The Global Framework of Space Law and Governance

The Genesis of Space Law

The body of law governing human activity in outer space did not emerge from abstract legal theory or philosophical debate. It was forged in the crucible of the Cold War, a direct and pragmatic response to the geopolitical and technological realities of an era defined by superpower rivalry and existential threat. The legal principles that now guide the actions of nations beyond Earth’s atmosphere were born from a shared fear of the alternative: an unregulated, militarized void that could trigger a global catastrophe.

From Airspace to Outer Space

The story of space law begins with its predecessor, air law. By the mid-20th century, international law had firmly established the principle of national sovereignty over the airspace directly above a country’s territory. The Chicago Convention of 1944 reinforced this concept, creating a clear legal distinction between the sovereign skies of a nation and the shared domain of the high seas. The advent of the space age shattered this two-dimensional legal map. When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1 in 1957, its orbit carried it over the territories of countless nations without their permission. This act posed a fundamental legal question that had never before been relevant: where does sovereign airspace end and outer space begin? This issue of delimitation, the precise boundary between air and space, remains legally undefined to this day, representing a foundational ambiguity that persists at the heart of space law.

The Sputnik Shock and the Space Race

The successful launch of Sputnik 1 was a technological triumph for the Soviet Union and a significant strategic shock to the United States and its allies. The small, beeping satellite demonstrated a capability that had, until that moment, been theoretical. It signaled the start of the Space Age and ignited the Space Race, an intense competition between the two superpowers for technological and ideological supremacy. The American response was swift and decisive. In 1958, the U.S. Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, a landmark piece of legislation that created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to lead the nation’s civilian space efforts. Because space exploration inherently required crossing transnational boundaries, it was during this period that space law began to emerge as a field distinct from traditional aerospace law.

A Reaction to Geopolitical Fear

The initial drive to create a legal framework for space was rooted less in a collective spirit of exploration and more in a palpable fear of extending the Cold War into a new, terrifying dimension. The development of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), which travel through outer space to reach their targets, made the prospect of space-based weapons of mass destruction a tangible threat. The possibility of nuclear weapons orbiting overhead, capable of striking any point on Earth with little warning, created an urgent need for rules.

The nascent legal framework emerged not from idealism but from a pragmatic calculation of mutual survival. It was a mechanism to establish mutual restraints and prevent a catastrophic miscalculation in the new high ground of space. The Cold War was characterized by intense rivalry and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. The launch of Sputnik demonstrated the capability to place objects—and potentially weapons—in orbit, bypassing traditional terrestrial defenses and creating a new dimension of strategic vulnerability. Early discussions about limiting military activities often stalled whenever one side perceived it held a temporary strategic advantage, a clear indication that national interest, not abstract principle, was the primary driver.

Eventually, both superpowers recognized that the absence of rules created unacceptable risks. An undeclared satellite overflight could be misinterpreted as a prelude to an attack, potentially triggering a nuclear exchange. Establishing principles like the use of space for “peaceful purposes” and banning weapons of mass destruction from orbit was not just about lofty ideals; it was a pragmatic move to reduce the risk of accidental war and create a predictable strategic environment. The law served as a crucial de-escalation strategy and a vital confidence-building measure in a world on edge.

The UN as a Neutral Forum

Recognizing the dangers of a bilateral stalemate, the United States and the USSR began discussions in 1958 that led them to present the issue to the United Nations. The UN was seen as the only viable neutral forum for negotiating a framework that could bind both sides. This move culminated in the UN General Assembly adopting its first space-related resolution on December 13, 1958, which recognized the common interest of humanity in outer space. The following year, the General Assembly established the permanent Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), tasking it with the monumental job of governing the exploration and use of space for the benefit of all humankind.

The United Nations and the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, or COPUOS, stands as the central multilateral body responsible for the creation and development of international space law. Since its inception, it has provided the essential forum for nations to negotiate the rules governing humanity’s expansion beyond Earth, transforming the high-stakes rivalry of the Space Race into a framework of cooperation and principle.

Establishment and Mandate

COPUOS was established as a permanent UN body in 1959 with a broad and ambitious mandate: to govern the exploration and use of outer space for the benefit of all humanity, with a specific focus on ensuring peace, security, and development. Its primary tasks were to review the scope of international cooperation in space, devise programs to be undertaken under UN auspices, encourage continued research, and study the unique legal problems arising from space exploration. From its earliest days, the committee’s work was driven by the concern that space should be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and that its benefits should be shared by all nations.

