NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 

DIRECTOR, SPECIAL PROJECTS 

Air Force Unit Post Office, Los Angeles 45, Colifornia 

mmANDum 

°;, 

.( 

aaz "zv 

leA 

7.0z p44 

j4 

JOHN I. MARTIN, 

Brig Gen_ URA IX 

tl 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

■ 22 October 

MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL MARTIN 

m 

011111.111■111101■1 

41•1•11■11•1111.■ 

•••••■••••••111=.1 

1011.1141••••■•■••■•■ 

010•01.11•10101MONOM 

■■•••1101..1■Mi 

.1011110.101■111•Milli 

••■••■•■•••••■ 

11=.1•10.1.11.•■••■ft 

1111.011111.1■•••••••■ 

Ilall.M.111■••■■••■•• 

.111111.1=1■0•110.* 

.11•11110•1111 11 

NO1.1•1011.1■■•••■■ 

••;;;;;;MINIISMI - ■■• 

.11• . ■■■••■•111. 

■••••■••••••11■1 

SUBJECT: Fall 1965 Meeting of the Legal Subcommittee of the UN 

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 

I. Attached is my report of subject meeting. 

Z. Ie. .,:•,;,'.bstance, I express concern over language proposed by the 

Soviet Bloc in their Assistance and Return and Liability drafts. I 

point cut that the proposed language as interpreted by the Bloc would 

be to elace the US military use of outer space in the category of 

unauthorized or unlawful. 

3. I recommend that DOD hold fast against any State Department 

proposal to agree to the language. 

4. Not mentioned in the report is a sort of "seat of the pants" reaction 

on my part that the whole US.military program in space is under a 

cloud. You will recall Colonel General V. F. Tolubko's article 

attacking MOL, and I believe you noted that eeith the NASA/DOD split 

in space responsibilities DOD activities are set apart as a convenient 

target for those in the world who object to the use of outer space for 

military purposes. I think you will be interested n the Bloc comments 

on space espionage and military use summarized on pages 5 and 6 of 

the report. I have an uneasy feeling that Russia might muster the 

support to make an embarrassing attack - at least - on satellite reconnaissance in the UN. Part of my uneasiness is that I am not confident 

in the support we would receive from State or N'.SA and I fear that we 

may I:41d ourselves having agreed to outlaw the use of space for 

reconnaissance purposes. Perhaps my fears are unjustified; I am. 

not privy to the views of the higher levels involved in the NRO and 

cannot assess their resolve. 

F. NED HAND 

Colonel, USAF 

DOD Representative to the US Delegation to Legal Subcommittee 

of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 
.18 P 

•S*106 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

HEADQUARTERS 

SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION 

AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

105 ANGELES AIR FORCE STATION 

Air ForceUnit Post Office, Los Angeles, California 90045 

REPLY TO , 

ATTN OF: i.3.41 22 Oct 1965 

SUBJECT : (U) Report on Meeting of Legal Subcommittee of the U.N. Committee 

on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, New Ycirk, 18 Sep - 1 Oct 1965 

Policy: Space Law 

TO: Col Marshall Sanders Policy: 18 Points 

©SD ISA Policy: Peaceful Uses 

1. .-(-&). Subject meeting resulted in no accomplishments insofar as 

the agenda items of Liability and Assistance and Return (A&R) were 

concerned. There were, however, developments which in my 

opinion have serious implications for the DOD and its missions. 

These center about the language in the Russian draft on A&R that 

the obligation to search for space objects and to return astronauts 

and space objects be conditional upon the launch's having been 

"in accordance with the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing 

the Activities of States on the Exploration and Use of Outer Space" 

and the language in the Hungarian draft on Liability establishing 

a higher standard of liability "if the damage occurred while exercising an unlawful activity in outer space, or the space vehicle 

or object was launched for unlawful purposes, or if the damage 

has otherwise resulted from an unlawful activity." These provisions are at first blush rather innocuous; to understand their 

importance it is necessary to look into their evolution and the 

interpretations that these terms are given in certain quarters. 

