Revisiting U.S – China Aggressive Use of Outer Space: A Comprehensive International Law Outlook Towards Military Activities in Outer Space

Outer Space, as the area on which freedom of use is guaranteed by the Treaty, creates a condition in which nations conduct their military activities. These activities however, were only limited to those conducted using nuclear weapons and/or containing nuclear materials. The principle of Peaceful Uses of Outer Space has been proven inadequate to regulate these activities. This has resulted to launches of weapons to Outer Space to destroy satellites, as conducted by the United States and China. These launches, whatever the purposes are, may cause hazardous repercussion to other State’s activity in Outer Space. This article will comprehensively elaborate on related International Law and other measures which regulate military activities in Outer Space, especially on the launch of non-nuclear weaponry under any purposes. From these analyses, we can conclude that however inadequate the Outer Space Treaty article’s stipulation in the matter, there are other stipulations of international law that we can gather that regulates military activity in Outer Space.


I. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, the Outer Space is becoming more accessible to any State. Its utilization has become a backbone to human life. From communication to navigation, human activities, inevitably, has become more and more dependent upon space assets. This too applies to various military of States, for it has already been known that at first, the development of space technology was pioneered by military advancements. 1 These advancements, according to militarist were and still are required to achieve a "higher ground", which in this case, in Outer Space. 2 Efforts on regulating military space activities has been going from the beginning, as, in the words of Manfred Lachs, due to the hazardous level of conducting activities in Outer Space, it must be only accessible to activities conducted for peaceful purposes only. 3 Military activities in Outer Space, has also guaranteed its freedom of use under the Outer Space Treaty, which stipulates that: 4 "Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.

There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international cooperation in such investigation."
Through such elaborations, we can clearly see that military activities, can be conducted in Outer Space. There are several problems that arises from the freedom of use of Outer Space, particularly by the military of States. Firstly, to what extent that a State may exercise these freedoms militarily. Secondly, are there any regulations, protecting other State interests or any regulations regulating any military conduct in Outer Space. We can start dissecting these two problems by exploring generally, on the "rules of conduct" of the activities of States in Outer Space, in relation to military activities.

A. OUTER SPACE TREATY 1967
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, have stipulations that may be applied in the matter of military activities in Outer Space. Those stipulations are: The rule of peaceful purposes was stated in Article IV which stipulated that: 5 "State Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any object carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapon on celestial bodies, or station such weapon in outer space in any other manner.

The Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes
The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all State Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any types of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited." The rules on Article IV, reflects the intention of the treaty makers to keep the Outer Space out of the reach of the military of States. This is a safeguard that keeps Outer Space away from a global arms race. At the beginning, the common understanding of peaceful purposes rule under the Outer Space Treaty is that Outer Space, must be free from any military activities. 6 This understanding came from other treaty that forms the basis of peaceful purposes, the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, which stipulated that peaceful purposes means prohibiting the entire spectrum of military activities. 7 A question may arise on why does the Antarctic Treaty relevant in explaining the peaceful purposes stipulation under the Outer Space Treaty, considering that both, territorially, a different regime. In the early days of creating an Outer Space Law, it was understood that to fill a legal vacuum overshadowing the meaning of peaceful purposes, the "Antarctic Analogy" may be used. 8 This use of analogy is supported by various experts, including but not limited to, Jessup and Taubenfeld, whom have used the Antarctic analogy, as a basis to shape the meaning of peaceful purposes in international law generally and Outer Space Law specifically, on a basis that practices conducted in Antarctica is closely related to Outer Space, territorially. 9 This expert analogy is based on the approach that both Antarctica and Outer Space can be categorized as res communis 10 , or a common area that does not belong to any State's jurisdiction. 11 It has also been shown that in one of the early United Nations General Assembly Resolutions, Outer Space was considered as an area of a common heritage of mankind, and this is also why that activities in Outer Space must be conducted for peaceful purposes only, under the understanding of peaceful purposes mentioned above. 12 The "demilitarizing" approach of defining peaceful purposes by the Antarctic Treaty was more focused on the issue of armaments, and it is also another reason why it was used as an analogy to explain what does peaceful purposes means. 13 This definition of peaceful purposes however, is not well accepted in state practice. United States as one of the State Party to the Outer Space Treaty was, and always is, in its practice on Outer Space, define peaceful purposes as not conducting military activity that is aggressive in nature. 14 The Aggressive nature in military activities on Outer Space should be restricted, not prohibited. This is currently shown in the 8 Philip de Man, Exclusive use  Based on the mentioned statement in the U.S. National Space Policy we can conclude that in principle, United States consider peaceful purposes in the meaning of a restrictive "non-aggressive" nature of its military activity in Outer Space. This consideration and understanding has also been implied in various U.S. space law experts, such as Edward Finch. He argues that the stipulation under Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty already suggested that "non-military" approach is not possible, since the article has stipulated that military personnel are authorized "for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes". 16 In practice, most States also consider that the meaning of peaceful purposes stipulation under Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty towards military activity is that it should be able to be conducted, but not aggressively. 17 Other experts have suggested that Article IV must only used in order to protect space from aggressive military activity, partially. 18 Tronchetti suggested that this "partial demilitarization" understanding emerges, because Article IV only clearly stipulated that weapons that should not be discharged in Outer Space are nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction.