Structure and Function

The enduring success of COPUOS can be attributed in large part to its unique and effective structure. The main committee is supported by two subsidiary bodies, both established in 1961: the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (STSC) and the Legal Subcommittee (LSC). This division of labor has proven to be remarkably effective. The STSC convenes annually to address the technical and scientific aspects of space activities, discussing topics such as space weather, near-Earth objects, space debris, and the use of space technology for disaster management. The LSC, in turn, meets to consider the legal questions related to space exploration, including the status and application of the UN treaties, the definition and delimitation of outer space, and the development of national space legislation. This structure allows technical consensus on complex issues to inform and ground the subsequent legal and political negotiations, creating a more stable and practical foundation for international law.

The Consensus Principle

A key feature of COPUOS, and a critical element of its early achievements, is its reliance on consensus-based decision-making. This principle ensures that no resolution or treaty can be adopted without the agreement of all participating members. During the Cold War, this was essential, as it guaranteed that any new law would have the full backing of the two main space powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, making the resulting treaties legitimate and enforceable. The committee has grown significantly from its original 18 members in 1958 to over 100 member states today, making it one of the largest committees in the General Assembly. While this growth reflects the democratization of space, it has also made achieving consensus on new, contentious issues far more challenging.

The very mechanism that ensured the legitimacy and widespread adoption of the foundational space treaties is now a primary factor in the slowdown of new, binding international space law. The committee’s expansion from a small group dominated by two superpowers to a large, diverse body has made consensus on contentious modern issues nearly impossible. In the 1960s and 1970s, consensus essentially meant an agreement between the U.S. and the USSR. With their buy-in, treaties could move forward relatively quickly. Today, COPUOS includes over 100 member states with vastly different interests: established space powers, emerging space nations, commercial space hubs, and developing countries with no launch capability of their own. Issues like space resource mining or the regulation of satellite mega-constellations pit these varied interests directly against one another.

Achieving unanimous agreement among all these actors is exceptionally difficult. This legislative paralysis is a direct cause of the fact that no new binding multilateral space treaty has been successfully negotiated through COPUOS since the ill-fated Moon Agreement in 1979. This has forced a significant shift in governance mechanisms. In place of “hard law” in the form of treaties, the international community has increasingly turned to “soft law,” such as non-binding guidelines, and to actions taken outside the traditional UN framework. The past success of COPUOS has, in a sense, constrained its ability to legislate for the present.

The Role of UNOOSA

The work of COPUOS and its subcommittees is supported by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). As the committee’s secretariat, UNOOSA provides the essential administrative, technical, and legal support required for this complex multilateral process to function. UNOOSA’s role has expanded over the years, and it is now the primary UN entity responsible for promoting international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space.

The Cornerstone of International Space Law: The Five UN Treaties

The entire edifice of international space law rests upon a foundation of five international treaties negotiated and drafted within COPUOS between 1967 and 1979. These agreements, while products of the Cold War, establish the fundamental principles of freedom, responsibility, and cooperation that continue to govern space activities today. They represent a remarkable achievement in international diplomacy, creating a framework for peace in a new domain at a time of intense terrestrial conflict.

The Outer Space Treaty (1967): The Magna Carta of Space

Formally known as the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, the Outer Space Treaty is the foundational legal instrument for all of humanity’s activities beyond Earth. It is often called the “Magna Carta of Space” for its establishment of broad, guiding principles. Having entered into force in October 1967, it enjoys wide acceptance, with over 115 countries as parties, including all major spacefaring nations.

The treaty’s core principles are revolutionary in their scope. Article I declares that the exploration and use of outer space “shall be the province of all mankind” and must be carried out “for the benefit and in the interests of all countries”. It establishes an unequivocal right of free exploration and use by all states without discrimination, as well as free access to all areas of celestial bodies. This principle effectively prevented any nation from closing off parts of space for its exclusive use.

Perhaps its most famous provision is Article II, which establishes the principle of non-appropriation. It states that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, “is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means”. This single sentence prevents any country from claiming ownership of the Moon, a planet, or an asteroid, preserving them as domains for all.

The treaty also contains provisions to ensure the peaceful and responsible use of this new domain. Article IV is a cornerstone of space arms control. It forbids states from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth or stationing them on celestial bodies. It further limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies “exclusively for peaceful purposes,” prohibiting the establishment of military bases, the testing of any type of weapon, and the conduct of military maneuvers.