2. (U) In 1962 the bloc position was indicated by the following 

language in the Russian draft on Basic Principles Governing the 

Use of Outer Space: 

"8. The use of artificial satellites for the collection of 

intelligence information in the territory of foreign States is 

incompatible with the objectivesof mankind in its conquest 

of outer space." (A/AC.105/C .2/L. l) 

During the meeting of the Legal Subcommittee in April-May 1963, the 

Russian's continued to use this position except that the paragraph in 

question simply had moved to number 9 in their draft. (Annex I, 

A./AC.105/12) In this meeting the Russians also male the same 

r. 5260.10 44/ 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

point in Article 7 of their draft on A&R: 

"Space vehicles aboard which devices have been discovered 

for the collection of intelligence information in the territory of 

another State shall not be returned. (Annex I, A/AC.105/12) 

Intertwined in this problem was the position of the neutrals illustrated 

by the UAR draft for international cooperation in the peaceful uses 

of outer space also considered at April-May 1963 meeting of the 

Subcommittee. It provides: 

1. The activities of Member States in Outer Space 

should be confined solely to the peaceful uses." (Annex I, 

A/AC .105/12) 

3. (U) However, at the XVIII meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, 

a compromise resolution (Number 1962) was unanimously passed under 

date of 13 Dec 1963 entitled, "Declaration of Legal Principles 

Governing the Activites of States in the Exploration and Use of 

Outer Space " It is this Resolution to which the present Russian 

draft refers in proposing conditions in the obligation to return 

astronauts and to search for and return space objects. 

4. (U) Resolution 1962 was a compromise resolution and, while in 

accepting it the Russians and other bloc countries gave up the specific language outlawing espionage by satellite, subsequent meetings 

of the Legal Subcommittee indicate that the bloc maintains its 

original position, now relying on the general language in Resolution 

1962. They point in particular to the following language in the 

Resolution: 

"1. The exploration and use of outer space shall be car 

rid on for the benefit and in the interests of all mankind." 

"4. The activities of States in the exploration and use of 

outer space shall be carried on in accordance with international 

Law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest 

of maintaining international peace and security and promoting 

international co-operation and understanding." 

2 SIM 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

5. (U) After the adoption of Resolution 1962 in December 1963, the 

Legal Subcommittee met in Geneva during March 1964. Of interest 

were the changes in the drafts of the bloc. The USSR draft on A&R 

(A/AC .105/C. 2/L. 2/Rev. 1) provided with respect to the return of 

space objects that they should be "returned without delay, together 

with the equipment they contain, to the States which launched them for 

purposes of peaceful exploration and use of outer space,. . . ." On 

Liability the Hungarian draft (A/AC .105/C. 2/L. 10) provided: 

"Article IV - The State shall assume full liability for 

damage caused. . . if the State is exercising an unlawful 

activity in outer space or the space vehicle or object has 

been launched for unlawful purposes. " 

6. (U) At the October 1964 meeting of the Legal Subcommittee in 

New York the paragraphs in question took on the following form: 

a. USSR draft on A&R (A/AC.105/C. 2/L,2/Rev.2) 

Art I 

"(2) Each Contracting State shall foster international 

cooperation in the conducting of operations to find and 

salvage space objects Launched in accordance with the 

Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities 

of Staie.s in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space." 

i.rt 5: 

"Each Contracting State shall do its utmost for the 

earliest possible return to their own country of the crew 

of a spaceship which was launched in accordance with 

the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the 

Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer 

Space and Which has met with an accident, been in 

distress or made an emergency landing in its territory 

or which it has rescued e lsewhere ." 

Art 6: 

(Z) Each Contracting State shall, at the request of the 

3 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

State which officially announced the launching thereof, 

return to that State foreign spaceships, satellites, and 

capsules launched in accordance with the Declaration 

of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States 

in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, together 

with the equipment they contain, or parts of any such 

objects, discovered in its territory or found by it 

elsewhere." 

b. There was no change in the Hungarian draft on Liability over 

the one submitted in Geneva. 

7. (U) At the September 1965 meeting in New York, the Russians 

continued to advance their October 1964 draft and the Hungarians presented a revised draft on Liability (A/AC.105/C .2/L.10/Rev.1) containing a rewrite of the farmer .Art IV to read: 

"Art V - The State shall assume liability for damage caused 

on the ground, in the atmosphere or in outer space, if the damage 

occurred while exercising an unlawful activity in outer space 

or the space vehicle or object was launched for unlawful purposes, 

or if the damage has otherwise resulted from an unlawful activity. 

