International Law and the Regulation of Outer Space
- Edmarverson A. Santos
- 2 hours ago
- 38 min read
I. Introduction: International Law and the Regulation of Outer Space
International law and the regulation of outer space emerged as urgent priorities in the second half of the 20th century, as technological advancements allowed states to transcend the Earth’s atmosphere and place objects into orbit. The 1957 launch of Sputnik I by the Soviet Union ignited not only the space race but also legal concerns about jurisdiction, sovereignty, and the militarization of space. As a domain beyond national frontiers, outer space posed novel legal questions with no precedent in traditional international law.
The first concerted legal response came with the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, commonly known as the Outer Space Treaty. This instrument, adopted under the auspices of the United Nations, laid the groundwork for subsequent legal frameworks and remains the cornerstone of space law. The treaty codifies principles such as the non-appropriation of outer space, the peaceful use of celestial bodies, state responsibility for space activities, and international cooperation in exploration. These foundations are echoed in subsequent agreements, including the Rescue Agreement (1968), the Liability Convention (1972), the Registration Convention (1975), and the Moon Agreement (1979).
However, the international legal framework has struggled to keep pace with contemporary challenges. The growing involvement of private entities in space exploration, the proliferation of satellite constellations, the risks associated with space debris, and the rising militarization of space have all exposed regulatory shortcomings. Although the legal instruments adopted since the 1960s articulate essential principles, their enforcement mechanisms are weak, and key terms such as “peaceful use” remain open to interpretation.
Modern international relations further complicate efforts to create consensus. Major spacefaring nations such as the United States, China, and Russia maintain strategic interests in orbit, and some resist new binding obligations that might restrict their capabilities. Concurrently, developing states call for equitable access to space and stronger governance to prevent the monopolization of orbital slots and resources.
The relevance of international law and the regulation of outer space has only intensified in recent years. Mega-constellations, space mining initiatives, anti-satellite weapons tests, and commercial spaceflights have reshaped the outer space landscape.
These developments demand not only legal clarity but also new frameworks for accountability, environmental stewardship, and equitable use.
This article examines the evolution, scope, and limitations of the current legal regime governing outer space. Drawing on United Nations instruments, scholarly analysis, and recent state practice, the discussion identifies key areas of concern, evaluates regulatory gaps, and considers emerging proposals aimed at reinforcing the peaceful, cooperative, and sustainable use of outer space for future generations.
II. Historical Foundations of International Space Law
The historical foundations of international space law are rooted in the geopolitical tensions and scientific breakthroughs of the Cold War era. The legal order that governs space today was forged at a time when space exploration symbolized both national prestige and potential military superiority. In response to growing concerns over unregulated activity beyond Earth, the international community began to develop a legal framework to guide state conduct and preserve outer space as a domain for peaceful cooperation.
The journey began in 1958 with the creation of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), initially as an ad hoc body and later formalized as a permanent committee in 1959. Its mandate was clear: to promote international collaboration and formulate legal standards that would ensure the safe and equitable use of space. COPUOS has remained the central international forum for the development of space law ever since.
A milestone occurred in 1963 with the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly (Res. 1962 [XVIII]). This declaration articulated core principles—non-appropriation, freedom of exploration, peaceful use, and state responsibility—that would later form the foundation of binding treaties.
The most significant advancement came in 1967 with the adoption of the Outer Space Treaty, which formalized and expanded upon the 1963 declaration. This treaty established key norms such as:
Outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all states.
Space shall not be subject to national sovereignty claims.
Activities must benefit all countries and be conducted in accordance with international law.
The placement of weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies is prohibited.
States are internationally responsible for both governmental and non-governmental activities.
Subsequent treaties deepened the legal framework:
Treaty/Agreement | Year | Main Purpose |
Rescue Agreement | 1968 | Requires states to assist astronauts in distress and return them safely. |
Liability Convention | 1972 | Establishes absolute liability for damage caused by space objects on Earth. |
Registration Convention | 1975 | Obliges states to register space objects launched into orbit. |
Moon Agreement | 1979 | Declares the Moon and celestial bodies the "common heritage of mankind." |
While the first four instruments enjoy broad participation, the Moon Agreement has received limited ratification, especially from major space powers. Its provisions on equitable resource sharing have sparked political resistance, reflecting a divide between developing and developed nations on space governance.
These treaties were primarily negotiated in an era of state-dominated space activity. As such, they reflect a statist logic and were not designed to address the commercial space boom, privatized launches, or corporate ambitions in mining and satellite infrastructure. Yet, despite these shortcomings, the early treaties remain the legal backbone of space governance, reaffirmed through General Assembly resolutions and interpreted in light of new technological realities.
In summary, the historical development of international space law demonstrates the international community’s early commitment to preventing the weaponization and monopolization of outer space. These foundational texts laid the normative groundwork for the peaceful, cooperative, and responsible exploration of space, principles that continue to guide the legal discourse today.
III. Key Legal Instruments and Their Provisions
The core structure of international space governance is built upon five major treaties adopted under the auspices of the United Nations between 1967 and 1979. These instruments articulate the principles, rights, and responsibilities of states engaged in space activities. Together, they form the backbone of international space law. While they vary in scope and level of ratification, each plays a vital role in the legal architecture that governs outer space.
1. Outer Space Treaty (1967)
Full name: Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
This foundational treaty sets the tone for all subsequent space law. Its key provisions include:
Non-appropriation (Art. II): No state may claim sovereignty over outer space, the Moon, or other celestial bodies.
Freedom of exploration and use (Art. I): All states have equal rights to access, explore, and use space.
Peaceful purposes only (Art. IV): Space shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes; the placement of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction is prohibited.
State responsibility (Art. VI): States bear international responsibility for national space activities, whether conducted by governmental or non-governmental entities.
Liability for damage (Art. VII): States are liable for damage caused by their space objects.
Jurisdiction and control (Art. VIII): Launching states retain jurisdiction over their objects and personnel in space.
Despite its universal acceptance, the treaty contains broad language that leaves key concepts—such as "peaceful purposes"—open to interpretation.
2. Rescue Agreement (1968)
Full name: Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space
This treaty reinforces the humanitarian obligations of states by requiring:
Assistance to astronauts in distress or emergency landings, regardless of location.
Safe and prompt return of astronauts to their country of origin.
Recovery and return of space objects found on foreign territory or international waters.
The agreement builds upon Article V of the Outer Space Treaty and aims to foster international solidarity in human spaceflight missions.
3. Liability Convention (1972)
Full name: Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects
This treaty provides a detailed liability framework:
Absolute liability applies for damage caused on Earth or to aircraft (Art. II).
Fault-based liability applies to damage caused in outer space (Art. III).
States are required to submit claims through diplomatic channels or the UN Secretary-General.
A Claims Commission can be established if a dispute cannot be settled through negotiation.
This mechanism remains largely untested in practice but is crucial for accountability.
4. Registration Convention (1975)
Full name: Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space
This agreement enhances transparency by requiring states to:
Register all space objects launched into Earth orbit or beyond.
