[DRAFT] Convention on Space

[Cardoness]

Category: Political Stability, Strength: Significant

RECOGNIZING that many States rely on space for the furthering of their civilizations;

DEFINES
International Space as starting at twice the distance from the primary star to the aphelion of the farthest celestial object in orbit around that star in mono-jurisdictional star systems, or at 100km above the highest point on a celestial object where such objects have, or exist in star systems which have, multiple national jurisdictions;

100km above the highest point on a celestial object which is outside a star system;

Celestial object has having a mean radius of 300km or more;

For the purpose of this resolution, the term “warship” and “military space-borne object” means a ship or object belonging to the military forces of a State and bearing the external marks distinguishing its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned and manned by a crew who are under regular military discipline.

DECLARES the following:
International Space shall be open to all nations, no State may subject any part of it to its control;

All States shall have
(1)Freedom of access;
(2) Freedom of navigation;
(3) Freedom of development;
(4) Freedom of scientific research;

In order to enjoy these freedoms on equal terms, member States with limited access, for reasons of limited airspace through which to launch and recover space-borne objects, shall be allowed by other member States reasonable transit of such objects through their territorial airspace, provided that such transit does not pose an unreasonable threat to the safety and security of its people or environment;

Every State has the right to possess space-borne objects;

Such objects have the nationality of the State which they claim to belong to, though there must be a genuine link between the State and the object; in particular, the State must effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over such object;

Objects shall be under the jurisdiction of one State only, that the State claiming ownership;

The provisions of the preceding do not prejudice the question of objects under the jurisdiction of an intergovernmental organization;

Warships or other military space-borne objects shall have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the State of ownership;

Ships or objects owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the State of ownership.

Every State shall take such measures for objects under its jurisdiction as are necessary to ensure its safety.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think this resolution might have got parts of what you wish to achieve.

Ms. S. Harper.

[Cardoness]

I think this resolution might have got parts of what you wish to achieve.

Ms. S. Harper.

WAR#63 seems to deal exclusively with the environmental aspects of space travel. But I will ask the mods for a ruling to be safe.

[Libertytopia]

...
All celestial objects smaller then this are defined as space born objects;
For the purpose of this resolution, the term “warship” and “military space born object” means a ship or object belonging to the military forces of a State and bearing the external marks distinguishing its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government and whose name appears in the Navy List, and manned by a crew who are under regular naval discipline.
...
In order to enjoy these freedoms on equal terms, member States with limited access, for reasons of limited airspace through which to launch and recover space born objects, shall be allowed by other member States reasonable transit of such objects through their territorial airspace, provided that such transit to the safety and security of its people or environment;
...
Every State has the right to possess space born objects;
...
Warships or other military space born objects shall have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the State of ownership;
...

two notes:
1) if you have "born" in there it means the objects were born in or of space, I think the word you're looking for is "bourne"
2) the way it's written now it could mean that transit through a states airspace is not allowed if there is a "reasonable" threat to safety, I think it should be changed to "unreasonable". I think what you meant with "reasonable" was "plausible", but in order to avoid confusion and unnecessary debates on semantics (such as this, and the ongoing draft to repeal the Space Station resolution which I proudly co-authored) you could opt to just write "does not pose a threat"

The honourable Delegate from Maxtopia
and most honoured representative of the Free Peoples of Libertytopia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore I think Illender the Great must be destroyed

[Rutianas]

DECLARES the following:
Space shall be open to all nations, no State may subject any part of it to its control;

All States shall have
(1)Freedom of access;
(2) Freedom of navigation;
(3) Freedom of development;
(4) Freedom of scientific research;

Being a space faring nation, we're not allowing anyone freedom of access, navigation, development, or scientific research within our sovereign borders. I think you'll find that other space faring nations will be opposed to this as well. Not to mention the fact that this will keep space faring nations from having real borders as a nation should have. It'd be like me saying to you, your borders can only be five miles out from your cities because the land shouldn't be controlled. Everyone has the right to freedom of access, navigation, development, and scientific research on the land that used to belong to your sovereign nation.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

[Ardchoille]

Re, "born", "bourne" and "borne": I think the spelling you might be after is "space-borne", by extension from "seaborne".

