Interpretations of the phrase “peaceful purposes” come down to two variants: “non-military” or “non-aggressive”. In this case, the concept of “non-military” is presented as the prohibition of outer space use for any military purposes and the placement of any military objects in it. In turn, the concept of “non-aggressive” implies the possibility of placing military objects in outer space (for example, for reconnaissance and surveillance), if they are not used for force actions and force threats. Gradually, based on the principle “People say what they like, it makes no difference”, the second model of interpretation of the concept of “peaceful purposes” began to prevail in the international environment, according to which military actions can be carried out in space provided such actions are not aggressive. Although this option is the most absurd (because any military facilities directly or indirectly are used to carry out military force), nevertheless, it is most actively promoted by the United States to ensure its military hegemony in space and on Earth. 

In this case, some politicians justified the military use of space also by the fact that they could not see the line between military and peaceful use of space, since allegedly in both cases the goals could be duplicated. In the present case, they meant navigational actions or military actions to pre-empt an enemy attack and to protect the world.

However, no matter how they try to justify military actions carried out to protect peace, they remain military actions. In addition, the interpretation game, in this case, is just a political game. The essence of military and peaceful goals is very simple – military goals are always directed against someone (even if they are carried out for the benefit of someone), and peaceful goals are never directed against someone, they are always carried out for someone to help.

Thus, any deployment of military objects in outer space contravenes peaceful purposes, and also contradicts “The Principle of a Peaceful Cosmos”.

The fact that “actions for the benefit of certain States” very rarely coincide with “actions for the benefit of all mankind” does not require scientific justification

Perhaps legal conflicts could have been avoided provided the UN General Assembly clarified the concept of “use” of outer space and celestial bodies for all cases (for research, for the benefit of humanity, for the benefit of states, etc.).

For example, according to the provisions of “The Principle of a Free Cosmos”, states have the right to free exploration of the Cosmos. However, no substantial external research of the Universe can not be performed without the physical use by states of outer space and celestial bodies, since it is difficult to carry out such research without launching a space vehicle into outer space (including celestial bodies) and placing satellites in orbit.

In turn, the presence in outer space or on a celestial body of any objects launched by states would always be considered at least a temporary use of outer space and celestial bodies. Thus, it is logical to allow the temporary use of outer space by states. At the same time, the purpose of such use can only be space exploration in the interests and benefit of humanity.

All other options for the use of outer space and celestial bodies by states (including permanent use) will contradict “The Principle of a Free Cosmos” and one of its most important conditions, namely the condition of “Res Nullius Civitatis”

However, technologically developed states carry out activities mainly only for their benefit (often without a research value for humanity). Independently or through controlled private companies, they launch objects into celestial bodies and place “satellites” in outer space, which freely occupy near-Earth orbits, thus appropriating part of outer space.

For example, it is difficult to identify space satellites used by States to track people as those that function for the benefit of humanity that has never permitted States to act in such a way. Naturally, both military satellites and other options for the militarization of space serve not in the interests but against the interests of humanity and peaceful purposes.

The results of scientific research obtained by States using space activities also do not go to humanity and are most often used only in the interests and for the benefit of certain States that received them (especially if such achievements allow some State to take a leading position in the military or economic field).

Moreover, space has already begun to be considered by many States not as a neutral territory, but as “a contested operational domain”.

We can say that from that moment, acting under the auspices of the UN, States began an undeclared confrontation with humanity and rivalry among themselves in space.

At the same time, acting “Fraus legi fit”, States interpret the provisions on the use of Space in such a way as to circumvent “The Principle of a Free Cosmos” and obtain the right to use outer space and celestial bodies without the need to obtain separate property rights to them.

However, this is just “Fraus legi fit”. In reality, whenever anyone uses outer space and celestial bodies to one’s advantage, their appropriation would occur. After all, any subject, receiving the right to freely use anything without announcing ownership rights, would receive “their functional equivalent”. Accordingly, such use of outer space and celestial bodies appears to be contrary to the conditions of “Res Nullius Civitatis” and “The Principle of a Free Cosmos”.

Through the ambiguous interpretation of these provisions, certain States are trying to act according to the principles of “Ius primae occupationis” (the right of first seizure) and “Qui prior est tempore, potior est iure” (one who is first in time is preferred in right).

However, we should not forget that any actions of States to use outer space and celestial bodies for their benefit (if this benefit is not an integral part of the benefit of all humanity) would be actions that contradict the interests of humanity and do not comply with “The Principle of a Useful Cosmos” and “The Principle of a Free Cosmos”.

Although all this is quite clear, nevertheless, to avoid contradictions and to eliminate the desire of some States to apply “Fraus legi fit” in space activities, the UN General Assembly had to finalize the provisions of Outer Space Public Law and bring all principles into strictly definite correspondence to each other.

And first of all, it was necessary to clarify the concept of “use of outer space and celestial bodies,” with particular emphasis on the possibility of only temporary use by States of outer space and celestial bodies, and only for research purposes or for “the benefit of mankind”.