Submit detailed information, including the object’s orbit, function, and launch date.
Notify the UN Secretary-General, who maintains a public registry.
Registration supports jurisdictional clarity and helps prevent disputes over space object identification.
5. Moon Agreement (1979)
Full name: Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
The most controversial of the treaties, the Moon Agreement builds upon the Outer Space Treaty by:
Declaring the Moon and its resources as the common heritage of mankind (Art. 11).
Prohibiting sovereign claims or exclusive rights over lunar resources.
Calling for an international regime to govern the exploitation of resources.
Requiring disclosure of scientific results and coordination of lunar activities.
Due to its provisions on resource sharing, it has only been ratified by a limited number of states, none of which are major space powers.
Comparison Table: Key Provisions of UN Space Treaties
Treaty | Year | Main Focus | Binding Nature | Participation |
Outer Space Treaty | 1967 | General principles and peaceful use | Yes | Widely ratified (100+) |
Rescue Agreement | 1968 | Astronaut safety and return | Yes | Broad ratification |
Liability Convention | 1972 | Damage responsibility and dispute settlement | Yes | Broad ratification |
Registration Convention | 1975 | Registry of launched space objects | Yes | Moderate ratification |
Moon Agreement | 1979 | Governance of lunar activities and resources | Yes | Low ratification |
These instruments reflect the legal aspirations of the post-Cold War international community to keep space free from conflict and ensure its peaceful and equitable use. Yet, several of them now show signs of legal obsolescence. The treaties do not regulate satellite mega-constellations, address space tourism, or establish binding norms for space debris mitigation. Moreover, they rely heavily on state self-reporting and lack enforcement mechanisms.
Despite their limitations, these legal instruments remain essential to understanding the rights and obligations of space actors today. They also continue to serve as reference points for newer initiatives seeking to develop norms, guidelines, and soft law to fill emerging regulatory gaps.
IV. Delimiting Outer Space: Where Does It Begin?
The question of where outer space begins remains one of the most fundamental unresolved issues in international space law. Although multiple treaties outline the rights and responsibilities of states in outer space, none of them define the vertical boundary that separates national airspace from outer space. This legal gap complicates matters of jurisdiction, liability, and sovereignty, especially as technological advancements blur the lines between atmospheric and space-based activities.
Lack of a Legal Definition
The Outer Space Treaty (1967) and subsequent instruments refer repeatedly to “outer space” but do not define its starting point. Article II of the Treaty affirms that outer space is not subject to national appropriation, while Article I emphasizes freedom of exploration and use. Yet, without a defined altitude marking the beginning of outer space, these provisions exist within a conceptual ambiguity.
The issue has remained on the agenda of the Legal Subcommittee of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) since 1967. Decades of discussions have not produced consensus, largely because delimitation affects critical national interests, including defense, aviation, and commercial satellite activities.
Air Law vs. Space Law: Legal Implications
Under air law, as codified in the 1944 Chicago Convention, states exercise complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above their territory (Art. 1). In contrast, space law—particularly the Outer Space Treaty—asserts that outer space is free from national sovereignty and open to exploration by all states (Art. II).
The boundary separating these two legal regimes determines the extent of a state's jurisdiction and rights:
Legal Domain | Key Principle | Jurisdiction |
Airspace | Complete and exclusive state sovereignty | Controlled by the underlying state |
Outer Space | Freedom of exploration and non-appropriation | No national sovereignty permitted |
If a vehicle crosses this undefined boundary, the applicable legal framework shifts dramatically. This has major implications for suborbital flights, military reconnaissance, and the liability for damage caused by falling space objects.
The Kármán Line: A Scientific Reference
In the absence of a legal standard, many institutions use the Kármán line—an altitude of 100 kilometers (62 miles) above sea level—as a de facto boundary of outer space. This demarcation, named after Hungarian-American engineer Theodore von Kármán, is based on the altitude at which conventional aircraft can no longer generate sufficient lift.
However, even the Kármán line is subject to debate:
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and NASA recognize 80 kilometers (50 miles) as the threshold for spaceflight.
The Federation Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) traditionally adopted the 100 km mark, though it acknowledged in 2018 that 80 km might be more scientifically accurate.
Recent Efforts and Challenges
The failure to agree on a fixed boundary stems largely from the strategic and economic interests of spacefaring nations:
Military concerns: A lower boundary could constrain surveillance and reconnaissance activities conducted from high altitudes.
Commercial interests: Firms launching suborbital tourism services prefer a flexible definition that supports regulatory convenience.
Developing states: Some argue that fixing a boundary could limit future access to space, creating a two-tiered system favoring early entrants.
In recent years, scholars have proposed adopting a functional approach rather than a spatial one. This would define an activity as space-related based on its nature and purpose, rather than its altitude. However, such a model introduces subjective interpretation and potential disputes over classification.
Legal and Policy Implications
Without an agreed delimitation, states and companies operate in a gray zone that creates several challenges:
Uncertainty in jurisdiction for high-altitude vehicles or near-space objects.
Difficulty in enforcing airspace rights or prosecuting violations.
Ambiguity in applying liability conventions, particularly in re-entry scenarios.
Efforts to delimit outer space must balance legal clarity with technological flexibility and geopolitical equity. While no binding resolution has been adopted, the issue remains central to future regulatory reforms and to achieving a more coherent and predictable international space regime.
In summary, the absence of a defined boundary between airspace and outer space reflects both technical complexities and political sensitivities. As space becomes more congested and accessible, the demand for legal certainty will only grow. Resolving this foundational question remains a critical step in modernizing the global space governance system.
V. National Jurisdiction, Responsibility, and Control
A central pillar of international space law is the assignment of responsibility and jurisdiction to states for activities conducted in outer space. Unlike Earth’s terrestrial domains, where state sovereignty governs legal control, outer space is explicitly designated as a global commons—free from appropriation but not free from regulation. The existing legal framework assigns accountability to individual states, even in a domain that lies beyond their sovereign territory.
State Responsibility under the Outer Space Treaty
Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty (1967) establishes that states bear international responsibility for all national activities in outer space, including those conducted by non-governmental entities. This means that:
Governments must authorize and continuously supervise private or commercial space activities.
Both governmental agencies (e.g., space agencies, defense ministries) and private companies (e.g., satellite operators, space tourism firms) fall under the scope of state accountability.
States are also responsible for activities conducted by international intergovernmental organizations if they are party to those entities.
This framework ensures that no actor operates in space without oversight, reinforcing the principle that states cannot escape liability by outsourcing their space programs.
Jurisdiction and Control over Space Objects
Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty provides that the state of registry retains jurisdiction and control over any space object it launches, as well as over the personnel aboard. This jurisdiction extends:
For the duration of the object’s operation in space or on celestial bodies.
Regardless of the object’s location—whether in orbit, on the Moon, or in transit.
Even if the object is recovered on Earth by another state (in which case, it must be returned).
This provision resolves potential disputes over ownership, access, and legal authority. It also facilitates legal recourse in the event of damage or misuse.
