The answer: not completely.
I’ve been doing work for the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center on ambiguities in the Outer Space Treaty’s treatment of military issues, and had to do a deep dive into the Treaty’s ratification history. I’ve done it before, but with an eye toward understanding Article VI. This time, I focused on Article IV’s military requirements and restrictions.
In the course of my research I encountered some interesting tidbits. One relates to a tendency I come across from time to time for people to treat the Treaty as if it were a constitution. It isn’t.
The tidbit that demonstrates that the Treaty is neither comprehensive nor intended to be comes from U.S. Secretary of State, Dean Rusk testimony to the Senate, where he explained that:
[t]he treaty is not complete in all possible details. It does not deal with all problems that may develop. But it is responsible [sic?] to those problems that can be described and forecast today.
In other words, it doesn’t cover everything. If the Outer Space Treaty is silent, the silence should be construed as deliberate. As the Supreme Court has noted, we shouldn’t add to treaties things that aren’t there, take away things that are, or otherwise modify or edit the language.
Thanks. But this just whets the appetite for more. What else did you find? Did you look at the treaty negotiating history also?
I did! More will follow in upcoming weeks.