But what you asked for a ruling on was the legality of the proposal in terms of #63, and the answer is, it's not legal.

Compare this definition ...

DEFINING “Outer Space” as the void which occupies the largely empty areas of the universe outside the atmosphere of any planet, star or other celestial body, where the edge of any celestial body’s atmosphere is understood to be the specific position where a craft would have to travel faster than orbital velocity in order to receive sufficient aerodynamic lift from the atmosphere to support itself.

...to yours:

DEFINING
Space as starting at 100km above the highest natural point on a celestial object which has a mean radius of 300km or more;
All celestial objects smaller then this are defined as space born objects;

GA#63's, while admittedly defining "outer space", not "space", allows flexibility in application. Yours reduces that definition. It limits "space" to specific measurements, and so contradicts an existing resolution.

Yours also uses, as its base, "the highest natural point". NationStates is a universe in which there are highly likely to be manufactured "celestial objects" which do have nations, but don't have any natural highest point. (Dyson spheres/shells/swarms, Klemperer rosettes, orbital rings). There's also the possibility of natural celestial objects which have "unnatural" (manufactured) highest points (eg, Earth plus a "space elevator" -- so Earth's sophonts, faced with another WA-member space-going race, might claim that the space between, say, the Earth and the Moon isn't "space" in your definition).

You don't have to accept any of these science fiction concepts, but you do have to keep in the back of your head that you're writing laws that may have to apply in SF-y conditions. This clause, for example ...

belonging to the military forces of a State and bearing the external marks distinguishing its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government and whose name appears in the Navy List, and manned by a crew who are under regular naval discipline.

... excludes all NS WA nations where the "space command" developed from the air force; or where "space" is/was/will be the province of university research vessels, or private companies, or mega-corporations, or merchant venturers, or refugees, or independent multi-generation colony ships, rather than "governments" that "commission".

You don't have to write to include every single possible NS state; you just have to be careful how strictly you exclude them. Nations' governments are expected to read WA legislation in terms of how it applies (or can apply) to their nation, so you don't have to say, for example, "this includes theocracies, democracies, socialists, capitalists, dictatorships ...". But the more specific limits (numerical, political, geographical, whatever) you put in WA laws, the more NS states you risk excluding.

Speaking of which, the category you've chosen is one which intentionally limits "the domestic Political policies of WA member nations"; how would you defend this choice, ie, how does this proposal do that? (I'm not saying it's wrong, just that an explanation of how the author sees a proposal fitting in a particular category helps other ambassadors see where you're heading).

[Cardoness]

OK...reworked.
As to the definition, I am not trying to define space as such but rather the limits of international space. To that end I have changed "space" to "international space". I have also taken into consideration what Rutianas was saying and am willing to play with the definition some more. My thinking on this is along the lines of international law regarding the High Seas, and while international law allows for nations to posses the waters between a group of islands, it does not allow for such possession if the distance is too far. (OCC eg. US and Hawaii, the US controls the water around Hawaii but not the water between Hawaii and the mainland. Also, some of the South Pacific island nations do not maintain full territorial control over all of their waters due to the vast distances in between.) If a reasonable definition can be created of what constitutes "national space" I would be willing to include it.

Further, I have taken the great Mods advise and altered the proposal accordingly. Again, I was coming at this more from a international waters applied to space angle, so did not take into consideration many of the SiFi elements. I hope the modified proposal is more open/open minded.

Finally, I went with political stability because the intent of this resolution is to create the framework for codified international law in regards to space, thereby establishing what people and governments can and can't do in space in relation to other nations. It also forces nations to regulate any space-borne objects they possess. But again, I am open to changes if an argument could be made for another category or strength.

[Manticore Reborn]

The Law of The Star Kingdom of Manticore Reborn states specifically: Sovereignty shall extend throughout the entire system and beyond for a distance of two hundred million kilometers from the aphelion of the most distant planet from the system's primary star.

My government will not support any resolution which does not mirror this clause.

[Cardoness]

The Law of The Star Kingdom of Manticore Reborn states specifically: Sovereignty shall extend throughout the entire system and beyond for a distance of two hundred million kilometers from the aphelion of the most distant planet from the system's primary star.