The Registration Convention and Transparency
The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1975) complements Article VIII by requiring states to submit detailed information about each launch, including:
Name of the launching state
Designation and function of the object
Launch date and location
Basic orbital parameters
The registry, maintained by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), enhances legal clarity, facilitates accountability, and prevents overlapping claims.
However, participation in the Registration Convention is not universal, and not all states comply consistently. Moreover, there is no verification mechanism to ensure the accuracy or completeness of entries.
International Liability and Launching State Definition
Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention (1972) assign liability to launching states for damage caused by their space objects. A “launching state” includes:
A state that launches or procures the launch of a space object
A state from whose territory or facility a space object is launched
More than one state can be designated a launching state. In such cases, joint and several liability applies, meaning that any of the launching states may be held fully responsible and may subsequently seek contribution from the others.
This liability regime applies to:
Location of Damage | Standard of Liability |
On Earth or to aircraft | Absolute liability |
In outer space | Fault-based liability |
Supervision of Non-Governmental Entities
States must implement domestic legislation to authorize and supervise the growing number of private actors operating in space. National regulatory frameworks often include:
Licensing systems for satellite operators and launch service providers
Insurance requirements to cover liability risks
Oversight agencies (e.g., U.S. FAA, France’s CNES, India's IN-SPACe)
However, the quality and rigor of national oversight vary. Some jurisdictions maintain minimal regulatory standards, raising concerns about “flags of convenience” in space—analogous to permissive ship registries in maritime law.
Legal Challenges in Practice
While the treaty framework provides a clear division of responsibility, modern space activities present challenges:
Multi-state cooperation: Projects like the International Space Station involve shared control, requiring joint agreements beyond treaty norms.
Commercial consortia: Satellite mega-constellations may involve companies headquartered in one state, with launches taking place in another, and operated through third-party facilities.
Cybersecurity threats: It remains unclear how liability applies if interference occurs via cyberattacks that originate from third states or non-state actors.
Furthermore, the regulation of on-orbit servicing, space traffic management, and long-term storage of derelict satellites is still underdeveloped, creating legal gray areas despite well-defined treaty obligations.
Summary Table: Key Legal Provisions on State Responsibility and Jurisdiction
Treaty Provision | Core Principle |
Outer Space Treaty, Art. VI | States are internationally responsible for all national space activities |
Outer Space Treaty, Art. VIII | States retain jurisdiction and control over their registered space objects |
Registration Convention | States must provide orbital and functional data on all space objects |
Liability Convention | Launching states bear liability for damages caused by space objects |
In conclusion, the legal regime assigns clear responsibility to states, but enforcement and compliance depend on domestic implementation and international cooperation. As private actors and multinational ventures reshape the space environment, the need for robust national regulation, international harmonization, and adaptive oversight becomes more urgent. The credibility of international law in regulating outer space hinges not just on principles, but on how effectively states exercise jurisdiction and control in a rapidly evolving frontier.
VI. Militarization and Security in Outer Space
The increasing militarization of outer space presents one of the most complex and pressing challenges to the existing international legal framework. While the foundational treaties governing space law emphasize the peaceful use of space, technological advancements and strategic interests have led to a growing deployment of military assets and capabilities in orbit. This evolving reality strains the legal architecture established during the Cold War and exposes gaps in regulation, enforcement, and interpretation.
Treaty-Based Prohibitions and Limitations
The primary legal provision addressing military activity in space is Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty (1967). It provides that:
States must not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in orbit, on celestial bodies, or otherwise station them in outer space.
The Moon and other celestial bodies must be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. Military installations, testing of weapons, and maneuvers on such bodies are prohibited.
The use of military personnel for scientific research or peaceful activities is permitted.
These provisions reflect Cold War-era fears of orbital weaponization, but they do not prohibit all military uses of outer space. Conventional weapons are not explicitly banned, nor are military satellites used for surveillance, communications, navigation, or intelligence gathering.
Military Uses: Legal but Concerning
Many military functions in space operate within the boundaries of international law:
Navigation systems like the U.S. GPS, Russia’s GLONASS, China’s BeiDou, and the EU’s Galileo support both civilian and military users.
Reconnaissance satellites conduct surveillance critical for national security and treaty verification.
Communications satellites enable secure global command and control systems.
Early warning systems detect missile launches, enhancing deterrence stability.
These uses are not prohibited under existing treaties. However, they introduce a strategic paradox: dual-use technologies—which serve both civilian and military purposes—blur the line between peaceful and hostile intent.
Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Weapons and Security Risks
A growing number of states have developed or tested ASAT capabilities, heightening the risk of conflict in space:
In 2007, China destroyed one of its defunct satellites, generating over 3,000 pieces of long-lasting orbital debris.
In 2008, the United States intercepted a malfunctioning satellite in a lower-altitude operation.
India conducted an ASAT test in 2019 as part of Mission Shakti, demonstrating its capabilities while minimizing debris lifespan.
In 2021, Russia tested a direct-ascent ASAT missile, creating widespread condemnation due to the resulting debris.
These events raised concerns about space debris proliferation, collateral damage, and potential escalation during geopolitical tensions. Current treaties do not ban such activities, and no binding instrument restricts the development, testing, or deployment of kinetic or non-kinetic ASAT weapons.
Space as a Warfighting Domain
National military doctrines increasingly recognize outer space as a potential theater of conflict:
Country | Relevant Strategy or Doctrine |
United States | Space recognized as a warfighting domain (U.S. Space Force established in 2019) |
Russia | Integrated space into its strategic defense policy; emphasis on counter-space tools |
China | Focus on space-based information dominance in modern warfare |
NATO | Declared space as an operational domain in 2019 |
Military planning now considers the possibility of conflicts extending to, or beginning in, space, prompting investments in space situational awareness, space-based missile defenses, and resilience measures.
International Law and Armed Conflict in Space
Despite the absence of a specific “law of armed conflict in space,” International Humanitarian Law (IHL)—particularly the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols—applies in space:
Distinction: Parties must distinguish between civilian and military objects, a challenge when targeting dual-use satellites.
Proportionality: Harm to civilians or civilian infrastructure (e.g., internet, GPS) must not be excessive.
Precaution: Attacks must be planned with precautions to avoid or minimize incidental harm.
However, applying these norms in space is legally unsettled and operationally difficult. The high velocity and interconnectedness of space systems increase the likelihood of cascading failures or unintended escalation.
Efforts to Prevent an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS)
The international community has long supported the goal of preventing an arms race in space:
The UN General Assembly has adopted annual resolutions on PAROS since 1981.
In 2008, Russia and China proposed a draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space (PPWT).
The 2014 revised PPWT draft aimed to prohibit space weaponization and use of force, but it faced criticism from the U.S. and EU over verification mechanisms and loopholes.
In 2021, the United Kingdom sponsored a resolution encouraging the development of norms for responsible behavior in space.
Despite these efforts, progress has been limited. Disagreements among major powers on definitions, enforcement, and strategic stability continue to hinder consensus.