Conducting Activities that Caused Harmful Contamination
Besides the peaceful purposes stipulation, other stipulation under the Outer Space Treaty that may be related to our exposition is the stipulation under Article IX, which stated that: 20 "In the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, States Parties to the Treaty shall be guided by the principle of cooperation and mutual assistance and shall conduct all their activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty. States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose. If a State Party to the Treaty has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities of other States Parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, it shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with any such activity or experiment.
A State Party to the Treaty which has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by another State Party in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, may request consultation concerning the activity or experiment." The stipulation under Article IX, suggested that activities of other States in Outer Space, shall not cause any harmful contamination. 21 However, this article does not clearly state on what is harmful contamination, and it does not provide a clear standard or regulation on how harmful contamination must be acted upon, or any sanctions for States that is responsible in causing such contamination. 22 To understand the concept of harmful contamination or harmful interference, one must discern several kinds of harmful contamination. Firstly, there is physical contamination or interference, and secondly, there is non-physical contamination or interference. 23 Physical contamination or interference may be caused by the use of projectile weapons in Outer Space, such as a conventional missile or a directed energy weapon, even a satellite which has its own orbit to impact other space objects. 24 Non-physical contamination or interference is contamination or interference that is caused by non-physical activities, such as jamming, hacking, or spoofing that resulted in a non-physical, non-permanent damage to space objects. 25 Those understanding were also supported by various experts. Kolossov argued that harmful contamination or interference is caused by a more physical contamination or interference in nature, that will contaminate Outer Space with debris, and may interfere with other State's activities in Outer Space. 26 While Schmitt argued that contamination or interference are not only those which are in nature physical, but also includes interference in imaging, remote sensing or surveillance via satellite by "blinding" it. 27 To explain further about harmful contamination, one must perceive beyond the perspective of existing international space law stipulations by exploring it from another perspective instead, such as international treaties or other international law sources.

III. MILITARY ACTIVITY UNDER OTHER INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
After exploring the stipulations under the Outer Space Treaty which is closely related to military activity in Outer Space, we are now going 22 Ibid. 23 Samuel Black, "No Harmful Interference with Space Objects: The Key to Confidence Building", Stimson Center Report, 69 (2008), p. 5. 24 Ibid. to explore other stipulations under other international law sources, specifically treaties, to comprehensively "catalogue" articles stipulating military activities.

