Main Article Content


Outer space technological development, pioneered by military superpowers including the USA, China, and Russia gives other countries a variety of technologies which they have chosen to use to strengthen their national defence. “The higher the demand, the more expensive it gets.” A country is free to choose what technology to use, but the producer controls who can use their technology. Policies to limit or control space-technology is most clearly reflected by USA policy, named ITAR (International Trade in Arms Regulation), which enables the USA to choose who is able to avail themselves of space technology. A quasi-arbitrary policy like ITAR has harmed the spirit and the soul of international trade law which empowers the “free trade” market that is happening in today’s world. Policy alike has made the US gripped other countries like Indonesia and made them ‘dependence’ on their sophisticated technology and deprived other state’s sovereignty on their space technology, eventually. This study analysed this unprecedented subject through the lens of International Law, especially International Trade Law, encompassing related laws like GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades) and related precedents on WTO (World Trade Organization) DSB (Dispute Settlement Body) judicial decisions. The results of analysis through international law, assisted with dependence theory and world-system theory (1) categorize the related policy as a violation of GATT, specifically to Article XXI (b) point (ii) about security exception and (2) for the future of Indonesian outer space development, this country should utilize a security exception clause to release itself from the atrocities of ITAR policy or other similar policies.
Keywords: Outer Space, Dependence, International Law, and Policy.

Itar Dan Pengecualian Keamanan: Pelajaran Untuk Membangun Satelit Pertahanan Indonesia

Perkembangan teknologi luar angkasa yang dipelopori oleh negara-negara adidaya militer termasuk Amerika Serikat, China, dan Rusia memberi negara-negara lain berbagai teknologi yang mereka pilih untuk digunakan untuk memperkuat pertahanan nasional mereka. “Semakin tinggi permintaan, semakin mahal harganya.” Suatu negara bebas memilih teknologi apa yang akan digunakan, tetapi produsen mengontrol siapa yang dapat menggunakan teknologi mereka. Kebijakan untuk membatasi atau mengendalikan teknologi luar angkasa paling jelas tercermin dalam kebijakan AS, yang disebut ITAR (International Trade in Arms Regulation), yang memungkinkan AS untuk memilih siapa yang dapat memanfaatkan teknologi luar angkasa. Kebijakan semi-arbitrer seperti ITAR telah mencederai semangat dan jiwa hukum perdagangan internasional yang memberdayakan pasar “perdagangan bebas” yang terjadi di dunia saat ini. Kebijakan serupa telah membuat AS mencengkeram negara lain seperti Indonesia dan membuat mereka 'ketergantungan' pada teknologi canggih mereka dan pada akhirnya mencabut kedaulatan negara lain atas teknologi luar angkasa mereka. Studi ini menganalisis subjek yang belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya ini melalui lensa Hukum Internasional, khususnya Hukum Perdagangan Internasional, yang mencakup undang-undang terkait seperti GATT (Persetujuan Umum tentang Tarif dan Perdagangan) dan preseden terkait pada keputusan yudisial WTO (Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia) DSB (Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa). Hasil analisis melalui hukum internasional dibantu dengan teori ketergantungan dan teori sistem dunia (1) mengkategorikan kebijakan terkait sebagai pelanggaran GATT, khususnya Pasal XXI (b) poin (ii) tentang pengecualian keamanan dan (2) untuk masa depan pembangunan luar angkasa Indonesia, negara ini harus menggunakan klausul pengecualian keamanan untuk melepaskan diri dari kekejaman kebijakan ITAR atau kebijakan serupa lainnya.
Kata kunci: Luar Angkasa, Ketergantungan, Hukum Internasional, dan Kebijakan.


Outer Space Dependence International Law Policy

Article Details

How to Cite
Aris Rahmat Juliannoor, & Sefriani. (2023). Itar And The Security Exception: Lessons For Developing Indonesian Defensive Satellites. Prophetic Law Review, 5(1), 1–21.


  1. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.

  2. Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties 1969 1969.

  3. Law No. 21 of 2013 on Outer Space. 

  4. Presidential Regulation No. 49 of 2015 on National Institute of Aeronautics and Space.

  5. Arms Export Control as Amended Through P.L. 115–232 2018 1.

  6. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations 2020 (Code of Federal Regulations) 799.

  7. Bowen BE, Original Sin: Power, Technology and War in Outer Space (1st edn, Hurst & Company 2022).

  8. Captivating H, The Space Race: A Captivating Guide to the Cold War Competition Between the United States and Soviet Union to Reach the Moon (Captivating History 2020).