Summary Table: Gaps and Legal Grey Areas in Military Space Activities
Issue | Status under International Law |
Nuclear weapons in orbit | Prohibited (Outer Space Treaty, Art. IV) |
Conventional weapons in orbit | Not explicitly prohibited |
ASAT weapon tests | Not prohibited, but criticized for creating debris and instability |
Military satellites | Permitted if used for peaceful purposes |
Use of force in space | No treaty governs it; governed by UN Charter and IHL in theory |
Space-based armed conflict | No specific legal framework; subject to interpretation of general IHL norms |
The militarization of outer space is proceeding in a legal environment shaped by broad principles but lacking in detailed regulation. While treaties like the Outer Space Treaty prohibit weapons of mass destruction and affirm the peaceful use of celestial bodies, they do not comprehensively address emerging threats such as ASAT weapons, cyber interference, or the militarization of dual-use satellites.
As space becomes more contested, congested, and competitive, there is a growing need for clear norms, transparency measures, and binding rules to preserve its security and sustainability. Without renewed multilateral cooperation, the risk of misunderstanding, miscalculation, and escalation in space will continue to grow, undermining the very legal foundations intended to safeguard humanity's shared interests beyond Earth.
VII. Commercialization and the Role of Private Actors
The commercialization of outer space has transformed the once state-dominated frontier into a rapidly expanding domain of private enterprise. The entry of private actors has revolutionized access to space, reduced launch costs, and spurred innovation. However, it has also introduced complex legal questions that the current international framework—primarily designed for sovereign states—struggles to answer.
The Shift from State Control to Private Innovation
During the Cold War, space was the exclusive realm of governments. Today, private companies play a central role in launch services, satellite communications, Earth observation, and, increasingly, in human spaceflight and in-orbit servicing.
Notable developments include:
Reusable rockets developed by companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin have dramatically reduced launch costs.
Commercial satellite constellations, such as Starlink and OneWeb, aim to provide global internet coverage.
Space tourism ventures, including Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin, have begun suborbital passenger flights.
Private space stations, asteroid mining concepts, and lunar resource projects are under development.
This evolving ecosystem requires legal adaptation to ensure responsible conduct, fair access, and effective regulation.
Legal Framework: State Responsibility and Oversight
International space law does not grant legal personality to private entities. Instead, it places full responsibility on states for all space activities launched from or authorized by them.
Under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, states must:
Authorize and continuously supervise the space activities of non-governmental entities.
Ensure such activities conform to international obligations.
Remain internationally responsible even if the actions are entirely private.
Additionally, Article VII makes states liable for damage caused by space objects launched by their nationals, reinforcing the need for regulatory control.
This model ensures that all space actors operate under a state’s legal authority. However, it also means that a failure in national regulation can have global legal consequences.
National Space Legislation: Filling the Gaps
Because international law delegates oversight to states, many countries have developed domestic laws to regulate commercial space activities. These typically include:
Country | Key Legal Instrument | Regulatory Body |
United States | Commercial Space Launch Act (1984), updated by CSLAA 2015 | Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), FCC, NOAA |
United Kingdom | Space Industry Act (2018) | UK Space Agency |
France | Loi relative aux opérations spatiales (2008) | CNES (Centre National d'Études Spatiales) |
India | Space Activities Bill (draft, under review) | IN-SPACe (Indian National Space Promotion and Authorization Center) |
These laws govern licensing, safety standards, liability insurance, and environmental protections. However, regulatory frameworks vary widely in scope and enforcement strength. Some countries may offer “light-touch” regulations to attract investment, raising concerns over forum shopping or flags of convenience in space.
Ownership and Resource Exploitation
One of the most contentious issues in the commercialization of space is the legal status of space resources. The Outer Space Treaty (Article II) prohibits national appropriation of outer space, but it does not clearly regulate private ownership of extracted resources.
In response, some countries have enacted laws recognizing property rights in space resources:
The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (2015) grants U.S. companies rights to own resources extracted from asteroids and celestial bodies.
Luxembourg’s Space Resources Law (2017) provides similar protections for companies under its jurisdiction.
The United Arab Emirates and Japan have also introduced national provisions for space mining activities.
These unilateral measures are controversial. Critics argue they conflict with the principle that outer space is the province of all humankind and lack a multilateral framework to ensure fairness and sustainability.
Challenges in Compliance and Enforcement
As commercial activity grows, several legal challenges emerge:
Licensing Coordination: Cross-border projects involving multiple jurisdictions require harmonized licensing and liability-sharing arrangements.
Debris Mitigation: Private actors contribute to orbital congestion but are not uniformly bound by debris mitigation standards.
Cybersecurity: Commercial satellites and ground stations are vulnerable to cyberattacks, with unclear protocols for attribution or response.
Market Concentration: The dominance of a few companies in launch services or satellite internet may lead to monopolistic practices or unequal access.
Environmental Impact: Space tourism, high-frequency launches, and atmospheric reentry raise concerns about emissions and stratospheric effects.
Despite these issues, enforcement remains weak. The international system lacks a central enforcement authority, and domestic compliance mechanisms vary in capability.
Soft Law and Industry-Led Norms
In response to regulatory gaps, several industry and intergovernmental initiatives promote soft law instruments and best practices:
UN COPUOS Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines (2019) encourage states and private actors to adopt standards for space safety and debris mitigation.
The Space Safety Coalition, a multi-stakeholder initiative, issues voluntary guidelines for responsible space behavior.
Companies increasingly adopt Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks, which include space sustainability in their risk disclosures.
While not legally binding, these efforts help shape emerging norms and may influence future treaty development.
Summary Table: Key Legal Principles on Private Space Activities
Issue | Governing Rule |
Authorization & supervision | States must oversee all non-governmental space activities (OST Art. VI) |
Liability for damage | Launching state is liable for damage, even if caused by private actor |
Ownership of resources | No consensus; national laws vary; multilateral regulation lacking |
Registration of space objects | Required under the Registration Convention (1975) |
Enforcement | Delegated to states; no global regulatory body |
Private actors have reshaped the space landscape, driving innovation and economic growth while posing new legal challenges. International law, rooted in state responsibility, provides a foundational framework—but one that is increasingly inadequate for the complexity of commercial space activities.
A coordinated approach is needed, combining strengthened national regulation, harmonized international standards, and multilateral dialogue on resource rights, environmental stewardship, and market access. As space becomes a commercial frontier, the legal regime must evolve to ensure that private ambition aligns with public interest and the long-term sustainability of outer space.
VIII. The Challenge of Space Debris and Environmental Protection
Space debris, also known as orbital debris or "space junk," has become one of the most urgent and complex threats to the sustainable use of outer space. Thousands of defunct satellites, spent rocket stages, fragmented spacecraft, and mission-related debris now orbit the Earth, posing a collision risk to operational satellites, space stations, and future missions. Despite growing awareness, international space law offers limited binding obligations for debris mitigation or environmental protection.
The Scale of the Problem
According to data from international monitoring agencies:
Over 36,000 objects larger than 10 cm are tracked in Earth orbit.