The United Nations Charter
The United Nations Charter is widely known as the primary source of international law that encompasses many activities. One of which, is military activity. The United Nations Charter does not directly stipulate military activity in outer space, but there are some military activities that is stipulated under The Charter.
First stipulation regulates the issue of threat or use of force. The United Nations Charter stipulated this issue under Article 2 Paragraph (4), which says that: 28

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
The article regulates that every nation must refrain from threat or use of force. 29 However, threat or use of force may be justified under the pretense of self-defense. 30 Self-defense itself is an inherent right of all states to defend itself from any attack or aggression from other states. 31 This inherent right is protected under Article 51 of The Charter, which stipulated that: 32 any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

"Nothing in this present Charter shall impair the inherent right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
In regards to the matter of military measures or activity as an exercise of self-defense, there are several kinds of self-defense that needed to be explained. The first is anticipatory self-defense, an act of self-defense by the state which is caused when a state believes that there is a present and imminent threat, even if an attack was not present. 33 In military activity on Outer Space, this kind of self-defense can be seen in surveillance and/or reconnaissance activities, mainly to activities that is not hostile or aggressive in nature. 34 In short, anticipatory self-defense is the kind of self-defense that responds to the presence of threat, not as retaliation to use of force. 35 The other type of self-defense is preemptive self-defense. This type of self-defense is a unilateral decision of any state that act as a precaution to supposed threat which is not imminent. 36 This type of self-defense is the most dangerous of all since it does not need any consent of international authority, or any events that may make a state consider that there is a threat to them and makes it a dangerous type of self-defense. 37 In the context of military activity in Outer Space, this type of self-defense is closely related to the development and testing of conventional space weapons, such as anti-satellite weaponry. Both of these types of self-defense must be conducted in the principles of proportionality and necessity.

Convention on the Military and Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Technique
Another international convention as a source to look at regulations on military activity is the Convention on the Military and Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. This present convention under Article 1 stipulated that it prohibits any nations to do military activities that may cause change and/or modification to the environment or manipulate natural condition of a territory, including the Outer Space. 39 In the context of aggressive military activity in Outer Space, this convention prohibits the change of natural conditions of Outer Space, especially when a state uses its anti-satellite weaponry to shoot down satellites, even if it is its own satellite, because it may cause debris that may alter the natural condition of space. 40

Military Activities Regulated under Disarmament Related
Treaties Lastly, we must see regulations related to disarmament and arms limitation that may shed some light on military activity. First off, there is the Limited Test Ban Treaty. This treaty prohibits nuclear weapon testing, including the Outer Space, before the presence of the Outer Space Treaty. 41  Second treaty worth mentioning is the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty or the ABM Treaty. This treaty was a bilateral effort between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War which intention is to end the making and testing of anti-ballistic missiles. 44 This treaty is closely related to aggressive activity of military in Outer Space as antisatellite weaponry is mostly developed from an anti-ballistic missile. This treaty prevents arms race in Outer Space for decades, before the United States had decided to withdraw itself from the treaty in 2001. 45 Even though this treaty is currently terminated, it had already set a basis of military activities in Outer Space.

IV. STATE PRACTICES
After exploring the possible regulations for military activity in Outer Space, we are now going to examine States activities, especially its military, in Outer Space. We are going to focus our discussion, to those conducted by the United States and China.

