the broad interpretation of
the term “astronaut” is more suitable. On the other hand, equalising the status of space
tourists with groups 1 and 2 might in effect cause more people to decide to go to outer
space for private leisure purposes, which would lead to launching more and more space
objects, generating more space debris and increasing the likelihood of collisions and
pollution, thereby further endangering human lives in the long run.
An additional dilemma arising from the interpretation of the text of Article V of the
OST is the threshold of the standard “all possible assistance”. The difficulty of defining
this standard is enhanced by the fact that in Article V(1) of the OST it is stated that “all
possible assistance” must be rendered to astronauts in the event of accident, distress, or
emergency landing, whereas in Article V(2) these qualifying circumstances are omitted
and only the obligation to render “all possible assistance” remains.71 Even though the
absence of these qualifying circumstances hints that the standard is set higher in Article
V(2), the interpretation of Article V must, according to Article 32 of the VCLT, not lead
to absurd or unreasonable results. The standard must therefore be interpreted in some-
what a more limited manner, namely, to assist humans in threatening circumstances.72
The limitation on the interpretation, however, should be such that it still enables effective
protection of human lives.
Article V of the OST’s standards are further concretised by the obligations set out
in the ARRA. However, it must be noted that the ARRA contains similar standards—
namely, “all possible steps” and “all necessary assistance” (Article II of the ARRA), mean-
ing that the dilemma regarding such thresholds is not completely resolved.
The effect of Article V of the OST and the ARRA on preventing threats to human
lives stemming from space objects is, for the reasons stated above, limited.
68 Ibid., p. 35.
69 Agreement governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 5 December 1979,
1363 UNTS 3 (entered into force on 11 July 1984).
70 Marboe, Neumann & Schrogl, 2013, p. 35.
71 Von der Dunk & Goh, 2009, p. 98.
72 Ibid., p. 100.
292
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
2.5. State Responsibility for National Space Activities and the Obligation to
Authorise and Continuously Supervise Space Activities
Article VI of the OST dictates that states bear international responsibility for na-
tional activities in outer space, whether such activities are carried on by governmental
agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for ensuring that national activities are
carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the OST. The term ‘national
activities’ must be understood broadly, not merely as activities in national interest, but
in contrast to international activities carried out by international organisations.73 There
exist two distinct views on the nature and effect of this rule.74 One view is that it is a
rule of a secondary nature, and it, therefore, applies only in case of a breach of a primary
international obligation.75 According to this view, Article VI is much broader than cus-
tomary international law on state responsibility, as it ascribes international responsibility
to a state without having to establish the attributability condition.76 The second view
supports a narrower interpretation, claiming that a state is only responsible for its own
actions and omissions, meaning that it is only responsible for the actions of private actors
when it fails to supervise them. 77 It remains to be authoritatively determined which of
the two views is determinative of the nature of the obligation from Article VI. As the first
view is broader, and, therefore, extends state responsibility to private actors completely, it
is more suitable to meet the goal of protecting human lives from threats posed by space
objects, as the possibility of bearing international responsibility represents motivation for
a higher standard of care.
Article VI of the OST also establishes that states must authorise and continuously
supervise the activities of non-governmental entities in order for the latter to be allowed.
The detailed procedure of authorisation and continuous supervision is usually subject to
particular national legislations, which regulate in further detail the safeguards aimed at
protecting human lives from threats posed by space objects.78 States, therefore, have the
opportunity to actively and extensively mitigate threats to human lives posed by space
objects through their own national legislation, and should, when creating it, bear in
mind these threats and the importance of effective continuous supervision of all national
space activities. It must be noted, however, that when drafting their national legislation,
States are forced to balance mechanisms for ensuring the safety of humans with other
requirements of the private sector to maintain competitiveness and support the devel-
73 See Gerhard, 2009, pp. 108–110.
74 For more on this, see Ramuš Cvetkovič, 2021, pp. 19–20.
75 Cassese, 2005, p. 244.
76 Hobe & Pellander, 2012, pp. 7–8.
77 Ibid., pp. 8–9; Marchisio, 2018, p. 201.
78 In Slovenia, this procedure is regulated in Space Activities Act (Zakon o vesoljskih dejavnostih –
ZVDej), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 43/22.
293
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič – AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against Human
Lives Arising from Space Objects?
opment of their economies.79 It is difficult to imagine that one State would put forward
very limiting and strict legislation, as it could drive private actors to seek to register and
conduct their space activities in a State with more favourable space legislation. The main
initiatives for increasing the protection of human lives will therefore probably have to be
made at the international level.
2.6. Liability for Damages Caused by Space Objects
Article VII of the OST establishes liability to pay compensation for damages caused
by space objects. It dictates that a state that launches or procures the launching of an
object into outer space, or from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is inter-
nationally liable for damage to another state or to its natural or juridical persons by such
object or its component parts on the Earth, in air, or in outer space, including the Moon
and other celestial bodies.
