1 Zhongnan University of Economics and Law (Wuhan, China)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29202/asl/16/6
Received: 23 October 2025 / Accepted: 15 December 2025 / Published: 30 December 2025
View Full-Text Review Reports Cite This Paper
Abstract
This article argues that, in assessing DPH, civilian satellite operators generally do not qualify due to the absence of a direct causal link, though exceptions may arise in specific circumstances. In particular, taking into account the delay effects in space operations, personnel who have left duty but whose actions or the effects thereof are still ongoing should be regarded as remaining engaged in DPH. Regarding the identification of military objectives, states should adhere to the “reverse distinction principle,” visually and physically separating military systems from civilian ones. For dual-use satellites, whether they constitute a military objective as a whole should be determined based on the factual “separability” of their functions, rather than solely on the attacker’s technical capabilities.
Keywords: outer space, international humanitarian law, commercial satellites, rendezvous and proximity operations
References
Berrang, S. (2023) How Would IHL Apply to Hostilities in Outer Space? International Committee of the Red Cross. Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog. Available online: https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2023/11/02/how-would-ihl-apply-to-hostilities-in-outer-space/
Berrang, S. (2025) Does the Dual-Use of Space Objects Necessitate a New Geneva Convention? Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 57: 315-342.
Bloun, P. & Gabrynowic, J. (2009) USA-193: Selected Documents, University of Mississippi.
Borowitz, M. (2022) The Military Use of Small Satellites in Orbit. Available online: https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/migrated_files/documents/atoms/files/m._borowitz_military_use_small_satellites_in_orbit_03.2022.pdf
Dickey, R. & Gleason, M. (2024) Space and War in Ukraine: Beyond the Satellites. Æther, 3, 20-35.
Duke, H. (2021) On-Orbit Servicing: Opportunities for U.S. Military Satellite Resiliency. Available online: https://aerospace.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/20210914_Duke_OSAM.pdf
Harris, J., Coppens, Z., Vo, C. & Long, A. (2025) Satellite Passive Ranging Metasurface Optics for Space Rendezvous and Proximity Operations. Proceedings of the 2025 Small Satellite Conference. Utah State University, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.26077/3f93-e974
He, Q. (1992) Outer Space Law. Law Press, Beijing.
Henckaerts, J. & Doswald-Beck, L. (2007) Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume 1, Cambridge University Press.
Henry, C. (2020) Northrop Grumman’s MEV-1 servicer docks with Intelsat satellite. Available online: https://spacenews.com/northrop-grummans-mev-1-servicer-docks-with-intelsat-satellite/
Hobe, S., Schmidt-Tedd, B. & Schrött, K. (2009) Cologne Commentary on Space Law Vol. I, Carl Heymanns Verlag.
Huston, R. (2018) A Practical Perspective on Attacking Armed Groups. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 51, 919-930.
International Committee of the Red Cross (2022) Constraints under International Law on Military Space Operations. Available online: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/constraints-under-international-law-military-space-operations
Johnson, K., Roberts, T. & Weeden, B. (2023) Mitigating Noncooperative RPOs in Geosynchronous Orbit. A Journal of Strategic Airpower & Spacepower, 1, 79-94.
Koplow, D. (2022) Reverse Distinction: U.S. Violation of the Law of Armed Conflict in Space. Harvard National Security Journal, 13, 25-83.
Lyall, F. & Larsen, P. (2018) Space Law: A Treatise. Routledge.
Margulies, P. (2012) The Fog of War Reform: Structure and Change in the Law of Armed Conflict after Sept. 11. Marquette Law Review, 95, 1417-1499.
Martin, A. & Freeland, S. (2019) Exploring the Legal Challenges of Future On-Orbit Servicing Missions and Proximity Operations. Journal of Space Law, 43, 196-222.
Masson-Zwaan, T. & Hofmann, M. (2019) Introduction to Space Law. Brill.
Melzer, N. (2009) International Committee of the Red Cross, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities Under International Humanitarian Law. International Committee of the Red Cross.
Merrill, C. (2025) A Rendezvous in Outer Space Law: The Challenge of Establishing Binding Regulations for Dual-Use Capabilities. St. John’s Law Review, 98(6), 1235-1264.
NASA (2021) NASA’s Efforts to Mitigate the Risks Posed by Orbital Debris, Report No. IG-21-011. Available online: https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-21-011.pdf
Schmitt, M. & Vihul, L. (2017) Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, M. (2021) Targeting Dual-Use Structures: An Alternative Interpretation. Lieber Institute. Available online: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/targeting-dual-use-structures-alternative/
Sobeck, C. (2018) NASA’s Kepler Spacecraft Nears the End as Fuel Runs Low. Available online: https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1489/nasas-kepler-spacecraft-nears-the-end-as-fuel-runs-low/
Stephens, D. & Steer, C. (2015) Conflicts in Space: International Humanitarian Law and Its Application to Space Warfare, Annals of Air & Space Law, 40, 1-32.
Watkin, K. (2014) Controlling the Use of Force: A Role for Human Rights Norms in Contemporary Armed Conflict. American Journal of International Law, 98, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3139252
Weeden, B. & Samson, V. (2023) Global Counterspace Capabilities: An Open Source Assessment 01-28. Available online: https://swfound.org/media/207567/swf_globalcounterspacecapabilities_2023_v2.pdf
Werner, D. (2022) An in-orbit Game of Cat and Mouse: Close Approaches Prompt Calls for Communications and Norms. Available online: https://spacenews.com/an-in-orbit-game-of-cat-and-mouse-close-approaches-prompt-calls-for-communications-and-norms/
Zhao, Y. & Jiang, S. (2019) Armed Conflict in Outer Space: Legal Concept, Practice and Future Regulatory Regime. Space Policy, 48, 50-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2019.01.004