Responsibility and liability are also central themes. Article VI establishes that states bear international responsibility for all national activities in space, whether they are carried out by government agencies or by non-governmental entities like private companies. This means a state must authorize and provide continuing supervision for the activities of its private sector. Building on this, Article VII makes each state internationally liable for damage caused by its space objects.

Finally, the treaty includes several human-centric provisions. Article V designates astronauts as “envoys of mankind” and requires all states to render them all possible assistance in the event of an accident, distress, or emergency landing. This provision reflects a shared sense of humanity and mutual dependence in the hostile environment of space.

The Rescue Agreement (1968): A Duty to Assist

The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space was the first of the subsequent treaties designed to elaborate on the principles laid out in the Outer Space Treaty. Specifically, it expands upon the duties outlined in Article V regarding assistance to astronauts.

The agreement creates clear obligations for signatory states. It mandates that they take all possible steps to rescue and assist the “personnel of a spacecraft” who are in distress and land in their territory, on the high seas, or in any other place not under the jurisdiction of any state. Once rescued, they must be safely and promptly returned to the launching state. The agreement also extends this duty of assistance to space objects, requiring states to help in recovering and returning objects that land on their territory upon request from the launching authority.

While straightforward in its intent, the Rescue Agreement faces modern ambiguities. The rise of commercial spaceflight and space tourism has created a legal gray area around the term “personnel of a spacecraft”. It is not entirely clear if a paying tourist would be afforded the same status and protections as a government astronaut. Furthermore, the agreement is silent on the critical issue of allocating the potentially enormous costs of a complex international rescue operation, a question of increasing relevance as more people travel to space.

The Liability Convention (1972): Who Pays for Damage?

The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects provides the detailed procedural rules for the liability principle established in Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty. It creates a unique and sophisticated two-tiered system for assigning responsibility when a space object causes harm.

The first tier establishes a regime of absolute liability. Under Article II, a “launching State” is absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the Earth or to an aircraft in flight. This means that the victim does not need to prove any fault or negligence on the part of the launching state; the fact that its object caused the damage is sufficient to establish liability. This high standard reflects the ultra-hazardous nature of space activities and the desire to protect non-spacefaring nations from harm. The convention has only been formally invoked once, following the 1978 crash of the nuclear-powered Soviet satellite Cosmos 954, which scattered radioactive debris across a remote area of Canada.

The second tier governs damage caused in outer space, such as a collision between two satellites. In this scenario, the convention applies a fault-based liability standard. A launching state is liable for damage to another state’s space object only if the damage is “due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible”. This standard presents significant challenges in the modern orbital environment. Proving “fault” is exceedingly difficult in a domain that lacks clear “rules of the road” or universal standards for safe operation.

The convention’s procedures also create hurdles. Claims can only be brought by a state on behalf of itself or its nationals; private individuals and companies cannot bring claims directly against another state under the convention. This state-to-state claims process, combined with the difficulty of definitively identifying the origin of untraceable space debris and proving fault for an in-orbit collision, makes the convention a challenging instrument to apply to the most common types of modern orbital incidents.

The Registration Convention (1975): A Global Ledger

The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space was created to establish a mandatory, centralized system for tracking objects in space, thereby enhancing transparency and assisting in the identification of objects for the purposes of liability and responsibility.

The convention requires every “launching State” to maintain its own national registry of space objects. It must then furnish specific information about each object to the UN Secretary-General “as soon as practicable” for inclusion in a central Register of Objects Launched into Outer Space, which is maintained by UNOOSA and is publicly accessible. The required information provides a basic profile of each object: the name of the launching state(s), an appropriate designator or registration number, the date and location of the launch, basic orbital parameters (such as nodal period, inclination, apogee, and perigee), and the general function of the space object.

The act of registering an object is legally significant. It formally identifies the “State of registry,” which, under Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty, retains jurisdiction and control over the object and its personnel. This link between registration, jurisdiction, and liability is a key element of the international legal framework. The convention also recognizes that modern launches often involve multiple countries and provides a mechanism for them to jointly determine which state will register the object.

The Moon Agreement (1979): The Failed Treaty

The final treaty of the foundational era, the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, was the most ambitious and ultimately the least successful. It was intended to build upon the Outer Space Treaty by providing a more detailed legal regime for the orderly development and use of celestial bodies. It reaffirms that these bodies must be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and introduces stronger language regarding the prevention of environmental contamination.