International liability is further defined in the LIAB. Its provisions are relevant to
threats to human lives arising from space objects, as loss of human life is recoverable
damage under the LIAB. In particular, Article I(a) of the LIAB defines damage as includ-
ing loss of life, personal injury, or other impairment of health.
Furthermore, the LIAB covers space object threats to humans both on Earth and in
outer space, establishing two different liability regimes based on where the damage oc-
curs. In case damage occurs on the surface of the Earth or to an aircraft in flight, Article
II of the LIAB establishes absolute liability, dictating that the launching state of the space
object causing the damage is absolutely liable to pay compensation. There is no need to
prove that a state failed to perform a duty or satisfy a standard of care.80 Article II of the
LIAB therefore governs situations where a space object would re-enter orbit and crash
onto the Earth or damage an airplane in flight. In case damage occurs in outer space,
Article III of the LIAB states that, in the event of damage being caused to a space object
of one launching state or to persons or property on board such a space object by a space
object of another launching state, the latter shall be liable only if the damage is due to its
fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible. This means that, in outer space,
liability is not absolute but fault-based, whereby fault means a deviation from a legal
duty or applicable standard of care.81
The extent to which liability contributes to minimising threats to human lives posed
by space objects is questionable. Even though international liability for damages caused
by a space object increases States’ motivation to exercise due care to avoid potential
damage, its main effect occurs ex-post, after the damage is already done (and proven).
79 See Linden, 2016.
80 Hobe, 2019, p. 82.
81 Ibid., p. 83.
294
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
Furthermore, issues may arise regarding the establishment of causation between damage
and the space object. In certain cases, usually when the damage occurs on Earth (such
as in the Kosmos 954 situation), the proximity of the object to the damage constitutes
prima facie evidence that it was indeed that particular object that caused immediate
damage.82 In other cases, when the damage occurs in orbit, it will most likely be more
difficult to establish causation, but that difficulty does not remove the requirement of
proving the causal nexus between a space object and damage.83 In addition, difficulties
may arise in obtaining evidence for identifying the precise object and its launching state,
especially when damage does not occur immediately but after some time has passed.84
This is especially problematic in the case of space debris, as it is extremely challenging,
if not impossible, to determine which space object a small piece of debris once belonged
to. A final issue regarding causation occurs in subsequent chains of events, when it is
difficult to assess whether it was a space object that initiated the chain of events resulting
in damage. This issue might arise in the case of ASAT tests or cyber or terrorist attacks
on space objects, complicating the process of proving the causal nexus.
While the regulation of international liability plays an important role in establishing
and encouraging respect for a required standard of care—since the sanction for its viola-
tion is often an obligation to pay compensation for damage—it cannot be seen as the sole
means of minimising the threats to human lives arising from space technology.
2.7. Jurisdiction and Control Over a Space Object
Article VIII of the OST establishes that the state that has registered a space object
in its national register obtains jurisdiction and control over that object and over any
personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Jurisdiction, in the sense of
Article VIII of the OST, means the enforcement of laws and rules in relation to persons
and objects, whereas control means the exclusive right and the possibility to supervise
the activities of the space object and its personnel.85 The state of the registry, therefore,
directly impacts the activities of the space object and human lives, not only those of the
personnel on board that space object but also of all others who could potentially be af-
fected by it. It is important that such a state, therefore, makes use of the powers conferred
by Article VIII and takes appropriate measures aimed at mitigating threats to human
lives arising from space objects registered in its registry. The problem with national as
well as international registrations is that they often do not occur in a timely manner, and
the identification and tracking of space objects is, therefore, more difficult.86
82 Kerrest, A. & Smith, L.J., 2009, p. 141.
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid., p. 142.
85 Schmidt-Tedd & Mick, 2009, p. 157.
86 Hertzfeld, 2021, pp. 238–240.
295
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič – AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against Human
Lives Arising from Space Objects?
Article VIII thus has important implications for threats to human lives arising from
space objects. These can be positive if States use the jurisdiction and control conferred on
them by Article VIII in a way that mitigates such threats, but can also be negative if states
decide to use their jurisdiction and control in the opposite way, for example to block the
process of removing a dangerous space object or space debris.
2.8. Principles of Co-operation, Mutual Assistance and Due Regard and
Prohibition of Harmful Contamination
Article IX of the OST provides several principles relevant to minimising threats to
human lives arising from space objects. Firstly, it dictates that in the exploration and
use of outer space, states shall be guided by the principle of co-operation and mutual
assistance and shall conduct all their activities in outer space with due regard to the cor-
responding interests of all other states. Secondly, states shall conduct exploration of outer
space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, so as to avoid their harmful con-
tamination. Thirdly, it provides for consultations in case of potentially harmful interfer-
ence with the activities of other states in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space.