An estimated 1 million pieces between 1 cm and 10 cm remain untracked.
Collisions can produce high-velocity fragments capable of catastrophic damage.
Orbital regions like Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Geostationary Orbit (GEO) are becoming increasingly congested.
Events such as China’s 2007 anti-satellite (ASAT) test and the 2009 Iridium-Cosmos satellite collision have dramatically worsened the debris environment, increasing the probability of Kessler Syndrome—a cascade of collisions generating self-sustaining debris fields.
Current Legal Framework: Fragmented and Limited
International treaties do not impose binding debris mitigation or environmental cleanup obligations:
Outer Space Treaty (1967), Article IX, requires states to avoid “harmful contamination” of celestial bodies and adverse changes to Earth's environment due to space activities. However, the provision is general and lacks enforcement mechanisms.
Liability Convention (1972) allows injured states to claim compensation for damage caused by space objects, but proving fault in space debris cases is difficult, especially when the origin is untraceable.
Registration Convention (1975) aids in identifying space objects but does not track debris or mandate end-of-life disposal.
As such, while principles exist, the treaties are ill-equipped to address the operational realities of debris prevention and remediation.
Soft Law and Technical Guidelines
Recognizing the inadequacy of binding law, the international community has turned to non-binding instruments to guide debris mitigation practices:
UN COPUOS Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines (2019)
Recommends post-mission disposal, passivation of spacecraft, and collision avoidance planning.
Encourages transparency, data sharing, and notification procedures.
Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) Guidelines
Developed by space agencies to set voluntary technical standards for debris mitigation.
Includes recommendations on orbital lifetime limits and reentry safety.
ISO Standards (e.g., ISO 24113)
Provide baseline requirements for debris mitigation in satellite and rocket design.
While these norms have promoted best practices among leading spacefaring nations and companies, compliance is voluntary and uneven. Many commercial and state actors, particularly in emerging space programs, lack the incentives or capacity to adopt these standards.
Environmental Protection Beyond Debris
The environmental risks of space activities are not confined to orbital debris:
Rocket launches emit black carbon particles and alumina into the stratosphere, with potential implications for ozone depletion and climate change.
Suborbital tourism flights generate concentrated emissions at high altitudes.
Reentry of space objects, including uncontrolled satellite returns, may pose hazards to populated areas or sensitive ecosystems.
Currently, no international environmental treaty—such as the Paris Agreement or the Convention on Biological Diversity—addresses space-based pollution. Moreover, space activities often fall outside national environmental impact assessment regimes.
National and Private Sector Responses
Some national regulators have begun addressing debris and environmental risks:
The United States FCC has proposed stricter orbital debris rules, including fines and stricter post-mission disposal timelines.
France’s 2008 Space Operations Act imposes legally binding debris mitigation obligations for operators.
India’s IN-SPACe and Japan’s JAXA are developing national standards aligned with IADC guidelines.
Private companies are also investing in de-orbiting technologies, active debris removal (ADR), and space situational awareness (SSA) services. Examples include:
Company/Agency | Initiative |
Astroscale (Japan) | Demonstration of magnetic debris capture mechanisms |
ClearSpace (Switzerland) | ESA-funded mission to deorbit a defunct upper stage |
LeoLabs (USA) | Commercial tracking and collision avoidance services |
These efforts are promising but remain technologically and economically constrained. No commercial model yet supports large-scale cleanup.
Policy Gaps and Governance Challenges
The lack of a binding international regime for debris mitigation and environmental protection creates several vulnerabilities:
No enforcement authority exists to penalize non-compliance or incentivize best practices.
No liability framework covers long-term damage caused by debris fields or non-traceable fragments.
No equitable access mechanism ensures that congested orbits remain usable for future and developing countries.
No environmental impact assessment protocol addresses the full lifecycle of space missions.
Efforts to negotiate binding agreements have faltered due to diverging national interests, technological disparities, and concerns over verification.
Summary Table: Legal Status of Key Environmental Issues in Space
Issue | Binding Law | Soft Law / Practice |
Orbital debris mitigation | No binding treaty | UN COPUOS LTS Guidelines, IADC standards |
Liability for debris damage | Liability Convention (fault-based) | Limited practical use, no precedent cases |
Environmental protection (general) | OST Article IX (non-binding principle) | No global treaty covers space emissions |
Active debris removal | Not regulated | National pilot programs, emerging initiatives |
The challenge of space debris and environmental protection lies at the intersection of law, science, and politics. Existing treaties provide a foundation of general principles, but they lack the legal force and specificity needed to address the escalating risks of congestion, collision, and contamination.
Without timely reforms, the cumulative impact of debris may jeopardize essential space infrastructure and limit humanity’s long-term ability to use orbital space safely and equitably. Binding international standards, effective enforcement mechanisms, and coordinated investment in debris removal technologies are now essential to preserve the sustainability of the space environment. In a shared and borderless domain, environmental stewardship is not optional—it is a legal and ethical imperative.
IX. The Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: Legal Status and Use
The legal status and permissible uses of the Moon and other celestial bodies are central concerns in international space law. As states and private entities advance plans for lunar exploration, asteroid mining, and potential settlements beyond Earth, the interpretation of existing legal instruments becomes increasingly important. These activities test the limits of current norms and reveal gaps in regulation that require closer examination.
Foundational Principles in the Outer Space Treaty
The Outer Space Treaty (1967) establishes the primary legal framework governing the Moon and other celestial bodies. Several articles directly regulate their use:
Article I states that the Moon and other celestial bodies are free for exploration and use by all states and must benefit all countries.
Article II declares that outer space, including the Moon, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, use, occupation, or any other means.
Article IV prohibits the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space and restricts the Moon’s use to peaceful purposes.
Article IX requires states to avoid harmful contamination and adverse environmental effects when exploring celestial bodies.
These provisions collectively frame celestial bodies as a global commons, open to all but immune to national or exclusive control. While they prohibit sovereignty claims, they do not explicitly address whether private or public actors can own or profit from extracted resources. This omission has become a focal point of legal and political debate.
The Moon Agreement (1979): Expanding the Legal Framework
To address the legal uncertainties surrounding celestial bodies, the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies—commonly known as the Moon Agreement—was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979. It entered into force in 1984 but has only been ratified by a small number of countries, none of which are major space powers.
Key provisions include:
Article 11(1) reaffirms that the Moon and its natural resources are not subject to national appropriation.
Article 11(3) identifies the Moon as the common heritage of mankind.
Article 11(5) requires the establishment of an international regime to govern the exploitation of lunar resources.
Article 12 mandates that stations, equipment, and installations on the Moon be open to visits by representatives of other states, with prior notice and consultation.
Article 7 prohibits the use of the Moon for any hostile acts or testing of weapons.
The Moon Agreement attempts to create a governance model similar to that of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) regarding deep-sea resources. It envisions a shared regime to regulate and equitably distribute the benefits of space resource exploitation.
However, many spacefaring nations have rejected or ignored the Moon Agreement due to concerns over its implications for national sovereignty and commercial freedom. The absence of a ratified implementation regime under Article 11(5) leaves a legal vacuum around how space mining and property rights should be managed.