A. UNITED STATES PRACTICES
The United States is the foremost actor in the utilization of Outer Space for its military. This happens because the United States considered that Outer Space has a distinct advantage that might be useful during conflicts and peacetime, such as unlimited access to survey every region on Earth, and advantages of coverage, since military assets placed in Outer Space can cover a wider area than those placed on the Surface of the Earth. 46 The United States considered that it is important to have military measures to deter and prevent threat, in a form of selfdefense, by having space weaponry. 47 This attitude can be seen from the U.S. Space Acquisition Policy of 2004 in which the United States, stated that it must have some kind of a weapon system which status is blurred between a mean of deterrence and a form of self-defense, that will hamper and slow any threat of force from its enemies and perform as a balance of threat by the United States for its potential enemies. 48 To conduct military activities in Space, the United States has a "Joint Military Doctrine", in which the United States divide military activities in Outer Space into four mission categories: 49 1) Space Control, in which the United States viewed Outer Space Assets as a mean to support its military activity on Earth for combat support, and combat service support operation which ensure freedom of use to Outer Space for United States and Its Allies.
2) Space Force Enhancement, in which the United States aim to enhance its military operational capabilities on ground, sea and air by augmenting the capability of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), integrated tactical warning and attack assessment, environmental monitoring, communications, and navigation to achieve combat effectiveness.
3) Space Force Application, in which the United States aim to place conventional weapon in Outer Space targeting other military installations in ground and at sea.
4) Space Support, in which the United States must have supportive system to its Outer Space activities.
These mission categories were placed to ensure United States military capability in Space. Apart from a military doctrine, the United States has a National Space Policy, as a basis for its activities in Outer Space in general, and its military activities in Outer Space specifically. This National Space Policy was created to ensure the sustainable use of Outer Space and only for peaceful purposes. 50 In this National Space Policy, it is also shown that the United States has aimed to increase its 48 Ibid.,p. 137. 49

"The United States considers space capabilities-including the ground and space segments and supporting links-vital to its national interests.
Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests." Next, we have to see what capabilities does the United States have to conduct its military activity in Outer Space. This section will be divided into two parts. The non-aggressive activity and the aggressive activity. First, the non-aggressive activities. The United States military is very dependent of its space assets to support military activities on Earth. As one of its largest operator, the U.S. Navy uses 95% of the U.S. Military space assets to support their naval operations, specifically to support communication. 53 There are several ways the United States conduct its non-aggressive military activities in Outer Space, these activities are:

Communication
The

Remote Sensing and Surveillance 58
The United States Military is also employing a series of remote sensing and surveillance satellite to gather intelligence. This intelligence gathering operation is mostly conducted by the National Reconnaissance Office which gathered Earth Surface Images, spectrum sensing on Earth Surface, radar imagery, and signal interceptor that detects and record communication signals.

Navigation 59
This is one of the most important usage or activity in Outer Space by the United States Military. They employ a series of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites. These satellites calculate latitude and longitude by request to pinpoint location. In the early development, the United States Military created this GPS system to be used exclusively for military. However, in 1987, United States Military allowed the usage of these GPS satellites for civilian use. 60 Currently the United States Military employs a series of 25 NAVSTAR (Navigation Satellite Time and Ranging) Satellites.
Besides some non-aggressive military activity in Outer Space, the United States has a long history of aggressive activities in Outer Space. It is considered by the United States military, that it is part of the space control and space force enhancement strategy. This activity is being conducted by developing what we call an anti-satellite weapon. Examples of these activities are: 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid.,p. 84. 60 Scott Page, et al., The Global Positioning System: Assessing National Policies, (Santa Monica: RAND, 1995), p. 247.

Kinetic Kill Weapon
Kinetic Kill Weapon is a kind of missile to destroy satellites through a missile system. Examples of this weapon is the ASM-135 missile which was developed since the 1980s. 61 The missile was launched towards a satellite in 1985, when it was used to destroy an aging P78-1 Solwind satellite. 62 It was launched from a F-15 Fighter Jet, 63 and caused a field of debris consist of more than 285 debris which stayed in Orbit until 2008. 64 Another example of usage of this kind of weapon is the usage of SM-3 missile during Operation Burnt Frost, which was launched from a U.S. Navy ship USS Lake Erie towards satellite USA 193 which has fuel leakage that is considered dangerous to the atmosphere. 65 This launched caused a field of debris totaling at least 174 debris that stayed in orbit for more than 18 months. 66

Directed Energy Weapon 67
This kind of weapon was created for the purpose of interceptor or disruptor of satellite functions. Examples of this type of weapon are ground and space-based laser, radio-frequency weapon, and mid infrared advanced chemical laser (MIRACL), which can shoot laser to a certain optical satellite and disrupt its function or cause an optical 61 Ross Liemer and Christopher Chyba, "A Verifiable Limited Test Ban for Anti-Satellite Weapon", The Washington Quarterly, 33:3 (2010), p. 152. 62 Ibid. 63

B. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA'S PRACTICES
Besides the United States, China also has its own military activity in Outer Space. China started developing its military capabilities for space activities in the 1950s starting from its nuclear program. 69 At the beginning, the technological development of Chinese military was only directed towards conventional strategies, but since 1986, it was focused on a more tactical purpose. 70 This is shown through China's State High Tech Development Plan, that put forward the use of Outer Space for military activities by dual-use technology. 71 There are some push factors that makes China see the needs to develop further its military capabilities in Outer Space, such as the Strategic Defense Initiatives of the United States, a Cold War Era space policy, that views the need to strengthen various technologies to conduct military activity in Outer Space. 72 Another push factor is to support economic growth, strengthen its national defense, and to increase its domestic capabilities. 73 The conduct of military activity in Outer Space in China side also are based on its defense strategy doctrine. China focused its military development on "information" warfare to seek and achieve and advantage of information or intelligence by increasing its C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). 74 Besides focusing its military on developing capabilities for information warfare, China also seeks to increase its capability in active defense, meaning that militarily China always conduct defensive measures and only responds upon provocation by other states. 75 With this doctrine, China must develop its offensive capabilities, as stated in its Defense White Paper, in pursuing active defense. China will continue to develop and augment its military capabilities to balance the military capabilities of other world powers, including to military capabilities in Outer Space. 76 China's military activity in Outer Space can also be divided into non-aggressive and aggressive categories. In its state practice, China combine its satellite use both for military activities and civilian use. 77 Formally, China never admitted that its satellites are being used for military activity, but its satellites, which is registered as civilian satellite, are mostly used for military intelligence gathering, and other uses. 78 Several examples of China's non-aggressive military activities in Outer Space are:

Remote Sensing, and Satellite Imagery
China's military conducted remote sensing, and imagery mission from its satellite as a part of reconnaissance effort. In the early development, China can only launch a one-time use recoverable imaging satellites 79 this type of satellite used a conventional film to capture orbital imagery, and re-enter the atmosphere and recoverable after landing. 80  military remote sensing mission is the Yaogan Satellite Series. 82 This series of satellites are equipped with special sensors such as: 83 1) ELINT: Electro Intelligence Sensor, which can capture electronic emission from military assets on Earth.
2) SAR: Synthetic Aperture Radar, which can be used to coordinate intelligence gathering among ELINT equipped satellites.
3) EO: Electro Optical Imaging, which is used to enhance the accuracy of electronic intelligence data gathered by ELINT equipped satellites.
There are, at least 30 Yaogan Satellites Orbiting the Earth at any current time. Besides these Yaogan satellites, there are other satellites launched by China with dual function mission, such as the Gaofen satellites, and Tianhui satellites. 84

Navigation
Chinese military, in its navigational needs, use the BeiDou satellite series which also function in dual use, military and civilian. 85 Up until 2016, there are 21 BeiDou satellites which form a navigation system that is used mainly by China and other Asian countries. 86 One of these countries is Pakistan, which since 2013 started the legal process to enable the use of this navigation satellites for its military, and by 2014, started using it. 87