It has been explained that the principle of co-operation and mutual assistance is not to
be construed as a strict obligation but rather as a general principle that needs to be further
detailed based on other international instruments dealing with the co-operative behav-
iour of states.87 In doing so, special attention needs to be paid to the threats mentioned
above. The Kosmos 954 incident can, in this regard, serve as a case study to establish a
more efficient co-operation forum and to prepare better for similar future incidents.
The principle of due regard is connected to the freedom of exploration and use of
outer space, which is limited by the freedom of other states to do the same. In that sense,
it implies a certain standard of care, attention, or observance with which a state must
act when conducting space activities.88 A state must, therefore, manage its space objects
in a way that does not impair the corresponding interests of other states. It is unlikely
that ASAT tests and especially cyber or terrorist attacks could ever fulfil this criterion,
especially as such activities can endanger or cause the loss of human life.
Lastly, the prohibition of harmful contamination is an important contribution to
protecting human lives. It has been established that this provision is to be understood
broadly, covering all possible kinds of harmful interference in outer space, irrespective
of whether such interference is deliberate or unintentional.89 The question is, howev-
er, where the line should be drawn. Is every space object sent into outer space already
harmful interference, or only those with nuclear components or radioactive materials
87 Marchisio, 2009, pp. 174–175.
88 Ibid., p. 175.
89 Ibid., p. 176.
296
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
on board? It has been argued that space debris may fit under the definition of harmful
contamination.90 Even though such a view remains disputed—since it has often been
highlighted that none of the space treaties explicitly prohibits space debris91—it is plau-
sible, at least in certain cases of disproportionately large contamination, for example, in
events that deliberately cause an explosion resulting in massive amounts of space debris,
such as ASAT tests.
It can be concluded that while Article IX contains important provisions that can con-
tribute to the safety of space operations and, consequently, to the protection of human
rights, its reach in achieving this goal is limited due to the openness of its terms as well
as the absence of an enforcement mechanism.
3. Evaluation of the Legal Framework
As can be observed from the previous section, the legal framework applicable to
outer space activities and particularly to space objects contains several safeguards aimed
at ensuring the protection of human lives from threats arising out of space technology.
However, several of the abovementioned principles are written in a broad and vague
manner, which, on the one hand, ensures their broad acceptance as well as their flexibil-
ity, but on the other hand, lacks precise obligations and, therefore, allows for different
interpretations. The possibility of different interpretations creates an issue in terms of
legal predictability and legal safety. Another issue regarding the legal framework is related
to its enforcement and the absence of compulsory jurisdiction in international law. Thus,
it can be concluded that the applicable legal framework alone is not sufficient to ensure
maximum protection from threats to human lives arising from space objects. New, more
concrete and more easily enforceable legal rules will need to be adopted in order to in-
crease the effectiveness of the legal framework.
The legal sphere, however, can only be part of the solution. The other part will have
to come from improvements in the material and technical sphere, amongst which one of
the most promoted is the inclusion of AI mechanisms into space technology.
4. AI as a Solution to the Threats to Human Lives Arising from Space
Objects
Recently, AI has often been presented as a solution to the threats stemming from
various types of technology, including space technology. In this section, I will present the
ways in which AI is proposed and planned to be used to increase safety and resilience or
90 See, for example, Alby et al., 2001.
91 Diaz, 1993, p. 377; Dennerley, 2018, p. 286.
297
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič – AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against Human
Lives Arising from Space Objects?
to improve the operation of space objects, as well as the ways in which AI is already used
for such purposes. AI solutions were, to this day, proposed for all of the abovementioned
threats stemming from space technology.
Regarding the threat of space objects falling on Earth, AI technologies can be used
for recognising and identifying various artificial objects in the sky, as well as distin-
guishing them from each other. In this way, they can contribute to the foreseeability of
potential accidents, identifying the approximate place of the crash, and can thus serve
as a basis for creating an evacuation plan, if required. AI has already been used for the
recognition of artificial objects such as airplanes, as well as some natural occurrences or
even objects in outer space.92
Secondly, AI could be used to prevent collisions between space objects. Namely, AI
is said to be able to contribute to more effective monitoring of space objects—their po-
sitioning, communication, as well as their end-of-life management.93 Furthermore, AI is
becoming an important tool for keeping a constant watch on satellites’ equipment and
functioning and consequently promptly alerting in case of its malfunction or a threat
of collision, and in certain cases even directly mitigating this risk.94 SpaceX claimed it
had already installed such an AI collision-preventing system on some of its satellites.
However, subsequent reports put its efficiency into question, as they describe incidents
of near crashes with other space objects.95 AI has additionally ascribed an important role
in space debris remediation. The European Space Agency (hereinafter: ESA) announced
its plan to develop and launch the first space mission aimed at removing space debris,
named ClearSpace-1, in 2026, which is going to be equipped with an AI camera used
for locating debris.96
Regarding the misuse of space objects, the role of AI can have contradicting effects.
