Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS)

Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) is a long-running effort at the United Nations to stop countries from competing to put weapons in space or to build weapons that attack satellites. The idea is to stop a space arms race before it fully begins, rather than trying to control it later. PAROS is discussed every year at the UN General Assembly and at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

Its central question is: should countries sign a new, legally binding treaty, or agree on voluntary rules of good behaviour?

Why does it exist?

Modern life depends on satellites: mobile phones, GPS, weather forecasts, banking, television and military communication all use them. A war in space could knock these out for everyone. Destroying a satellite also creates thousands of pieces of space debris that keep flying at very high speed and can hit other satellites for years. The Outer Space Treaty, 1967 bans only nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in space.

It does not clearly ban ordinary weapons in orbit or missiles fired from the ground at satellites. PAROS tries to fill this gap.

Where did it come from?

• 1981: The Soviet Union asked the UN General Assembly to take up the issue and proposed a draft treaty banning weapons in space. From then on, the General Assembly has adopted a PAROS resolution almost every year, with near-unanimous support.
• 1985 to 1994: The Conference on Disarmament ran an Ad Hoc Committee on PAROS. It discussed the issue for ten years but did not start negotiating a treaty, mainly because of opposition from Western countries, led by the US. The committee was not renewed after 1994.
• 2008: China and Russia presented a draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT). They updated it in 2014. The US and its allies rejected it. They said it could not be verified and did not cover ground-based anti-satellite missiles.
• 2018–2019: A UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) of 25 countries discussed what a legally binding PAROS treaty could contain, but it could not agree on a final report.
• 2022–2023: An Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on reducing space threats through norms of "responsible behaviour" met, an approach backed mainly by Western countries. It also ended without a consensus report.
• December 2022: The General Assembly adopted Resolution 77/41, calling on countries not to carry out destructive direct-ascent anti-satellite (DA-ASAT) missile tests. It passed with 155 votes in favour, 9 against and 9 abstentions. India abstained.
• April 2024: In the UN Security Council, a draft resolution by Japan and the US against placing nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in space was vetoed by Russia.
• August 2024: A second GGE on PAROS (2023–2024) adopted a consensus report, the first such agreed report on PAROS in decades.
• 2025 onwards: A new OEWG on PAROS "in all its aspects", set up by the General Assembly in 2024, began work. It brings both approaches, binding treaty and voluntary norms, into one discussion, with sessions planned up to 2028.

How does it work? The two approaches

The PAROS debate is like a dispute over how to keep a playground safe:

1. Legally binding approach (a treaty): Write a new law that clearly bans certain weapons or actions, with a way to check that countries obey. This is preferred by China, Russia, many developing countries, and India.
2. Norms-based approach (rules of good behaviour): Agree on voluntary rules, such as not carrying out destructive ASAT tests and giving advance notice of risky manoeuvres. Supporters, mainly the US and European countries, say this is faster and more practical, because defining a "space weapon" is very hard.

Transparency and confidence-building measures (TCBMs) sit in between. These are voluntary steps like sharing information about launches, space policies and satellite positions, so that countries do not misread each other's actions. A 2013 UN expert group report recommended such measures.

Why is a treaty so hard?

There are three big problems:

• Definition: Almost any satellite that can move close to another could be used to damage it. Even a satellite-servicing robot could, in theory, be a weapon. So it is hard to define what to ban.
• Verification: Checking what a satellite really does is very difficult. A country cannot easily open up and inspect another's satellite.
• Dual use: Many space technologies serve both civilian and military needs. The same rocket that launches a weather satellite can carry a military one.

The forums involved

• UN General Assembly First Committee: One of the six main committees of the UNGA. It deals with disarmament and international security and adopts the yearly PAROS resolutions.
• Conference on Disarmament (CD): Based in Geneva, with 65 member countries, including India. It is the world's single multilateral forum for negotiating disarmament treaties. Its roots lie in the UN's first special session on disarmament in 1978, and it took its present name in 1984. It works by consensus, meaning every member must agree. This allows any single country to block work, and the CD has negotiated no new treaty since the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) text in 1996.
• COPUOS (Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space): Deals with peaceful uses of space and space law, not weapons. It has produced guidelines on the long-term sustainability of space activities.

India's position and Indian examples

• India supports a legally binding instrument on PAROS that is universally acceptable, verifiable and negotiated multilaterally at the Conference on Disarmament.
• India is open to non-binding norms and TCBMs, but says they must complement, not substitute, a binding treaty.
• India says all threats (to safety, security and sustainability of space), the risk of misunderstanding, and the question of what counts as "use of force" in space must be considered together, not selectively.
• As a developing country, India insists that any new rules must not stop the sharing of space science and technology for peaceful purposes.
• India has shown ASAT capability through Mission Shakti (2019) and abstained on the 2022 DA-ASAT test resolution. India's view is that it supports a binding treaty in the right forum, rather than one-off political pledges.

Commonly confused concepts

• PAROS vs Outer Space Treaty: The OST (1967) is an existing binding treaty that bans weapons of mass destruction in space. PAROS is an agenda item and an ongoing effort to prevent all kinds of arms races in space. No PAROS treaty exists yet.
• PAROS vs PPWT: PAROS is the broad goal discussed at the UN. The PPWT is one specific draft treaty proposed by China and Russia to achieve it.
• Conference on Disarmament vs UNGA First Committee: The CD in Geneva is where treaties are meant to be negotiated. The First Committee in New York debates and adopts resolutions, which are not binding.
• Legally binding instrument vs TCBMs: A legally binding instrument (a treaty) creates legal duties. TCBMs are voluntary steps to build trust and do not create legal duties.
• GGE vs OEWG: A Group of Governmental Experts has a small, fixed number of members chosen by the UN Secretary-General. An Open-Ended Working Group is open to all UN member states.

Issues, criticism and the way forward

• Deadlock at the CD: The consensus rule lets any one country block negotiations, so the CD has been stuck for decades.
• Great-power rivalry: The US, China and Russia distrust each other. Each sees the other's proposals as designed to protect its own advantages.
• Counterspace weapons are growing: Several countries are building tools to jam, blind or hack satellites, and military "space commands" have been set up. Such non-physical attacks are hard to cover in any treaty.
• Debris danger: Destructive ASAT tests create debris that harms everyone, including the country that carried out the test.
• Way forward: Many experts suggest a step-by-step path. First, agree on common definitions and voluntary norms (such as no destructive ASAT tests). Then build trust through TCBMs. Finally, negotiate a binding treaty with workable verification. The 2024 consensus GGE report and the new OEWG are seen as useful starting points.

Concepts to Know

• Arms race: A competition between countries to build more and better weapons than each other, which often makes everyone less safe.
• Legally binding instrument: A treaty or agreement that creates legal duties; breaking it is a violation of international law.
• Verification: Ways to check whether countries are actually following an agreement, such as inspections or monitoring.
• Dual-use technology: Technology that can serve both peaceful and military purposes, for example a satellite that provides both weather data and military imagery.
• Direct-ascent anti-satellite (DA-ASAT) missile: A missile fired from Earth that rises straight up to hit and destroy a satellite.
• Space debris: Broken pieces of old satellites, rockets and destroyed objects that keep orbiting Earth and can damage working satellites.
• Consensus: A decision rule where everyone must agree; even one objection blocks the decision.