Communication
Lastly, other non-aggressive activity of China's military in Outer Space is for communication. In this domain, there are two prominent satellite series in the Chinese's Arsenal, Fenghuo and Shentong, which used solely for securing military communication. 88  Kinetic capabilities, in which China build and use physical conventional weapon system that may cause physical damage, which is permanent in nature and may create debris in Outer Space.
Non-Kinetic capabilities, in which China may explore another way of aggressive use, such as directed energy weapon, jammer, or hacking the satellite system to temporarily disable it. This can be done without 88 Rui C. Barbosa, "Long March 3B Launches with ChinaSat 2C", nasaspaceflight. com, https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/long-march-3b-lofts-chinasat-2c/, (3 November 2015 In addition to this physical anti-satellite weapon operation, China has also conducted non-kinetic, non-physical operation by hacking other satellite. This is directly targeted and acted upon United States satellites, several of which are: 105 On October 2007 and July 2008, China hacked into United States remote sensing satellite Landsat-7 causing loss of communication for 12 minutes, but failed to take over the satellite functions.
On June and October 2008, China also hacked into a United States satellite, the Terra Earth Observation Satellite, causing loss of communication for 2 minutes on June, and nine minutes in October. At both attack, China managed to take over the satellite, but there were no measures done by the Chinese.
On September 2014, China did hack a NOAA weather satellite used for United States military operation. The attack resulted in the dysfunctionality of the satellite's imaging system for two days, and communication of disaster mitigation, flight safety and shipping security data disrupted.

V. ANALYSIS
Based on the above mentioned military activities by the United States and China, we can now analyze their conduct based on international law rules. First, the Outer Space Treaty. The treaty has made it clear that Outer Space must only be used for activities of peaceful purposes under Article IV. 106 It has been mentioned that various experts such as Jessup and Taubenfeld that suggested the meaning of peaceful purposes is not to conduct any military activities, be it as a support system or aggressive weapon testing. 107  Based on the above-mentioned reasons, the United States and China, both develop anti-satellite weapons as a response to each countries' threat given by their technological development in military activities. This can be categorized under self-defense measures. The United Nations Charter under Article 2 Paragraph 4 stipulated that every country shall refrain from threat or use of force. Now, in general, it is prohibited by the UN Charter to use force against any other state. However, this stipulation may give some "loophole", because there are no clear measures in defining the "threat of force". 109 Threat of force may be categorized into three kinds. The first one, a clear threat from one country to the other in a form of request, or an ultimatum, which, if in the absence of compliance, may resulted in use of force. 110 Second kind is a threat that conveyed to a country that is a member of a defense pact or an international organization. 111 Last one, and the most dangerous of all, is a hidden threat that is an intended result of a state's military exercise, even a simple weapon test or a maneuver. 112 This kind of threat that is posed by aggressive military activities in outer space. In the context of US and China's aggressive military activity in Outer Space, to form threat, is their intended goal, as shown in their respective military publication. In the United States side, on their Joint Military Publication on Space Operation, it is stated that, the United States conduct aggressive military activities in Outer Space, as a means of deterrence or to present a threat to protect its space assets against threat of attack. 113 This threat is achieved by pursuing space control capabilities, particularly offensive space control. 114 This strategy is also implied in the National Space Policy, which states that: 115 "The United States considers space capabilities-including the ground and space segments and supporting links-vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests." China, on conducting it military activities in Outer Space, also shown the same implication on developing its aggressive military space capabilities. It pursues a more asymmetric means of combat and a revolution in military affairs. 116 Lastly, we may look on the result these activities caused. The main result of weapon testing in Outer Space are debris. The Outer Space Treaty under article IX stipulated that, state activities in Outer Space must not caused any harmful contamination or harmful interference of other state activities. 117 However, it was not furhter explained on how harmful interference or harmful contamination may be defined. 118 In an effort of defining harmful contamination or harmful interference, we can categorize it to physical interference and non-physical interference. Physical interference is the most obvious kind, which may be caused by projectile weapon, energy weapon, or satellite maneuvering in order to collide with other satellites and it may cause physical damages, often permanent. 119 Non-physical interference on the other hand, may happen when a state conduct non-physical activities that resulted in non-permanent temporary damages to space assets 120

VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the exposition above, I conclude, that up to this point, there is an absence or vacuum of law on the military activities in Outer Space, specifically regarding the aggressive activities. Stipulations presented in this article are not ample enough to directly regulate military activities in Outer Space. It requires further studies and perhaps, a drafting of a legal instrument to regulate the matter.