On the one hand, AI can improve efficiency and accuracy in detecting and preventing
cyber-attacks; on the other hand, it can be exploited so as to make the attacks more
efficient and accurate, and consequently also more devastating.97 Thus, it acts as both a
means of conducting and a means of combating cyber or similar attacks.
Against this background, it can be observed that AI is being increasingly deployed in
space technology and that it is planned to play a role in ensuring greater safety for hu-
man lives. However, even if these technologies are developed and deployed accordingly,
and they function as envisioned, the use of AI in space activities is going to open several
new legal questions within a legal framework that already contains many rules open to
92 Bobrovsky et al., 2019, pp. 1–2; Amster, 2022; Instituto de Astrofísica e Ciências do Espaço, 2022.
93 Bratu, Lodder, & van der Linden, 2021, p. 427.
94 Schmelzer, 2020; Miller, 2022.
95 Chatterjee, 2022.
96 ESA, 2020; Macaulay, 2020.
97 Zekos, 2022a, p. 368.
298
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
interpretation. Therefore, to evaluate whether AI is indeed an effective solution to the
threats arising from space objects, the use of AI in mitigating space objects must also be
examined in light of the legal challenges it could bring. Through those identified legal
challenges, a better evaluation of the overall effectiveness of AI in combating the threats
arising from space technology can be conducted.
5. Some Legal Challenges Stemming from the Use of AI in Preventing
Threats to Human Lives
This section aims to outline some legal challenges stemming from the previously
described uses of AI in space activities.
The first legal challenge is related to the fact that AI necessarily entails a certain
level of unpredictability.98 To that end, it can negatively affect the predictions and early
detections of threats to human lives arising from space objects, especially in light of the
fact that humans are prone to being overly trusting of decisions made by technology,
based on a generalised, often unsubstantiated perception of its capabilities (the so-called
machine heuristics).99
The second issue related to AI used in space technology is liability. The concept of lia-
bility in space law is related to damage caused by space objects, and, as mentioned above,
the term space object includes its component parts as well as the launch vehicle and parts
thereof. It is unclear, however, whether this would cover situations where damage would
occur due to the AI connected to the functioning of such a space object. Would such
damage still be recoverable under Article VII of the OST and the provisions of the LIAB?
The answer to this question depends on whether AI can be considered a “component
part” of a space object. In other words, must a “component part” of a space object neces-
sarily be a physical component, or can it be “intangible” software? For now, the opinion
that AI as software should be considered a “component part” of a space object has been
expressed.100 In that case, damage is recoverable under these legal rules. If the opposite
interpretation, namely that AI is not to be considered a component part of a space ob-
ject, is accepted, the fact that AI was used in the functioning of a space object that caused
damage will make it more difficult to establish causation, as a convenient argument that
the damage was caused by AI, not by the space object itself, will be available. In order to
avoid such a situation, this dilemma must be resolved and liability for damages caused by
AI must be established as well.
98 Chatzipanagiotis, 2020, p. 2.
99 On machine heuristic, see, for example, Sundar & Kim, 2019.
100 Chatzipanagiotis, 2020, p. 3.
299
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič – AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against Human
Lives Arising from Space Objects?
Furthermore, AI will also affect the notion of “fault” in particular cases of damage
occurring in outer space.101 Fault is established when states fail to perform the required
amount of due diligence.102 Therefore, in establishing the diligence standard, AI will
make it more difficult to decide which risks were foreseeable and what kind of due dili-
gence was, therefore, required. The proposed solution to this issue is the establishment of
international rules of conduct.103
As AI could also be used as a weapon (or at least a part of it),104 the issue of the need
for reinterpretation or rewriting of Article IV of the OST arises. Currently, Article IV(1)
of the OST explicitly prohibits only nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction,
but not autonomous weapons utilising AI. In any case, additional safeguards regarding
the latter are needed, such as, for example, the obligation that, in cases involving the use
of AI in autonomous weapons, the final decision in activating such a weapon should
always remain in the hands of a human.105 However, even keeping the human in the
loop can be insufficient when humans do not critically examine algorithmic suggestions
but merely act as a “stamping machine”.106 Therefore, significantly more attention has to
be put into stricter regulation of such uses of AI, and the accountability for the loss of
life it causes. Furthermore, the use of satellite data for powering AI tools which result in
breaches of human rights, international humanitarian law, or other rules of international
law, (re)opens the question of the (il)legality of space activity producing such data.
Another issue related to the use of AI is that there are currently no comprehensive
“rules of the road” governing traffic in outer space, including space objects. The drafting of
these principles is currently ongoing, but the authoritative version of the rules has not yet
been adopted. Therefore, in establishing these traffic rules, AI will make the process more
challenging for lawmakers, as it will bring a new component to an already complex issue.