My government will not support any resolution which does not mirror this clause.

What about systems which are multi-jurisdiction or the area between stars for those nations which exercise complete control over many star systems?

[Manticore Reborn]

The Law of The Star Kingdom of Manticore Reborn states specifically: Sovereignty shall extend throughout the entire system and beyond for a distance of two hundred million kilometers from the aphelion of the most distant planet from the system's primary star.

My government will not support any resolution which does not mirror this clause.

What about systems which are multi-jurisdiction or the area between stars for those nations which exercise complete control over many star systems?

In multi-jurisdictional system, boarders would be the median between the two jurisdictions closest celestial body or installation. No one controls the area between stars.

[Cardoness]

International Space as starting at twice the distance from the primary star of the farthest celestial object in orbit around that star in mono-jurisdictional star systems, or at 100km above the highest point on a celestial object which has a mean radius of 300km or more, where such object have, or exist in star systems which have, multiple national jurisdictions

How about something like that?

[Manticore Reborn]

International Space as starting at twice the distance from the primary star of the farthest object in orbit around that star in mono-jurisdictional star systems

/quote]
This will not work as planet's orbits are no consistent around stars, that is why Manticore's law specifically states the aphelion of the most distant planet. Also, what qualifies as object? A comet may orbit a star, but its orbit may be several light minutes out from actual system.

How about something like that?

Here, I believe Ardchoille has already pointed out the flaws of this. also, there is no definition of what an object is?

[Cardoness]

/quote]
This will not work as planet's orbits are no consistent around stars, that is why Manticore's law specifically states the aphelion of the most distant planet. Also, what qualifies as object? A comet may orbit a star, but its orbit may be several light minutes out from actual system.

Here, I believe Ardchoille has already pointed out the flaws of this. also, there is no definition of what an object is?

The definition is in the second part, as having a mean radius of at least 300km.
I have adjusted the proposal to account for those flaws mentioned, or at least as I understood them.

DEFINING
International Space as starting at twice the distance from the primary star of the aphelion of the farthest celestial object, such object having a mean radius of 300km or more, in orbit around that star in mono-jurisdictional star systems, or at 100km above the highest point on a celestial object where such objects have, or exist in star systems which have, multiple national jurisdictions;

Is this better?

[Manticore Reborn]

I think you need to separate them into two clauses as the very lest. It is very confusing in its present form.

[Cardoness]

DEFINING
International Space as starting at twice the distance from the primary star to the aphelion of the farthest celestial object in orbit around that star in mono-jurisdictional star systems, or at 100km above the highest point on a celestial object where such objects have, or exist in star systems which have, multiple national jurisdictions;

Celestial object has having a mean radius of 300km or more;

[Darenjo]

DEFINING
International Space as starting at twice the distance from the primary star to the aphelion of the farthest celestial object in orbit around that star in mono-jurisdictional star systems, or at 100km above the highest point on a celestial object where such objects have, or exist in star systems which have, multiple national jurisdictions;

Celestial object has having a mean radius of 300km or more;

Two questions:
1. What about nations that span multiple systems?

2. I'm a bit concerned over your definition for "celestial object" as the Nuke draft that we're currently working on doesn't use size in describing "celestial bodies".

Sadly, the topic of this proposal is one of those things that is extremely difficult in NS due to the tech level difference between the different nations. Any laws on space usually has to go through a LONG debate before getting submitted or just dropped.

ADD-ON: Also, i would consider dropping the 'external markings' phrase in your definition of 'warship' since a definition like that is just an excuse for widespread piracy.

[Rutianas]

There is no way we could ever support any resolution which defines where our borders could be. While the Imperial Republic as a whole is not a WA member, one of our protectorates is. Because of that, the area that would be considered 'international' by this resolution would fortunately still be considered the sovereign territory of the Imperial Republic. This resolution would also make it impossible for the Imperial Republic to rejoin as a whole. The core of the Imperial Republic spans nine planetary systems. This doesn't include the several other systems that have joined the Imperial Republic over the years. We simply refuse to accept that the space between our systems would be considered international. It is our space and we will defend it. We have the right to defend it. What we would accept is a clause in there allowing for interstellar trading lanes to be established through national borders in space to allow for free trade, though the nation should have the right to inspect any cargo even if it's just passing through, while not stepping on the sovereign right for nations to define and defend their borders as they see fit.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

[The Altani Confederacy]

There is absolutely no way we would support this. The space over the Altani Confederacy is an integral part of the Confederacy, just as our territorial waters and land are. We will not relinquish sovereignty over them to anyone without a fight, legislatively or otherwise.