In such cases, the State liable shall be barred from any exoneration whatsoever 

8. (U) While at Geneva, Russia and the United States presented a 

united front that the ouestion of the illegal use of outer space was more 

properly a matter for the pending disarmament negotiations. The 

real problem of interest to the DOD in Geneva was the move of certain 

neutrals, notably India, to limit, the use of space for peaceful purposes 

only or as they define it, nonmilitarynse. See my letter (Secret) to 

you of 16 .Apr 1964 reporting on the Geneva meeting. Of interest is 

that while the bloc at Geneva concurred with the United States that the 

"peaceful uses only" question might better go to the disarmament forum, 

they still made it. clear that they were unalterably opposed to espionage 

from space. The October 1964 meeting in New York was relatively 

quiet on this point because the Russians were making a real effort to 

reach an agreement on an Assistance and Return convention. 

9. (U) In subject New York 18 Sep to 1 Oct 1965 meeting, the U. S. 

position on the USSR conditional language was that the commitments in 

MIN 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

G.A. Resolution 1962 to return astronauts were unconditional. Further, that it would be improper to agree to any standards subjective 

in character that could be applied or not in the arbitrary opinion of one 

of the contracting parties. The U.S. position re the restrictive 

language in the Hungarian draft on Liability was that this was an 

unnecessary qualification because in the U. S. draft the proposal was 

that liability be assumed for all uses of outer space and that it would 

be improper to make exceptions. 

a. (U) Bloc comments in this fall 1965 meeting pertinent to this 

discussion were: 

(1) USSR: That they attached great importance to the 

"launched in accordance with the Declaration of Legal Principles 

Governing the .Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer 

Space" limitation. That it would not be proper to provide for return 

when return would be of crews who had been performing acts inimical 

to the interests of the returning State. 

(2) Romania: That this limitation is a basic principle and 

there was surprise at the objections. The launchings that are to be 

protected are those made in accordance with the Declaration. Why 

should we protect launchings contrary to the Declaration which provides in Art 1 that launches are for the benefit of mankind and in Art 4 

that activities in outer space are to be carried out in accordance with 

international law. 

(3) USSR: Would they be expected to return a bomb in a 

"silver platter" to a launching State? They would refrain from commenting on world events (presumed to be referring to 1VIOL among other 

things) in interest of securing agreement here. There had been a 

great series of alarming world events, but perhaps it would be better 

to discuss them in the First Committee or in connection with disarmament. 

(4) USER: Believe there should be limitations on responsibility for space objects; no obligation can be assumed for objects 

Paunched contrary to the Declaration. The Western proposal to 

remove these limitations is at variance with USSR wishes. If we want 

agreement, we must bear in mind realities and what is happening on 

earth and in outer space. 

5 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

(5) Hungary: The statement in the Declaration in para. 9 

that "States shall regard astronauts as envoys of mankind in outer 

space, and shall render to them all possible assistance in the event 

of accident, etc., means that the astronauts are entitled to 

immunities of envoys generally, above and outside jurisdiction of 

recovering states. But this is true only when the astronauts are 

engaged in peaceful activities in outer space. If the astronauts are 

not engaged in peaceful purposes -- nowadays not imagination -- then 

the rule is quite different. If for other than peaceful purposes, then 

the astronauts are nothing more than soldiers or spies. Logic 

requires that we limit our obligation to return to cases where the 

launch was in accordance with the Declaration. The USSR draft 

magnanimously contemplates rescue of astronauts regardless of 

mission, but magnanimity cannot be extended beyond first aid or 

assistance, cannot be extended to return. 

(6) USSR: The Declaration refers only to peaceful uses and 

they consider that its obligations do not relate to other than peaceful 

uses. The term "astronauts" in the Declaration does not include 

those in outer space with goals hostile to other Etates. The prohibition of outer space for military purposes is beyond this Subcommittee 

and for consideration of Committee of Eighteen, First Committee, 

General Assembly, or disarmament negotiations. 

(7) Hungary: The Declaration must be interpreted in the 

light of international law. Under general international law if a hostile 

soldier finds himself in the custody of the enemy State, he must face 

the consequences. There are signs of new military developments in 

space and giving preferential treatment to astronauts could be detrimental. Might be a very delicate question if a distressed astronaut 

were an envoy or a punishable spy. The Declaration did not change 

the characteristics of a spy. 