The last issue concerns the delicate relationship between transparency and the security
of AI. As AI can be used to both improve and harm the security of space objects, concrete
rules need to be developed in order to strengthen the security aspect of AI systems used
for space objects, as in this way, the space objects will become more resilient to terrorist
and cyber-attacks.107 On the other hand, however, the regulation of AI technology must
be mindful of the transparency requirement, to ensure the trustworthiness of AI systems.
101 Ibid.
102 Ibid.
103 Ibid., p. 7.
104 For an example of how AI (utilising, inter alia, satellite data) can be used as a weapon, see the report
on algorithmic weapons Lavender, Gospel and where is Daddy?, developed by Israel and used on its
onslaught on Gaza. Abraham, 2024.
105 Martin & Freeland, 2020, p. 6.
106 For more on the dangers of the lack of critical assessment of AI-produced decisions, see Abraham, 2024.
107 Ibid., p. 7.
300
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
6. Conclusion: An (Im)perfect Solution
The brief analysis conducted throughout this article demonstrates that there exists a
need to further mitigate threats to human lives arising from space objects, as the legal
framework, despite containing several safeguards, can only play an effective role to a certain
extent, but often falls short of addressing concrete issues. AI is often presented as a prom-
ising technology to address this gap and improve the protection of human lives; however,
the analysis shows that it cannot in itself be perceived as a complete and comprehensive
solution, and that can even, in certain cases, bring more issues than it actually solves.
Firstly, most of the AI technologies planned to be used to enhance the capabilities
and safety of space technology are still being developed and are not yet completed. They
are expected to be subject to several changes and improvements. In most cases, there is
currently a lack of relevant data to test their efficiency.
Secondly, the use of AI in mitigating the risks posed by space objects will open new
legal dilemmas, some of which were identified in the previous section, which will add
to those already present in the existing legal framework. The danger is that the legal
framework could become even less effective in ensuring that technology is used in a
human-friendly manner, which we can already observe in some of the current108 ex-
amples of the use of AI technologies as a weapon in war. Thus, AI solutions have to be
consciously considered from all possible perspectives and then carefully implemented.109
Its potential effects have to be examined and the legal framework amended accordingly.
This means that the use of AI to mitigate the risks posed to human lives by space
objects is not the end, but the beginning of what could lead towards a solution to the
problem of dangerous space objects. While AI carries the potential to improve space
technology in this regard, further critical research will have to be carried out in both
technical and legal fields, to ensure that AI will indeed serve the purpose of protecting
human lives. To fulfil this goal, the developing AI regulatory framework and internation-
al space law will have to evolve in strong co-operation.110 Until then, space objects, even
when enhanced or interacting with a certain type of AI technology, will remain a suitable
“scary costume” for the Halloweens to come.
108 Abraham, 2024.
109 Zekos, 2022b, pp. 348–349.
110 See Ramuš Cvetkovič & Drobnjak, 2023.
301
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič – AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against Human
Lives Arising from Space Objects?
References
Abraham, Y. (2024) ‘Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in
Gaza, (accessed 7
January 2025).
Akoto, W. (2020) Hackers could shut down satellites – or turn them into weapons
(accessed 3 November 2022).
Alby, F., et al. (2001) The European Space Debris Safety and Mitigation Standard.
Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Space Debris, ESOC, Darmstadt,
Germany, 19–21 March 2001, (accessed 1 December 2023).
Amster, K. (2022) The AI help to identify astronomical objects, (accessed
10 November 2022).
Bobrovsky, A.I., Galeeva, M.A., Morozov, A.V., et al. (2019) ‘Automatic detection of
objects on star sky images by using the convolutional neural network’, Journal
of Physics 1236, pp. 1–6.
Borowitz, M. (2022) The Military Use of Small Satellites in Orbit, (accessed 3 November 2022).
Bratu, I., Lodder, A.R., van der Linden, T. (2021) ‘Autonomous space objects and
international space law: Navigating the liability gap’, Indonesian Journal of
International Law (18)3, pp. 423–446.
Bt, S.P., & Cummings, D. (1991) ‘The first space war: The contribution of satellites to
the gulf war’, RUSI Journal 136(4), pp. 45–53.
Burgess, M. (2022) A Mysterious Satellite Hack Has Victims Far Beyond Ukraine,
(acces-
sed 3 November 2022).
Byers, M., Wright, E., Boley, A., et al. (2022) ‘Unnecessary risks created by uncontrolled
rocket reentries’, Nature Astronomy 6, pp. 1093–1097.
Cassese, A. (2005) International Law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chatterjee, P. (2022) How SpaceX is using AI to advance its ambitions, (accessed
13 November 2022).
302
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
Chatzipanagiotis, M. (2020) ‘Whose fault is it? Artificial Intelligence and Liability in
International Space Law’, 71th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) - The
Cyberspace Edition, 12–14 October 2020.