Sophie Fournier etc.

[Cardoness]

Two questions:
1. What about nations that span multiple systems?

Well, that is a question I thought about. This is largely based on international law of the High Seas on my home world where Cardoness is one of many sovereign States. On our world there are some island nations which control many hundreds of islands spanning thousands of km. Some of these nations felt that all the water around and between their islands was their territorial water. However, the Peace Congress (the intergovernmental diplomatic organization of our system) has ruled that territorial waters only extend for 20km. Out of courtesy, preference is given to the ships of that nation and international shipping avoids straying too close to some of the islands but the water is in fact international. The same would hold true for space. It is largely for this reason that the Cardoness delegation feels that this, or some other, resolution is need, to stop a nation or group of nations from laying claim to the whole void of space, forcing ships to traverse many light-years out of the way around or pay taxes through national "territory" when they don't even come anywhere near that nations physical territory. Any celestial bodies outside of a star system may be claimed and proper deference given to claims of surrounding space, but on a whole, space should be as open as it is open.

2. I'm a bit concerned over your definition for "celestial object" as the Nuke draft that we're currently working on doesn't use size in describing "celestial bodies".

No it doesn't (nuke proposal define celestial body), but then the point of our draft is to safeguard orbital, sub-orbital, or terresteral population and machenery from the effects of a nuclear explosion. The point of this proposal is to define what international space is and lay down some basic rules and freedoms within such space. To that end a line had to be drawn somewhere. As to the size chosen, it is small enough to include most planets, moons and very large space stations pretending to be moons, but large enough to exclude most debris, comets, asteroids, ect. Will there be some cross over? Sure, nothing fits into a neat little box. But this seemed like a good size for the intent of this resolution.

Sadly, the topic of this proposal is one of those things that is extremely difficult in NS due to the tech level difference between the different nations. Any laws on space usually has to go through a LONG debate before getting submitted or just dropped.

Yes, I knew that going in. I knew it wouldn't be right the first, second, or tenth time. Forging a new trail is never easy and one is libel to overlook things. Too many people just write the easy proposals because they want their name on the board. I understand that this will likly end in flames but I am willing to take that chance because I think international oversight is needed in an area as rich, open, and lawless as space. Space is the future of all, some have been there for a while, some are getting there now, and some have a ways to go yet, but space is the destination. I want to preserve it for it's scientific and economic values to all nations. It will still be first come first serve on the many resources space has, but at least the first one there won't be able to lay claim to the whole of space.

ADD-ON: Also, i would consider dropping the 'external markings' phrase in your definition of 'warship' since a definition like that is just an excuse for widespread piracy.

I am not overly concerned about this as there are already international laws in place to combat piracy and such a markings are only required if the "warship" or Object" wishes to be immune from searches by foreign powers.

[Cardoness]

There is absolutely no way we would support this. The space over the Altani Confederacy is an integral part of the Confederacy, just as our territorial waters and land are. We will not relinquish sovereignty over them to anyone without a fight, legislatively or otherwise.

Sophie Fournier etc.

I gather from your factbook entry that you share your home world with other sovereign states. If this is true, may I ask at what altitude your airspace ends? I am trying to get information to help craft a better proposal and if you feel a different distance is required I would welcome your suggestion.

[Ardchoille]

OK...reworked.
... while international law allows for nations to possess the waters between a group of islands, it does not allow for such possession if the distance is too far. (OCC eg. US and Hawaii, the US controls the water around Hawaii but not the water between Hawaii and the mainland. Also, some of the South Pacific island nations do not maintain full territorial control over all of their waters due to the vast distances in between.

if you're planning a comprehensive set of laws for space and basing them on maritime assumptions, it may help to check out Law of the Sea and the Repeal arguments. as well as the Maritime Safety Standards Act and the Maritime Neutrality Convention. The latter pair are by the much-missed ambassador His Excellency Sir Cyril MacLehose-Strangways-Jones KCRC LOV, of Cobdenia, who created a sound base for maritime law in the Organisation That Dare Not Speak Its Name.