The treaty’s failure to gain widespread acceptance stems almost entirely from one controversial concept. Article 11 declares that the Moon and its natural resources are the “common heritage of mankind” (CHM). This principle, borrowed from the concurrent negotiations for the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, was intended to ensure that the benefits of space resources would be shared equitably among all nations. The agreement mandates the establishment of an “international regime” to govern the exploitation of these resources once such exploitation becomes feasible.

This CHM concept was immediately viewed by the United States and other technologically advanced nations as a de facto moratorium on private enterprise and commercial resource extraction. The prospect of a new international bureaucracy controlling access to resources, potentially requiring mandatory technology transfer and profit-sharing, was unacceptable to countries with developing commercial space sectors. As a result, none of the major spacefaring powers—the U.S., Russia, or China—have signed or ratified the treaty. With only a handful of parties, the Moon Agreement is widely considered a failed instrument of international law, though its principles continue to influence the debate on space resource governance.

The stark difference in acceptance between the first four treaties and the Moon Agreement is a clear indicator of a fundamental shift in the international landscape. The following table illustrates this divide, showing the ratification status of the five core UN space treaties as of early 2025.

This data provides a powerful visualization of the state of international space law. The broad consensus behind the first four treaties demonstrates their foundational importance. The stark isolation of the Moon Agreement highlights the point at which the Cold War-era consensus broke down, particularly when faced with the complexities of commercial exploitation. This legislative freeze in 1979 has forced the evolution of space governance to proceed through other, non-treaty mechanisms.

The Architecture of Global Space Governance

While the UN treaties provide the foundational legal principles for space activities, a set of specialized international organizations is responsible for translating these principles into operational rules, standards, and practices. These bodies form the functional architecture of global space governance, managing everything from satellite orbits to capacity-building for emerging space nations. Their work is essential for the day-to-day coordination and long-term sustainability of the space environment.

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA)

UNOOSA is the primary United Nations body dedicated to outer space affairs. Its role has evolved significantly since its establishment in 1958. While it continues to serve as the secretariat for COPUOS, its mandate now extends far beyond administrative support. UNOOSA is the UN’s lead agent for promoting peaceful international cooperation in space, helping developing countries access and leverage space benefits for sustainable development, and strengthening the legal and regulatory frameworks that govern space activities globally.

A core part of UNOOSA’s mission is capacity-building. Recognizing the growing “space divide” between established and emerging space nations, the office runs a wide array of programs designed to share knowledge and provide opportunities. The “Access to Space for All” initiative, for example, partners with space agencies and research institutions to help countries develop technical expertise in areas like satellite development and microgravity research. The “Space Law for New Space Actors” project provides targeted legal advisory services to governments seeking to draft or update their national space laws and policies in line with international standards.

UNOOSA also has key operational responsibilities under international law. Most notably, it maintains the United Nations Register of Objects Launched into Outer Space, the central repository of information mandated by the Registration Convention. This function is critical for transparency and for linking space objects to the states responsible for them. Additionally, UNOOSA leads UN-Space, an inter-agency mechanism that coordinates the space-related activities of more than 30 different UN entities to promote synergies and avoid duplication of effort.

In recent years, UNOOSA has become central to the implementation of the “Space2030” Agenda. Adopted by the UN General Assembly, this agenda provides a comprehensive framework for linking space activities and space-based technologies to the achievement of the broader Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). UNOOSA acts as a facilitator, helping countries integrate space capabilities into their national development strategies to address challenges ranging from climate change and disaster management to food security and public health.

International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

The International Telecommunication Union, a specialized agency of the United Nations, plays a unique and indispensable role in space governance. It is responsible for the global management of two critical but finite resources: the radio frequency spectrum and satellite orbital slots. Its mandate is not to govern the physical conduct of space activities, but to ensure the orderly and interference-free operation of the communication systems upon which nearly all space activities depend.

The primary function of the ITU is to prevent “harmful interference” between the radio services of different countries. This is achieved through a detailed regulatory process enshrined in the Radio Regulations, a binding international treaty. When a country or a company plans to launch a new satellite or constellation, its national administration must submit a filing to the ITU’s Radiocommunication Bureau (ITU-R). The ITU-R examines the filing for compliance with the Radio Regulations and publishes it, initiating a coordination process with any other administrations whose existing or planned systems might be affected. This cooperative system allows nations to negotiate technical solutions to ensure their satellite systems can coexist without disrupting one another.