Chen, S. (2011) ‘The Space Debris Problem’, Asian Perspective 35(4), pp. 537–558.
Chow, D., & Mitchell, A. (2021) Astronauts take shelter as debris passes dangerously
close to space station, (acces-
sed October 31 2022).
Custers, B. & Frosch-Villaronga, E. (2022) ‘Humanizing Machines: Introduction and
Overview’, in: Custers, B. & Frosch-Villaronga, E. (eds.) (2022) Law and
Artificial Intelligence. The Hague: Springer, pp. 3–28.
David, L. (2013) Effects of Worst Satellite Breakups in History Still Felt Today, (acces-
sed 31 October 2022).
Dennerley, J.A. (2018) ‘State liability for space object collisions: The proper interpretati-
on of ‘fault’ for the purposes of international space law’, The European Journal
of International Law 29(1), pp. 281–301.
Diaz, D. (1993) ‘Trashing The Final Frontier: An Examination of Space Debris From a
Legal Perspective’, Tulane Environmental Law Journal 6(2), pp. 369–395.
Dunlap, C. (2021) Are commercial satellites used for intelligence-gathering in attack
planning targetable?, (accessed 3 November 2022).
ESA (2020) Earth’s first space debris removal mission,
(accessed 13 November 2022).
ESPI (2022) ESPI Short Report 1 – The war in Ukraine from a space cybersecurity per-
spective, (accessed 20 January 2024).
Gerhard, M. (2009) ‘Article VI’ in: Hobe S. et al. (eds.) (2009) Cologne Commentary on
Space Law, Vol 1, Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag, pp. 103–125.
Gorove, S. (1973) ‘Arms Control Provisions in The Outer Space Treaty: A Scrutinizing
Reappraisal’, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 3, pp.
114–123.
Gregersen, E. (2022) Space Debris, (accessed 31 October 2022).
303
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič – AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against Human
Lives Arising from Space Objects?
Harland, D.M. (2022) Mir. Soviet-Russian Space station, (accessed 27 October 2022).
Hertzfeld, H.R. (2021) ‘Unsolved issues of compliance with the registration convention’,
Journal of Space Safety Engineering (8)3, 238–244.
Hobe, S. (2009) ‘Article I’ in: Hobe S. et al. (eds.) (2009) Cologne Commentary on Space
Law, Vol 1, Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag, pp. 25–44.
Hobe, S., & Pellander, E. (2012) ‘Space Law: a “Self-Contained Regime”?’ in: Hobe,
S. & Freeland, S. (2012) In Heaven as on Earth? The Interaction of Public
International Law on The Legal Regulation of Outer Space. Bonn: Institute of
Air and Space Law of the University of Cologne, pp. 1–12.
Hobe, S. (2019) Space Law. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Zekos, G.I. (2022a) Political, Economic and Legal Effects of Artificial Intelligence. Cham:
Springer.
Hoe, L.I., Umar, R., & Kamarudin, M.K.A. (2018) ‘Article III of the 1967 Outer Space
Treaty: A Critical Analysis.’ International Journal Of Academic Research In
Business And Social Sciences 8(5), pp. 326–338.
Instituto de Astrofísica e Ciências do Espaço (2022) Artificial intelligence helps in the
identification of astronomical objects, (accessed 13 November
2022).
JAXA (1981) Settlement of Claim between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics for Damage Caused by “Cosmos 954”, (accessed 27 October 2022).
Jewett, R. (2022) Viasat Details KA-SAT Cyberattack that Affected Thousands of Modems
in Ukraine, (accessed 3 November 2022).
Kerrest, A., & Smith, L.J. (2009) ‘Article VII’ in: Hobe S. et al. (eds.) (2009) Cologne
Commentary on Space Law, Vol 1. Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag, pp. 126–145.
Kessler, D.J., & Cour-Palais, B.G. (1978) ‘Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites:
The Creation of a Debris Belt’, 38 JGR Space Physics A6, 2637–2646.
Kizer Witt, K. (2022) Who owns all the satellites?, (accessed 26 October 2022).
Lee, R.J., Steele, S. (2014) ‘Military Use of Satellite Communications, Remote Sensing,
and Global Positioning Systems in the War on Terror’, Journal of Air Law and
Commerce 79(1), pp. 69–112.
304
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
Linden, D. (2016) The Impact of National Space Legislation on Private Space
Undertakings: Regulatory Competition vs. Harmonization. Journal of Science
Policy & Governance 8(1).
Macaulay, T. (2020) AI to help world’s first removal of space debris, (accessed 13
November 2022).
Marboe, I., Neumann, J., & Shrogl, K. (2013) ‘Article I’ in: Hobe, S., et al. (eds.) (2013)
Cologne Commentary on Space Law, Vol II. Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag,
pp. 38–47.