Alternatively, you could consider establishing some sort of title based on usage, which would allow Rutianas, for example, to claim the areas of space they traditionally use to keep their empire together as part of their empire. That would certainly make a lot of lawyers happy arguing about what constitutes "traditional use" -- possibly some basis in the degree to which that area contributes to a nation's economy?

If the Borders proposal now in queue passs, there should be some scope for extending its committee's remit to national "borders" in space. Something as comprehensive as the proposal you seem to have in mind should be long enough in the drafting to allow for a rewrite to include that.

I think you are going down a dead end if you continue your efforts to specify a physical distance. We don't know what methods of spaceflight might at any time alter their relevance. Think about what a difference cars and planes made to concepts of distance.

[Cardoness]

Thanks for the homework. (No, really. I welcome source material to look over.)
*Lord Andreas slips a cheese wheel to the all powerful Mod*

I will look at those as well as any further ideas, watch some Star Trek and Sliders (popular SiFi shows here in Cardoness), and come back with another draft soon. Also, if there is anyone brave enough to stand up beside me against the wall and help draft this beast, I would welcome their company when facing the firing squad when the time comes.

[Libertytopia]

DEFINES
International Space as starting at twice the distance from the primary star to the aphelion of the farthest celestial object in orbit around that star in mono-jurisdictional star systems, or at 100km above the highest point on a celestial object where such objects have, or exist in star systems which have, multiple national jurisdictions;

100km above the highest point on a celestial object which is outside a star system;

Celestial object has having a mean radius of 300km or more;

For the purpose of this resolution, the term “warship” and “military space-borne object” means a ship or object belonging to the military forces of a State and bearing the external marks distinguishing its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned and manned by a crew who are under regular military discipline.
...
Every State has the right to possess space-borne objects;

Such objects have the nationality of the State which they claim to belong to, though there must be a genuine link between the State and the object; in particular, the State must effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over such object;

Objects shall be under the jurisdiction of one State only, that the State claiming ownership;

The provisions of the preceding do not prejudice the question of objects under the jurisdiction of an intergovernmental organization;

Warships or other military space-borne objects shall have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the State of ownership;

Ships or objects owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the State of ownership.

I think you could axe the whole bit defining International Space at a certain physical point (in bold and underlined), because of the excellent definitions in the lower section (in italics).

Instead you could write:
DEFINES
Space as any orbital or extra-orbital space,
International Space as any orbital or extra-orbital space that is not under the jursdiction of any State.

That way States can't just claim any planet or solar system they want, they need to actually effectively exercise their jurisdiction and control.

The parts about military vessels could be left out aswell, since the following already covers every type of vessel:
Every State has the right to possess space-borne objects
especially if you change it to something like:
Every State has the right to possess and exercise jurisdiction over space-borne objects, celestial bodies, non-celestial bodies, other celestial or non-celestial space-borne entities.

---------------------------------------
Honourable delegate of Maxtopia
Most honoured representative of the Free Peoples of Libertytopia
Proud co-author of General Assembly Resolution #115: Space Research Station Program
Proud co-author of General Assembly Resolution #xyz: Convention on Space? (pretty please?)

[Darenjo]

Two questions:
1. What about nations that span multiple systems?

Well, that is a question I thought about. This is largely based on international law of the High Seas on my home world where Cardoness is one of many sovereign States. On our world there are some island nations which control many hundreds of islands spanning thousands of km. Some of these nations felt that all the water around and between their islands was their territorial water. However, the Peace Congress (the intergovernmental diplomatic organization of our system) has ruled that territorial waters only extend for 20km. Out of courtesy, preference is given to the ships of that nation and international shipping avoids straying too close to some of the islands but the water is in fact international. The same would hold true for space. It is largely for this reason that the Cardoness delegation feels that this, or some other, resolution is need, to stop a nation or group of nations from laying claim to the whole void of space, forcing ships to traverse many light-years out of the way around or pay taxes through national "territory" when they don't even come anywhere near that nations physical territory. Any celestial bodies outside of a star system may be claimed and proper deference given to claims of surrounding space, but on a whole, space should be as open as it is open.