Historically, the ITU’s process has operated on a “first-come, first-served” principle, where the first entity to file for a particular frequency and orbital slot is granted priority. While effective for decades, this approach is now under immense strain from the rapid deployment of satellite mega-constellations, which require vast amounts of spectrum and orbital space. To prevent speculative filings and the “warehousing” of these limited resources, the ITU has implemented stricter rules. These include a “use-it-or-lose-it” provision, which requires frequencies to be brought into use within a seven-year timeframe, and a more recent milestone-based approach for large non-geostationary constellations, which requires operators to deploy a certain percentage of their satellites by specific deadlines to retain their full allocation.

The work of the ITU highlights a significant divergence in international governance approaches between physical space resources and electromagnetic resources. While COPUOS and the Outer Space Treaty established a commons-based, non-appropriation model for physical space, the ITU developed a highly structured, rights-based administrative system for the spectrum. The Outer Space Treaty explicitly forbids national appropriation of orbits and celestial bodies and promotes “free access” but provides no mechanism for managing that use; it is a framework of principles, not operational regulations. The ITU, by contrast, manages the radio spectrum through a detailed regulatory process that grants internationally recognized rights to use specific orbital slots and frequencies, effectively creating a system of exclusive, managed access.

This creates a paradox: a company cannot “own” a spot in geostationary orbit, but through the ITU process, it can secure internationally protected rights to operate a satellite there using specific frequencies, effectively preventing others from using that same resource combination. This governance gap has become a major issue. Satellite mega-constellations are simultaneously physical objects that congest orbits (a COPUOS concern) and vast networks of radio transmitters (an ITU concern). The unmanaged “tragedy of the commons” in the physical domain is colliding with the highly regulated regime of the spectrum domain. The lack of a unified governance approach, stemming from the separate historical development of these two bodies, means there is no single international forum equipped to holistically regulate activities that stress both physical and spectral resources at the same time.

National Space Legislation and Policy: A Comparative Analysis

International space law, as codified in the UN treaties, provides a framework of principles and obligations that apply to states. the implementation and interpretation of these principles are carried out at the national level through domestic legislation and policy. The Outer Space Treaty, in particular, requires states to authorize and continually supervise the activities of their non-governmental entities, making national space law an essential component of the global governance regime. An examination of the approaches taken by major spacefaring powers reveals a diverse landscape of legal and regulatory models.

United States

The regulation of the burgeoning commercial space sector is a key feature of U.S. law. The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, along with its subsequent amendments, designates the Department of Transportation—acting through the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST)—as the primary regulatory body for commercial space launches and re-entries. Other agencies have specific regulatory roles. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for licensing and regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum, which includes satellite communications, under the authority of the Communications Act of 1934. The Department of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), licenses private remote sensing (Earth-imaging) satellite systems under the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act.

U.S. policy has been overtly pro-commercial, actively seeking to foster a competitive private space industry. A landmark example is the 2015 Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act. This law not only extended a liability indemnification regime for commercial launch providers but also explicitly granted U.S. citizens property rights to any asteroid or space resources they obtain, stating that they “shall be entitled to any asteroid resource or space resource obtained, including to possess, own, transport, use, and sell” it. This was a bold legislative interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty, asserting that the prohibition on “national appropriation” does not preclude private ownership of extracted resources. National strategy is also shaped by presidential Space Policy Directives (SPDs), which have guided actions on topics ranging from national space traffic management and cybersecurity for space systems to the establishment of the U.S. Space Force.

Russia

Russia’s approach to space governance is more state-centric, reflecting the legacy of the Soviet space program. The primary legal instrument is the 1993 Law of the Russian Federation On Space Activities (Federal Law No. 5663-1), which provides the comprehensive legal and organizational framework for all space activities under Russian jurisdiction. Under this law, the Kremlin is the principal decision-making authority for space-related programs and policies.

The central coordinating hub for the entire Russian space industry is the State Space Corporation Roscosmos. Established in its current form in 2015, Roscosmos is a state corporation responsible for implementing government policy, providing legal regulation, managing state property, and overseeing both the civilian and military aspects of the nation’s space program. It places orders for the development and manufacture of space equipment and is responsible for international cooperation.