Marboe, I., Neumann, J., & Shrogl, K. (2013) ‘Preamble’ in: Hobe, S., et al. (eds.)
(2013) Cologne Commentary on Space Law, Vol II. Cologne: Carl Heymanns
Verlag, pp. 31–37.
Marchisio, S. (2009). ‘Article IX’ in: Hobe, S., et al. (eds.) (2009) Cologne Commentary
on Space Law, Vol I. Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag, pp. 169–182.
Marchisio, S. (2018) ‘Il Trattato sullo spazio: passato, presente e futuro’, Rivista di diritto
internazionale 1, pp. 205–213.
Martin, A.-S., & Freeland, S. (2020) ‘The Advent of Artificial Intelligence in Space
Activities: New Legal Challenges’, Space Policy 55.
McFall-Johnsen, M. (2021) High-Speed Space Junk Risk Forces NASA Astronauts to
Abandon Spacewalk, (accessed 31 October 2022).
Miller, G.D. (2019) ‘Space Pirates, Geosynchronous Guerrillas, and Nonterrestrial
Terrorists’, Air and Space Power Journal, pp. 33–51.
Miller, M. (2022) UC engineers develop navigation to avoid collisions: UC’s new system
gets us closer to robots that can fix satellites or spacecraft in orbit, (accessed 13 November 2022).
Muhammad, A.N. (2019) ‘Revisiting U.S – China Aggressive Use of Outer Space: A
Comprehensive International Law Outlook Towards Military Activities in
Outer Space’, Indonesian Journal of International Law 16(4), pp. 473–503.
Mukherjee, S. (2021). Should we be worried about space debris? Scientists explain,
(accessed 31 October 2022).
NASA (2009) The Collision of Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251: The Shape of Things to
Come, (accessed 31 October
2022).
305
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič – AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against Human
Lives Arising from Space Objects?
Niewęgłowski, K. (2021) Space debris and obligations erga omnes – a legal framework for
States’ responsibility?, (accessed 8 November 2022).
Novak, Ž. (2022). Uporaba previdnostnega načela pri aktivnostih v vesolju. (accessed 7 January
2025).
Palmroth, M., Tapio, J., Soucek, A., et al. (2021) ‘Toward Sustainable Use of Space:
Economic, Technological, and Legal Perspective’, Space Policy 57, pp. 6–12.
Patowary, K. (2020) Cosmos 954: The Nuke That Fell From Space,
(accessed 26 October 2022).
Puttré, M. (2022) Satellites Are Likely Targets in the Next Major War, (accessed 4 November 2022).
Ramuš Cvetkovič, I. (2021) Space law as lex specialis to international law, (accessed 4 November
2022).
Ramuš Cvetkovič, I. (2023) ‘Protisatelitski (ASAT) testi – kaj se skriva za masko pre-
vencije?’ in: Badalič, V. (ed.) (2023) Preventivna (ne)pravičnost: preprečeva-
nje kriminalitete in družbene škode. Ljubljana: Inštitut za kriminologijo, pp.
139–153.
Ramuš Cvetkovič, I. & Drobnjak, M. (2023) ‘As Above so Below: The Use of International
Space Law as an Inspiration for Terrestrial AI Regulation to Maximize Harm
Prevention’ in: Završnik, A. & Simončič, K. (eds.) (2023) Artificial Intelligence,
Social Harms and Human Rights. Springer, pp. 207–238.
Ribbelink, O. (2009) ‘Article III’ in: Hobe, S., et al. (eds.) (2009) Cologne Commentary
on Space Law, Vol 1. Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag, pp. 64–69.
Ryan, R.G., Marais, E.A., Balhatchet, C.J., & Eastham, S.D. (2022). ‘Impact of rocket
launch and space debris air pollutant emissions on stratospheric ozone and
global climate’, Earth’s Future 10, e2021EF002612.
Schmelzer, R. (2020) How Is AI Helping to Commercialize Space?, (accessed 14 November 2022).
Schmidt-Tedd, B., & Mick, S. (2009) ‘Article VIII’ in: Hobe, S., et al. (eds.) (2009)
Cologne Commentary on Space Law, Vol 1. Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag,
pp. 146–168.
306
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024
Schrogl, K., & Neumann, J. (2009). ‘Article IV’ in: Hobe, S., et al. (eds.) (2009) Cologne
Commentary on Space Law, Vol 1. Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag, pp. 78–93.
Sheer, A., & Li, S. (2019) ‘Space Debris Mounting Global Menace Legal Issues Pertaining
to Space Debris Removal: Ought to Revamp Existing Space Law Regime’,
Beijing Law Review 10, pp. 423–440.
Shultz, K. (2010) Operation Morning Light, (accessed 26 October 2022).
Stuart, J. (2015) Comment: Satellite industry must invest in cyber security, (accessed 4
November 2022).