Just remember not everyone sees it that way. Also, most NS nations that have interstellar capabilities (Darenjo included - though we are currently in one system only) have happily skipped over the time required to develop faster-than-light tech, such as tachyon travel, among others.

2. I'm a bit concerned over your definition for "celestial object" as the Nuke draft that we're currently working on doesn't use size in describing "celestial bodies".

No it doesn't (nuke proposal define celestial body), but then the point of our draft is to safeguard orbital, sub-orbital, or terresteral population and machenery from the effects of a nuclear explosion. The point of this proposal is to define what international space is and lay down some basic rules and freedoms within such space. To that end a line had to be drawn somewhere. As to the size chosen, it is small enough to include most planets, moons and very large space stations pretending to be moons, but large enough to exclude most debris, comets, asteroids, ect. Will there be some cross over? Sure, nothing fits into a neat little box. But this seemed like a good size for the intent of this resolution.

Yeah, our proposal doesn't define 'celestial body'. However, I didn't see 'celestial body' as having a size limit. That'll likely piss off some people in NS whose nations are inhabited by very small creatures.

Sadly, the topic of this proposal is one of those things that is extremely difficult in NS due to the tech level difference between the different nations. Any laws on space usually has to go through a LONG debate before getting submitted or just dropped.

Yes, I knew that going in. I knew it wouldn't be right the first, second, or tenth time. Forging a new trail is never easy and one is libel to overlook things. Too many people just write the easy proposals because they want their name on the board. I understand that this will likly end in flames but I am willing to take that chance because I think international oversight is needed in an area as rich, open, and lawless as space. Space is the future of all, some have been there for a while, some are getting there now, and some have a ways to go yet, but space is the destination. I want to preserve it for it's scientific and economic values to all nations. It will still be first come first serve on the many resources space has, but at least the first one there won't be able to lay claim to the whole of space.

An admirable quest. However, the WA hasn't exactly been the best place to do such things. I want to see a comprehensive space policy, but many others don't. Expect help from me (and others) and a long road ahead.

ADD-ON: Also, i would consider dropping the 'external markings' phrase in your definition of 'warship' since a definition like that is just an excuse for widespread piracy.

I am not overly concerned about this as there are already international laws in place to combat piracy and such a markings are only required if the "warship" or Object" wishes to be immune from searches by foreign powers.

Again - you'll run into the tech-level difference problem here. Some nations have decided to not be able to track faster-than-light ships (probably trying to realistic, but being realistic in NS doesn't get you very far) or intercept them. I understand your position, and hope it can be worked out. Stuff like this is getting into the grey area between WA stuff and stuff to do with the working of NS itself.

[Cardoness]

I am still reviewing some stuff and talking to a couple of other ambassadors but I wanted to touch on a couple of these.

Just remember not everyone sees it that way. Also, most NS nations that have interstellar capabilities (Darenjo included - though we are currently in one system only) have happily skipped over the time required to develop faster-than-light tech, such as tachyon travel, among others.

Yeah this is one of the things I am working on. I need to find language broad enough to apply to every tech level yet still have teeth.

Yeah, our proposal doesn't define 'celestial body'. However, I didn't see 'celestial body' as having a size limit. That'll likely piss off some people in NS whose nations are inhabited by very small creatures.

How does the size of the inhabitants factor in? Unless you mean that they are very small and their planet is also very small? I don't think an asteroid 10 meters across should have a massive amount of "territorial space" surrounding it. Granted I am still thinking along the lines of an actual distance (while I have no problem thinking in 10 dimensions putting a definition down on "paper" in which International Space exist in such is a little difficult.). I may yet amend my thinking on this matter but even at that, you don't necessarily want fist sized chunk of rock to be in the same category as a planet. Maybe a "zone of influence" proportional to the size of the object, could be used. I'll think on that.

The parts about military vessels could be left out aswell, since the following already covers every type of vessel:
Every State has the right to possess space-borne objects

Military and government "ships" are excluded from the right to search which other nations would possess. A clause is needed to protect them, at least for now.