Resource Extraction: A Legal Grey Zone
The critical legal issue today is not sovereignty over celestial bodies themselves—which is clearly prohibited—but the status of resources extracted from those bodies. The Outer Space Treaty is silent on whether resources like water, metals, or minerals can be privately or publicly owned after extraction.
Several countries have adopted national legislation granting domestic actors rights over extracted space resources:
United States: The Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (2015) allows U.S. citizens to own and sell resources they extract from celestial bodies.
Luxembourg: Its 2017 law provides similar guarantees for commercial resource rights.
United Arab Emirates and Japan have followed suit with legal frameworks supporting private mining efforts.
These laws are often justified under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, which places international responsibility on states for the activities of their nationals. Proponents argue that recognizing ownership of extracted resources does not violate the non-appropriation principle, as long as sovereignty is not asserted over the celestial body itself.
Critics argue that such unilateral legislation undermines multilateralism and potentially conflicts with the “province of all mankind” concept embedded in Article I of the Outer Space Treaty. They also note that these laws may lead to resource competition, exclusionary practices, and legal fragmentation.
Lunar Governance Initiatives Outside the UN System
To fill the regulatory vacuum left by the limited ratification of the Moon Agreement, some states have turned to new bilateral or multilateral mechanisms. The most notable example is the Artemis Accords, introduced by the United States in 2020.
The Artemis Accords outline principles for lunar exploration and resource use, including:
Transparency and interoperability
Registration and deconfliction of space activities
Commitment to peaceful purposes
Creation of “safety zones” to avoid operational interference
Respect for heritage sites
More than 30 countries have signed the Accords. However, they are not legally binding and are not negotiated through the UN. Critics argue that they reflect U.S. leadership preferences and could sideline efforts to establish an inclusive, treaty-based governance model. Supporters contend that the Accords fill an urgent need for cooperative norms in the absence of broader international consensus.
Freedom of Access and Jurisdictional Issues
Under Article I of the Outer Space Treaty, the Moon and other celestial bodies must remain freely accessible. However, large-scale operations—such as mining, research stations, or landing zones—raise practical challenges:
How can exclusive operations be reconciled with non-appropriation and freedom of access?
What constitutes legitimate control or occupation without claiming sovereignty?
Should lunar activities be subject to registration, notification, or inspection regimes?
Additionally, Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty gives the launching state jurisdiction over objects and personnel it sends into space. This provision extends to installations or vehicles on the Moon, but not to the lunar surface itself. As human presence on the Moon becomes a reality, questions over criminal jurisdiction, property rights, and safety oversight will grow in significance.
Protection of the Lunar Environment
Environmental concerns also arise in connection with lunar exploration and use. Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty obliges states to avoid harmful contamination and to conduct exploration with due regard to the interests of other states. This principle applies to:
Preserving scientifically important sites (e.g., South Pole water ice deposits)
Minimizing physical disturbance from landers, drills, and rovers
Preventing chemical contamination of regolith or water resources
Coordinating radio frequencies and communication protocols to avoid interference
Despite these obligations, no binding environmental code exists for the Moon or other celestial bodies. The scientific community has called for the designation of lunar protected areas, but no formal regime has been adopted.
The legal status and use of the Moon and other celestial bodies reflect a tension between non-appropriation principles, the drive for commercial development, and the need for cooperative governance. As new actors plan missions and develop technologies for lunar exploitation, the absence of binding rules leaves fundamental legal questions unresolved and the global legal order vulnerable to fragmentation.
X. The Role of the United Nations and International Organizations
International cooperation in outer space governance is anchored in the institutional efforts of the United Nations and other global and regional organizations. Given that outer space is legally designated as a domain belonging to all humanity and not subject to national appropriation, the need for multilateral oversight and inclusive rulemaking is essential. The United Nations has played—and continues to play—a central role in developing, promoting, and monitoring the legal framework for space activities, while other specialized international organizations contribute to technical regulation, coordination, and capacity-building.
United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS)
The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) is the primary UN body dedicated to space governance. Created by the General Assembly in 1959, it is composed of two subcommittees:
The Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, which addresses technical cooperation, long-term sustainability, and information sharing.
The Legal Subcommittee, which drafts and discusses legal instruments and monitors the implementation of treaties.
COPUOS has been instrumental in shaping the core treaties of international space law, including the:
1967 Outer Space Treaty
1968 Rescue Agreement
1972 Liability Convention
1975 Registration Convention
1979 Moon Agreement
These instruments were all developed and negotiated under COPUOS and adopted by the UN General Assembly. Beyond treaties, COPUOS also promotes soft-law frameworks such as:
The 1996 Declaration on International Cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space.
The 2007 Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, later updated.
The 2019 Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines, which provide best practices for responsible behavior in orbit.
Although COPUOS does not enforce legal obligations, its consensus-based processes lend legitimacy and global reach to its outputs. It remains the central forum for dialogue among spacefaring and non-spacefaring nations alike.
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA)
Operating as the secretariat for COPUOS, the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) plays a key role in supporting the implementation of space law and promoting the peaceful use of outer space. Its core functions include:
Maintaining the UN Register of Objects Launched into Outer Space, as required under the Registration Convention.
Disseminating treaty status information and promoting the ratification and implementation of space law instruments.
Conducting capacity-building programs, especially for developing countries, to ensure equitable access to space technologies and participation in space governance.
Coordinating the UN Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER), which uses space-derived data for disaster risk reduction and humanitarian support.
UNOOSA also provides legal advisory services to states drafting national space legislation, ensuring compliance with international obligations. Through workshops, training sessions, and outreach programs, it contributes to bridging the space governance divide between established and emerging space actors.
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a specialized UN agency, manages the allocation of radio frequencies and satellite orbital slots, which are critical for ensuring non-interference among communication systems in orbit.
Key roles of the ITU include:
Assigning orbital positions in the geostationary orbit (GEO), a limited and highly valuable resource.
Coordinating frequency use to avoid signal interference.
Promoting equitable access, particularly for developing countries seeking to launch satellites.
ITU’s work is legally binding on its member states under the Constitution and Convention of the ITU and the Radio Regulations. However, enforcement depends on member compliance and dispute resolution mechanisms within the ITU framework.
Other International and Regional Organizations
Beyond the UN, several international organizations contribute to specific aspects of space governance:
European Space Agency (ESA)
A regional intergovernmental organization focused on space research, development, and cooperation among European states.
Engages in multilateral missions and technology sharing.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
Develops technical standards related to spacecraft design, space debris mitigation, and quality assurance.
Group on Earth Observations (GEO)
Facilitates global cooperation on Earth observation data for environmental monitoring and sustainable development.
International Astronautical Federation (IAF) and International Institute of Space Law (IISL)
Promote academic and policy dialogue, host conferences, and publish research on legal and regulatory developments in outer space.
Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC)
Composed of national space agencies, it issues voluntary debris mitigation guidelines that are widely used by major space actors.