(8) :Bulgaria: The convention is for peaceful purposes only. 

Can't there be some provision to regulate unlawful uses of outer space? 

b. (U) There were some interesting comments from neutrals: 

(1) Mexico: Convention is not to apply to military activities, 

although there are some military activities devoted to peaceful purposes. The General Assembly did not ask us to draft a convention 

applicable to nonpeace.ful uses. 

6 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

(2) India: Obligations of States under the convention should 

be limited to those arising from peaceful purposes only. 

W. -44- The USSR a.rgument could perhaps be summed up by saying 

that military uses of and particularly espionage from outer space are 

beyond the purview of the seteR and Liability negotiations. I believe 

it would be comparatively easy to secure agreement if we were to 

agree to the proposed exceptions. However, if we were to do so, it 

could be argued that we were admitting that military activities and 

observation from outer space are illegal. The proposed USSR 

exception in the A&R draft limits the application of the convention to 

activities conducted in accordance with the Declaration; thus the 

Language divides space activities into those within and those without 

the Declaration. The Declaration provides for all practical purposes 

the color of international legal authority for overflights by space objects; 

It is the exception to the general rule of national sovereignty in the space 

above national territory. By agreeing to such an exception, we agree 

that there are space flights not permitted by the U.N. Resolution. Knowing the interpretation given by the bloc, we come close to agreeing t hat 

the legality of our military use of outer space is an open question. Thus, 

we are back to where we were prior to the Declaration when USSR was 

proposing that espionage from outer space be outlawed. 

11. .+64- This maneuver of the bloc has put the U.S. in an embarrassing 

position. By the play on words, the U.S. is in the posture of being 

against discouraging sin. By objecting to the Limiting reference to the 

Declaration, we almost admit that we are conducting activities in outer 

space that are not in accordance with the Declaration. Our objections 

are somewhat lame because to "the peaceful uses onlyintaninititary use" 

group, we are taking a stand that space should be used for military 

purposes and to the anti-esponage group, we are arguing our right to 

peek. Neither is a popular position in a U.N. forum and both tend to 

mar our image as a leader for peace in a troubled world. 

12. --H.-Significantly, Ambassador Goldberg in his maiden U.N. 

speech before the General Assembly stressed the peaceful uses of outer 

space, and Mr. H. Rowan Gaither, member of the U.S. delegation to 

the Legal Subcommittee, commented in the closing clays of our September 

1965 meeting that we would have to do something about the restrictive 

reference to the Declaration. 

7 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

22 June 2015 

13. The State Department apparently has strong desires to accomplish agreement, and there is a strong temptation to accept the limiting 

language relying on our own interpretation and disregarding or minimizing the interpretation of the opposition. I do not think this would be 

wise. An agreement using language the meaning of which is controversial 

between the parties to the agreement is not an agreement. I believe 

there is a real danger that the bloc, the neutrals, and the many new 

nations of the world might unite to overwhelmingly pass a U.N. resolution 

barring the use of outer space for observation satellites. Russia might 

resist the ban on military uses, but would lead the attack on observation 

satellites. 'The nonmilitary use group would probably join in the attack 

on observation satellites considering that this was a partial success. It 

is recognized that this danger exists even now without our agreeing to the 

use of the language in question. However. I believe our position can be 

weakened by agreeing to any language susceptible to interpretation contrary to our interests and in this case we know that the language in 

question is being given that type of interpretation. 

14. -(1").- I recommend that the DOD position be: 

a. Insist that U.N. Resolutions 1721 and 1962 gave the U.S. freedom 

of outer space including the right to fly observation satellites and use 

outer space for nonaggressive military purposes. 

b. Resist any new agreements or other U. S. commitments or 

statements of policy that use language that can be interpreted as something less than the unalterable right of the U.S. to use outer space in 

ac:cordance with its concept of freedom of outer space. In particular 

DOD must resist any move on the part of State and NASA to concede in 

this limiting language in accordance with the Declaration of'Legal 

Principles Governing the nctivities of States on the Exploration and 

Use of Outer Space." It will be recalled What the Communists did to 

the word "democracy;" they are doing the same thing to this reference 

to the Declaration. I do not believe we can afford to base any agreement on language that has been as effectively twisted in meaning by the 

Communists as this phrase has. 

F NED HAND, CoLone,l, USAF 

Staff Judge .Advocate 

8