  9. Fergusson IF and Kerr PK, ‘The U.S. Export Control System and the Export Control Reform Initiative’ (Congressional Research Service 2020).

  10. Mantilla Blanco S and Pehl A, National Security Exceptions in International Trade and Investment Agreements: Justiciability and Standards of Review (Springer International Publishing 2020).

  11. McElroy Jr MW, The Space Industry of the Future: Capitalism and Sustainability in Outer Space (1st edn, Routledge 2022).

  12. Meyer P, ‘Diplomacy: The Missing Ingredient in Space Security’ in Cassandra Steer and Matthew Hersch (eds), War and Peace in Outer Space: Law, Policy, and Ethics (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2020).

  13. Mueller KP and others, Striking First: Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National Security Policy (RAND Corporation 2006).

  14. Nirmal BC, ‘Globalization, International Human Rights Law and Current Economic Crisis’ in BC Nirmal and Rajnish Kumar Singh (eds), Contemporary Issues in International Law: Environment, International Trade, Information Technology and Legal Education (Springer Singapore 2018).

  15. Qureshi AH, The Americanisation of the World Trade Order (1st edn, Routledge 2022).

  16. Schrogl KU and others, Handbook of Space Security (Kai-Uwe Schrogl and others eds, Springer New York 2015).

  17. Trebilcock MJ and Trachtman J, Advanced Introduction to International Trade Law (2nd edn, Edward Elgar Publishing 2020).

  18. Tyson ND and Lang A, Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance between Astrophysics and The Military (W W Norton & Company, Inc 2018).

  19. Chen TF, ‘To Judge the “Self-Judging” Security Exception under the GATT 1994 - A Systematic Approach’ (2017) 12 Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy 311.

  20. Crespi F and others, ‘European Technological Sovereignty: An Emerging Framework for Policy Strategy’ (2021) 56 Intereconomics 348.

  21. Heriyanto DSN, Putro YM, and Al-Asyari H, ‘Space Diplomacy as a Way to Face the Era of Space Commercialization in Indonesia’ (2018) Seminar Nasional Kebijakan Penerbangan dan Antariksa III (SINAS KPA-III) 162.

  22. Heriyanto DSN and Putro YM, ‘Challenges and Opportunities of the Establishment ASEAN Open Skies Policy’ (2019) 6 (3) Padjajaran Journal Ilmu Hukum 466.

  23. Liebman JR and Lombardo KJ, ‘Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount A Guide to Export Controls for the Non-Specialist’ (2006) 28 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 497.

  24. Priyanto T, ‘Perjalanan TELKOM Dalam Mengoperasikan Satelit Komunikasi Untuk Melayani Kepulauan Indonesia’ (2005) 4 Online Journal of Space Communication.

  25. Sadeh E, ‘Viewpoint: Bureaucratic Politics and the Case of Satellite Export Controls’ (2007) 5 Astropolitics 289.

  26. ______, ‘Reforming Export Controls of Space Technologies in the United States’ 10 Astropolitics 93.

  27. Sudjatmiko T, ‘Keamanan Negara Dalam Kegiatan Antariksa Nasional: Perspektif Realis Ofensif’ (2017) 9 Jurnal Global & Strategis 207.

  28. Triharjanto RH and others, ‘Desain Awal Sistem Satelit Telekomunikasi Pertahanan Indonesia (Preliminary Design of Indonesian Military Telecomunication Satellite)’ (2017) 14 Jurnal Teknologi Dirgantara 113.

  29. Anggraini E, ‘Lalai Bayar Sewa Orbit Satelit, Indonesia Di Denda 175M.’ (CNN Indonesia, 2018) <> accessed 1 April 2021.

  30. B. de Selding P, ‘Thales Alenia Space: U.S. Suppliers at Fault in “ITAR-Free” Misnomer’ (Spacenews, 2013) <> accessed 10 April 2021.

  31. Ferster W, ‘U.S. Satellite Component Maker Fined $8 Million for ITAR Violations’ (Spacenews, 2013) <> accessed 21 October 2022.

  32. Lohmeyer WQ and others, ‘The Global Impact of ITAR on the For-Profit and Non-Profit Space Communities’ (International Astronautical Federation 2012)

  33. Mintz J, ‘Firms Accused of Giving Space Technology to China’ (The Washington Post, 2003) <> accessed 20 October 2022.

  34. ‘Decision Concerning Article XXI of the General Agreement’ 1 <>.

  35. World Trade Organisation, ‘“Guide to GATT Law and Practice – ANALYTICAL INDEX (ARTICLE XXI-Security Exception).’, WTO - Trade in Goods (World Trade Organization 2009).

Most read articles by the same author(s)