Promotion of Global Equity and Capacity-Building
The UN’s role extends beyond rulemaking to ensuring that all states—regardless of technological capacity—can benefit from space activities. This objective is embedded in the principle that outer space must be used "for the benefit of all countries," as stated in Article I of the Outer Space Treaty.
UNOOSA and COPUOS actively support:
North-South cooperation in satellite technology, navigation, and disaster management.
Legal and regulatory assistance for developing states drafting national legislation.
Partnerships with academia to train the next generation of space lawyers, engineers, and policymakers.
The "Space2030 Agenda", endorsed by the UN General Assembly, reinforces the need for sustainable space development aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), emphasizing access, capacity-building, and responsible use.
Norm-Building and Dispute Prevention
Although no global authority currently enforces space law, the United Nations plays a critical norm-building role by:
Facilitating dialogue between states on emerging challenges such as space traffic management, mega-constellations, and space mining.
Encouraging transparency and confidence-building measures, such as voluntary registration, information sharing, and cooperative missions.
Hosting discussions on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), despite persistent disagreements among major powers.
By providing a neutral and inclusive platform for space governance, the UN and its agencies reduce the risk of legal fragmentation, competitive escalation, and exclusionary practices in a domain meant to serve all humankind.
XI. Normative Gaps and Emerging Regulatory Proposals
Despite its foundational treaties and evolving soft law mechanisms, the current international legal framework governing outer space is increasingly seen as inadequate to regulate the complex, diversified, and rapidly evolving nature of modern space activities. The existing regime was developed in the 1960s and 1970s—an era of Cold War rivalry and state-dominated exploration—and is now facing critical normative gaps that challenge legal certainty, sustainability, equity, and security.
These gaps have prompted growing calls for new regulatory proposals and normative frameworks to ensure that outer space remains a peaceful, sustainable, and accessible domain for all.
Identifying the Key Normative Gaps
Absence of Clear Delimitation Between Airspace and Outer Space
No international agreement defines where outer space begins, creating legal uncertainty for suborbital vehicles, spaceplanes, and near-space operations.
This undermines the clarity needed to apply air law versus space law, particularly in matters of jurisdiction, military activity, and liability.
No Binding Rules on Space Resource Exploitation
The Outer Space Treaty prohibits sovereignty over celestial bodies but remains silent on the ownership of extracted resources.
National laws (e.g., U.S., Luxembourg) have authorized resource ownership, creating asymmetries and legal fragmentation in the absence of a multilateral regime.
Inadequate Regulation of Commercial and Private Actors
Existing treaties assign full responsibility to states but do not define minimum standards for state authorization and supervision.
Forum shopping and regulatory arbitrage are increasingly possible, especially as more states adopt investment-friendly space laws without robust oversight.
Lack of Binding Debris Mitigation and Environmental Protection Obligations
Despite mounting risks from space debris, there is no treaty that mandates preventive measures or assigns long-term liability for orbital pollution.
Environmental principles in Article IX of the OST are vague and non-enforceable.
Gaps in Military and Security Governance
The prohibition on weapons of mass destruction in space (Outer Space Treaty, Article IV) does not extend to conventional or cyber weapons.
Anti-satellite (ASAT) testing, weaponization of dual-use technologies, and military doctrines treating space as a warfighting domain remain unregulated.
No Dispute Resolution or Enforcement Mechanism
There is no dedicated court or binding arbitration body for space-related disputes.
States must rely on diplomatic channels or optional mechanisms (e.g., International Court of Justice), which are slow, costly, and underutilized.
Lack of Inclusive Governance and Equity Provisions
Space law lacks redistributive mechanisms to ensure fair access and benefits for non-spacefaring and developing countries.
The principle of space as the “province of all mankind” has no operational mechanism or financial implementation structure.
Emerging Proposals and Reform Initiatives
Efforts to address these gaps are emerging through a mix of national laws, soft law, model frameworks, and informal arrangements. While these are important steps, they remain fragmented and non-binding, with varying degrees of inclusiveness and legitimacy.
1. Multilateral Initiatives
Artemis Accords (2020–present)
U.S.-led bilateral agreements that set out principles for lunar exploration, resource use, and interoperability.
Promote transparency, peaceful use, and deconfliction, but lack universal support and legal enforceability.
Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities (UNCOPUOS Legal Subcommittee, 2021–2027)
Established to explore potential legal models for space resource exploitation, including whether a multilateral agreement is feasible.
Long-Term Sustainability (LTS) Guidelines
Non-binding set of practices developed by UNCOPUOS to improve space safety and security.
Encourage debris mitigation, data sharing, and national implementation policies.
UN Open-Ended Working Group on Reducing Space Threats (2022–2023)
Aimed to promote norms and responsible behaviors to prevent an arms race in outer space (PAROS), though progress remains limited.
2. National and Bilateral Models
States are independently developing national licensing regimes that incorporate standards for debris mitigation, resource extraction, insurance, and transparency.
Bilateral agreements (e.g., U.S.–Japan lunar cooperation, U.S.–India space frameworks) are increasingly used to manage joint missions and regulatory interoperability.
3. Academic and Expert Proposals
McGill Manual on International Law Applicable to Military Uses of Outer Space (MILAMOS)
A non-binding academic initiative that articulates the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) in space contexts.
Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Operations
Another scholarly effort focused on clarifying the rules of warfare applicable to outer space.
Proposals for a New Space Treaty
Some experts advocate for a comprehensive, binding “Space Sustainability Treaty”, focusing on debris control, equitable resource sharing, and environmental protections.
Functionalist Approaches
These proposals suggest regulating space activities by their function rather than by location or ownership status, aiming to avoid conflicts over boundaries and definitions.
4. Industry-Led and Civil Society Norms
Organizations such as the Space Safety Coalition, World Economic Forum’s Space Sustainability Rating, and Secure World Foundation are advancing best practices for responsible behavior.
Companies are also adopting ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) frameworks that incorporate space sustainability metrics.
Summary Table: Key Gaps and Proposed Responses
Normative Gap | Proposed Response |
No delimitation of outer space | Scientific and functional criteria under discussion at COPUOS |
Unregulated resource ownership | Working Group on space resource legal models; national laws in parallel |
Commercial actor oversight | Development of best practices and national licensing frameworks |
Space debris & environment | LTS Guidelines; calls for binding debris treaty |
Militarization and conflict norms | MILAMOS, Woomera Manual, UN discussions on PAROS |
No enforcement or dispute body | Calls for a specialized dispute resolution mechanism under COPUOS or ICJ |
Equity and benefit-sharing | Proposals for international fund mechanisms and capacity-building platforms |
While these initiatives represent significant momentum, most remain non-binding, unevenly applied, or politically contested. Without comprehensive and enforceable legal instruments, the international community risks entering an era of fragmented space governance, where norms are shaped by power dynamics, economic interests, and ad hoc arrangements, rather than universal principles and shared accountability.
