The Principle of Peaceful Cosmos
All subjects of space activities can explore and use outer space exclusively for peaceful purposes, act only in the interests of maintaining international peace and security as well as for the development of international cooperation and mutual understanding, and have no right to carry out propaganda of war in space activities.
All subjects of space activities shall refrain from placing, installing, and stationing in any other manner (and to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the conduct of the foregoing activities) in orbit around the earth and in outer space and on celestial bodies any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction.
At the same time, States undertake not to carry out or take part in carrying out any nuclear weapon test explosion in places that are located in outer space and on celestial bodies, and which are under the jurisdiction or control of these States
This principle imposes an absolute prohibition on the placement in outer space of any weapons and equipment that could be used in armed conflicts.
At the same time, any satellites or other equipment that could in some way be used for military purposes should have been launched only with the permission of the UN and under its full control with open access for any State to the information received from such equipment.
However, already at this stage, the first contradictions arose regarding compliance with this principle.
These contradictions have resulted in multiple “Fraus legi fit”, which some States use to interpret the phrase “peaceful purposes” in their military interests.
Proponents of preserving Peaceful Cosmos claim that the phrase “peaceful purposes” means “non-military purposes” – that is, a prohibition on the use of outer space for any military purposes and placing any military facilities.
Proponents of Cosmos weapons claim that the phrase “peaceful purposes” means “non-aggressive purposes” – that is, the possibility of placing military objects in outer space (for example, for reconnaissance and surveillance), if they are not used for forceful actions or threats of force. Although this option is the most absurd (because any military facilities, directly or indirectly, are used to carry out military force), nevertheless, it is this option that prevails in the world today and is most actively promoted by the United States to ensure its military hegemony in outer space and on Earth.
At the same time, some politicians justified the military use of space by the absence of a line between the military and peaceful use of outer space, since supposedly in both cases the goals can be duplicated. In this case, this meant navigational actions or military actions to forestall an enemy attack and to protect the world.
However, no matter how some people try to justify military actions, they remain military actions, and the game of interpretation would remain an ordinary political game. The difference between military and peaceful goals has always been very simple – military goals are always directed against someone (even if they are carried out for the benefit of someone), and peaceful goals are always carried out for the benefit of someone and are never directed against someone.
Thus, any deployment of military objects in outer space contravenes peaceful purposes and also contradicts “The Principle of Peaceful Cosmos”