Sundar, S., & Kim, J. (2019) Machine Heuristic: When We Trust Computers More
than Humans with Our Personal Information, (accessed 15 January 2024).
Union of Concerned Scientists (2022) Satellite Database, (accessed 26 October 2022).
Viasat (2022) KA-SAT Network cyber attack overview, (accessed 4 November 2022).
Von der Dunk, F.G., & Goh, G.M. (2009) ‘Article V’ in: Hobe, S., et al. (eds.) (2009)
Cologne Commentary on Space Law, Vol. 1. Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag,
pp. 94–102.
Weintz, S. (2015) Operation Morning Light: The Nuclear Satellite That Almost
Decimated America, (accessed 27 October 2022).
Zander, F. (2022) What’s the risk of being hit by falling space debris?, (accessed 20 January 2024). Zedalis, R., & Wade, C. (1978)
‘Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Outer Space Treaty of 1967’, California
Western International Law Journal 8, pp. 454–482.
Zekos, G.I. (2022b) Advanced Artificial Intelligence and Robo-Justice. Cham: Springer.
357
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024 – povzetki
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024 – synopses
Znanstveni članek
DOI: 10.51940/2024.1.275-302
UDK: 341.229:004.8
341.229:343.301
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič
UI – možna rešitev za grožnje človekovemu življenju,
ki prihajajo iz objektov v vesolju
Z izstrelitvijo satelita Sputnik I leta 1957 je prvi vesoljski objekt dosegel vesolje. Sledili
so mu še številni drugi, danes pa vesoljske objekte obravnavamo kot nepogrešljiv del
našega vsakdana. Satelite in podatke, ki jih zagotavljajo, uporabljamo za spremljanje
okolja s pomočjo opazovanja Zemlje, urejanje podnebja in upravljanje naravnih nesreč,
pa tudi za gospodarske dejavnosti, denimo kmetijstvo, promet, komunikacije in še šte-
vilne druge. Kljub številnim koristim pa vesoljski objekti pomenijo grožnjo človeškim
življenjem v vesolju, v zračnem prostoru in na Zemlji. Tehnološki napredek 21. stoletja,
še zlasti čedalje pogostejša uporaba umetne inteligence, je vzbudil upanje, da bodo te
grožnje zmanjšane, omiljene ali celo v celoti odpravljene. Avtor v članku presoja, ali je
tako upanje razumno in upravičeno. Najprej opredeli nekaj primerov groženj človeškim
življenjem, ki izhajajo iz vesoljskih objektov, ter navede primere, ko so se te grožnje že
uresničile v praksi. Drugič, predstavi veljavni pravni okvir in ga nato v tretjem koraku
oceni ter pokaže, da ne zadošča za obravnavo omenjenih groženj. V četrtem delu prikaže,
kako je predvidena uporaba umetne inteligence za omilitev teh groženj. V petem delu
oriše nekatere nove pravne izzive, ki bi se lahko pojavili ob taki uporabi umetne inteli-
gence, in na tej podlagi končno presodi, ali bo taka omilitev groženj s pomočjo umetne
inteligence res tako učinkovita, kot se trenutno napoveduje.
Ključne besede
umetna inteligenca, vesoljska tehnologija, vesoljski odpadki, vesoljski objekti, terorizem.
358
Zbornik znanstvenih razprav – letnik LXXXIV, 2024 – povzetki
LjubLjana Law Review, voL. LXXXiv, 2024 – synopses
Scientific Article
DOI: 10.51940/2024.1.275-302
UDC: 341.229:004.8
341.229:343.301
Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič
AI—A Possible Solution to the Threats Against
Human Lives Arising from Space Objects?
With the 1957 launch of the satellite Sputnik I, the first space object reached outer space.
Many more followed, and today space objects are considered an invaluable part of our
everyday lives. Satellites and the data they provide are used for monitoring the environ-
ment through Earth observation, climate regulation, and natural disaster management,
as well as economic activities, for example, agriculture, transportation, communication,
and several others. Despite these numerous benefits, however, space objects pose threats
to human lives in outer space, in airspace, and on Earth. The technological advancement
of the 21st century, especially the increased use of artificial intelligence, brought hope that
these threats would be minimised, mitigated, or even completely resolved. In this paper,
I am going to evaluate whether such hope is reasonable and justified. To do this, I will,
first, identify some examples of the threats to human lives arising from space objects and
provide examples when such threats already materialised in reality. Second, I will present
the applicable legal framework and then, third, evaluate it and show that it falls short
in addressing those threats. Fourth, I will demonstrate how AI is planned to be used in
mitigating these threats. Fifth, I will outline some of the new legal challenges such use
of AI would bring and, against this background, finally assess whether such AI threat
mitigation is going to be as effective as currently predicted.
Key words
AI, space technology, space debris, space objects, terrorism.