Also Read
XII. The Future of Space Law: Toward a More Robust Framework
As outer space becomes increasingly congested, commercialized, and contested, the pressure to strengthen the international legal framework has intensified. The future of space law depends on bridging the gap between outdated treaties and the complex realities of 21st-century space activities. Achieving a more robust framework requires a blend of legal innovation, political consensus, institutional reform, and inclusive governance that can adapt to rapid technological and geopolitical developments.
1. Principles Guiding Future Space Law Development
A forward-looking space governance system should be anchored in several core principles:
Peaceful use of outer space: Reinforcing the demilitarization of space and reducing the risk of conflict through transparency and verification mechanisms.
Sustainability and environmental protection: Addressing the threat of orbital debris, contamination of celestial bodies, and atmospheric impact of launches through enforceable obligations.
Equity and inclusivity: Ensuring that the benefits of space are shared equitably among all nations, including developing states and non-spacefaring nations.
Legal certainty and accountability: Clarifying legal status of space objects, activities, and resources to prevent jurisdictional conflicts and ensure responsible conduct.
Technological neutrality and adaptability: Crafting norms that are flexible enough to accommodate emerging technologies such as autonomous spacecraft, AI-driven missions, and in-orbit servicing.
2. Toward a Binding Space Sustainability Treaty
One of the most widely supported proposals is the negotiation of a binding international treaty on space sustainability. Such an instrument could:
Mandate orbital debris mitigation and remediation standards
Establish an international fund or agency for debris removal
Set end-of-life disposal requirements for satellites
Include mandatory registration and notification mechanisms
This treaty could operate similarly to the Montreal Protocol in environmental law—offering clear obligations, technical cooperation, and periodic review to adjust to new challenges.
3. Institutional Reform and Enforcement Mechanisms
The effectiveness of international space law has been limited by the absence of enforcement bodies and judicial mechanisms. Reform efforts may include:
Establishing a specialized dispute resolution body, possibly under the International Court of Justice or a new arbitral tribunal, to handle space-related disputes.
Creating a UN Space Enforcement and Monitoring Agency (SEMA) to verify treaty compliance, investigate violations, and coordinate inspections.
Enhancing the role of UNOOSA with budgetary independence and technical authority to issue compliance reports.
These institutions could provide the accountability and monitoring capacities currently lacking in the COPUOS framework.
4. Regulating Space Resource Activities
To address growing interest in space mining, asteroid exploitation, and lunar commercialization, a multilateral regulatory regime is urgently needed. Possible components include:
Defining property rights and benefit-sharing mechanisms under a model similar to UNCLOS for the high seas.
Requiring international licensing and environmental assessments for resource extraction projects.
Guaranteeing non-discriminatory access to celestial bodies while ensuring that activities do not monopolize critical areas like lunar poles or asteroid clusters.
The COPUOS Working Group on Space Resources could serve as the foundation for drafting such a regime, if supported by major space powers.
5. Legal Responses to Emerging Technologies
Space law must also evolve to address novel technologies and mission profiles:
Autonomous systems and AI: Establish liability frameworks for decisions made by machines in space operations.
Mega-constellations: Set technical and legal limits on deployments to prevent orbital saturation and harmful interference.
Active debris removal: Define the legality and jurisdiction of removing or deorbiting foreign space objects, potentially under salvage or custodial norms.
Space traffic management (STM): Create a unified STM system combining real-time data, traffic rules, and coordination protocols under international oversight.
Regulation of these technologies should balance innovation with legal safeguards and respect for sovereignty.
6. Promoting Inclusive Governance and Global Participation
Ensuring that all countries benefit from space activities—and have a voice in shaping the rules—is critical to the legitimacy and effectiveness of future space law. Measures to enhance inclusivity include:
Expanding capacity-building programs, such as those offered by UNOOSA, to support space law implementation in the Global South.
Creating technology-sharing frameworks for critical infrastructure like Earth observation satellites and disaster response systems.
Mandating consultation procedures for activities that may affect common areas or developing nations' interests.
Establishing international legal clinics or advisory groups to assist countries in drafting compliant national legislation.
Such efforts would operationalize the principle of space as the “province of all mankind.”
7. Integrating Hard Law with Soft Law Norms
While binding treaties are essential, future space law will also rely heavily on soft law instruments to address fast-changing technologies and commercial practices. These may include:
Codes of conduct, like the EU-proposed International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities.
Best practice guidelines, such as those issued by the Space Safety Coalition or IADC.
Industry self-regulation, including internal ESG standards and sustainability audits.
Certification mechanisms, such as the World Economic Forum's Space Sustainability Rating (SSR).
These instruments offer flexibility, rapid adoption, and the ability to build consensus ahead of formal treaty negotiations.
8. Summary Table: Core Elements of a Future Legal Framework
Priority Area | Proposed Legal Mechanism |
Orbital debris mitigation | Binding treaty + monitoring agency |
Resource exploitation | International licensing + benefit-sharing regime |
Military restraint | Expansion of OST Article IV + verification system |
Dispute resolution | Specialized international tribunal for space affairs |
Space traffic management | Global STM framework with shared protocols |
Private actor regulation | Model national laws + oversight under state responsibility |
Inclusivity and equity | Technology sharing + legal capacity-building |
The path toward a more robust framework for international space law is legally and politically complex, but increasingly unavoidable. As space becomes a critical domain for security, economics, climate monitoring, and scientific discovery, its governance must reflect not just the interests of a few powerful states but the rights and responsibilities of the global community. The next decade will be decisive in determining whether humanity can establish a peaceful, sustainable, and cooperative legal order beyond Earth.
References
United Nations. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty), 1967.
United Nations. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Moon Agreement), 1979.
United Nations. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Liability Convention), 1972.
United Nations. Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (Registration Convention), 1975.
United Nations. Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, 1996.
United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS). Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities, 2019.
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). Space Law Documents and Database. Accessed 2025.
Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC). Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, 2007.
ISO 24113: Space systems – Space debris mitigation requirements, International Organization for Standardization, 2019.
Schmitt, Michael N. (ed.). The Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Operations. Draft, 2022.
Jakhu, R., Sgobba, T., & Dempsey, P. (eds.). Regulation of Commercial Space Activities. Springer, 2021.
European Space Agency (ESA). Clean Space Initiative and Debris Mitigation Programs. Accessed 2025.
United States Congress. U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, Public Law No. 114-90, 2015.
Luxembourg Government. Law on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources, 2017.
McGill Centre for Research in Air and Space Law. Manual on International Law Applicable to Military Uses of Outer Space (MILAMOS), Draft Version 3.0, 2022.
UN General Assembly. Resolution 74/82 – Space2030 Agenda: Space as a Driver of Sustainable Development, 2019.
Congressional Research Service. Commercial Space: Federal Regulation, Oversight, and Utilization, CRS Report R9432, 2021.
United Nations. Status of International Agreements Relating to Activities in Outer Space, ST/SPACE/11/Rev.2, 2002. https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/de/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/status/index.html
UNIDIR. Security in Outer Space: Challenges and Governance Approaches, 2020.
Schmitt, Michael N. International Law and Military Operations in Space, 2009.
Comments