The 1993 law explicitly recognizes the dual-use nature of space technology, allowing for its application to both national economic needs and national security and defense. This reality exists alongside Russia’s long-standing diplomatic position at the United Nations, where it has been a consistent advocate for a new treaty on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS). In recent years, Russia has updated its laws to require all Russian citizens and organizations to notify Roscosmos of any planned launches of spacecraft they own, whether from Russian or foreign territory, further centralizing state oversight.

China

China’s national space policy is deeply integrated with its overall national development strategy. The government regards the space industry as a critical element for economic construction, national security, and scientific progress, consistently upholding the principle that the exploration of outer space should be for peaceful purposes and benefit all humanity. The guiding principles of its program are independence and self-reliance, combined with the active pursuit of international cooperation on terms that are mutually beneficial.

Unlike the United States, China does not have a single, comprehensive national space law. Its legal regime is built upon its ratification of the first four UN space treaties and a pair of key ministerial-level regulations that implement its international obligations. These are the 2001 Measures for the Administration of Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space and the 2002 Interim Measures on the Administration of Licensing the Project of Launching Civil Space. Because these are lower-level regulations rather than a national law passed by the legislature, they grant significant discretionary authority to the administering government bodies.

The organizational structure is also state-dominated. The China National Space Administration (CNSA) is the public face of the Chinese space program, responsible for managing national space policy and organizing international collaborations. the actual development and manufacturing of rockets and spacecraft are carried out by large state-owned enterprises like the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC). The critical functions of licensing civil space launches and maintaining the national registry are administered by the State Administration for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (SASTIND), a body that guides both military and peaceful research and development, underscoring the deep integration of civil and military aspects of the program.

Europe

The European approach to space governance is unique, characterized by a multi-layered and intergovernmental model. At its center is the European Space Agency (ESA), an intergovernmental organization established by the 1975 ESA Convention, which comprises 23 Member States. The primary purpose of ESA is to provide for and promote cooperation among European states in space research, technology, and applications for exclusively peaceful purposes.

Crucially, ESA is not a supranational regulatory body that legislates for its members. The development of national space law remains the sovereign responsibility of each individual Member State. ESA itself, as an international organization that conducts space activities, has formally declared its acceptance of the rights and obligations under the Rescue Agreement, the Liability Convention, and the Registration Convention.

The legal framework for any major European space project, such as its participation in the International Space Station (ISS), is consequently complex. It involves the top-level Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) signed by the partner governments, Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) between the space agencies (including ESA), and the national laws of the individual ESA Member States. The ISS IGA allows the European Partner States to extend their national jurisdiction to the European elements in orbit, such as the Columbus laboratory, meaning that the national laws of a specific European country can apply to activities conducted there.

Adding another layer of complexity is the growing role of the European Union (EU), which is a political and economic union and a separate legal entity from ESA. While space was traditionally an area of national and intergovernmental (ESA) competence, the EU has become an increasingly important actor. It funds major space programs like the Galileo navigation system and the Copernicus Earth observation program. Recognizing the fragmented regulatory landscape across its member states, the European Commission has recently proposed a new “EU Space Act.” This legislative initiative is intended to create a harmonized, Union-wide framework for space activities, focusing on ensuring safety, resilience (including cybersecurity), and environmental sustainability, thereby establishing a single market for space activities across Europe. At the same time, individual nations continue to innovate. Luxembourg, for example, passed its own groundbreaking law on the exploration and use of space resources in 2017, positioning itself as a hub for the nascent space mining industry.

Contemporary Challenges Testing the Legal Framework

The foundational UN treaties were drafted in an era when space was the exclusive domain of two superpowers conducting government-led missions. Today, the space environment is radically different—crowded, commercialized, and contested. A host of modern activities, from satellite mega-constellations to plans for asteroid mining, were not envisioned by the treaty drafters. These new realities are testing the limits of the existing legal framework, creating significant uncertainty and driving the evolution of space governance.

Orbital Debris: The Unregulated Menace

One of the most pressing threats to the long-term sustainability of space activities is the proliferation of orbital debris. Decades of launches have left Earth’s orbit cluttered with spent rocket stages, defunct satellites, and millions of fragments from explosions and collisions. This “space junk” travels at hypervelocity speeds, posing a lethal threat to operational satellites and human spaceflight missions.

Despite the severity of the problem, there is no international treaty that explicitly defines or regulates space debris. From a legal perspective, a piece of debris, no matter how small or non-functional, remains a “space object”. Under the Outer Space Treaty and Registration Convention, ownership of and jurisdiction over that object are retained by the original launching state. This creates a significant legal barrier to active debris removal (ADR); one state cannot legally salvage or remove another state’s property from orbit without permission, even if it poses a hazard.

The existing liability framework is also ill-suited to the debris problem. Applying the Liability Convention is fraught with difficulty. First, identifying the origin of small, untraceable fragments of debris that cause damage is often technically impossible. Second, even if the object can be identified, the convention’s fault-based liability standard for in-orbit incidents requires the victim to prove that the launching state was at fault, a legally ambiguous task in an environment without established traffic rules. This combination of legal and technical hurdles creates a situation where the risk of being held liable for creating debris is very low. This, in turn, disincentivizes operators from incurring the significant expense of implementing robust mitigation measures or developing costly remediation technologies. As a result, international efforts have focused primarily on developing non-binding guidelines for debris mitigation (slowing the creation of new debris) rather than remediation (cleaning up existing debris).

Satellite Mega-Constellations: A Tragedy of the Commons

The recent deployment of satellite mega-constellations, particularly in low-Earth orbit (LEO), represents a paradigm shift in the use of space. Companies are launching networks that will consist of thousands or even tens of thousands of individual satellites to provide global internet services. While promising significant benefits, these constellations are creating unprecedented challenges for the space environment and its governance.

The sheer number of satellites being placed into already crowded orbital bands dramatically increases physical congestion and the risk of collisions. A single collision could trigger a cascading chain reaction of further collisions, known as the Kessler Syndrome, potentially rendering certain orbits unusable for generations. This situation is a classic example of a “tragedy of the commons,” where multiple actors, each acting in their own rational self-interest, are incentivized to exploit a shared resource (the orbital environment) to the point of its degradation or collapse, without bearing the full long-term cost of their actions.

These massive constellations also place immense strain on the regulatory systems in place. They require vast allocations of radio frequency spectrum, challenging the ITU’s coordination process. They create a monumental task for space traffic management and collision avoidance. Furthermore, they have a significant environmental impact beyond orbit. The reflectivity of thousands of satellites creates light pollution in the form of bright streaks across the night sky, severely hampering the work of ground-based astronomers and disrupting humanity’s view of the cosmos.

The New Commercial Frontier: Private Spaceflight and Tourism

The emergence of a private human spaceflight industry, offering orbital and suborbital flights to paying customers, is raising a host of novel legal questions that the state-centric UN treaties were not designed to answer.

A fundamental issue is the legal status of the participants. The Outer Space Treaty and Rescue Agreement refer to government “astronauts” as “envoys of mankind,” but the legal protections, rights, and responsibilities owed to a “spaceflight participant” or tourist are not clearly defined. This distinction is already being made in practice; for instance, the partners of the International Space Station differentiate between professional “astronauts” and “spaceflight participants”.

National legislation is attempting to fill this gap, often in ways that depart from traditional liability models. The United States, for example, has created an interim regulatory regime based on “informed consent.” Under this approach, commercial spaceflight participants must be informed of the risks of flying on an uncertified vehicle and are typically required to sign waivers of liability against the operator. This effectively shifts the risk from the state and the operator to the individual, a significant departure from the state-centric liability framework of the UN treaties.

Commercial activity on celestial bodies also introduces new challenges, such as the need to preserve sites of historical and cultural significance. The Apollo landing sites on the Moon, for example, represent a unique chapter in human history but currently have no binding international legal protection from disturbance by future commercial missions.

Space Resource Extraction: The Great Legal Debate

Perhaps the most contentious and legally uncertain issue in modern space law is the question of space resource extraction, or space mining. The prospect of commercially exploiting minerals, water ice, and other valuable resources from the Moon, Mars, and asteroids has created a deep divide in the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty.

The debate centers on the apparent tension between two of the treaty’s core articles. One camp argues that the non-appropriation principle in Article II, which forbids “national appropriation,” extends to the resources of celestial bodies. Under this view, the private ownership, sale, and commercialization of space resources are prohibited because they would constitute a form of appropriation. This interpretation prioritizes the idea of space as a global commons, not to be exploited for private gain.

The opposing camp, led by the United States and Luxembourg, argues that the right to “use” outer space, guaranteed in Article I, implicitly includes the right to extract and use its resources. They contend that the non-appropriation principle in Article II applies only to claims of sovereignty over territory (“real estate”) and does not prevent the ownership of resources once they have been extracted (“chattel”).

The failure of the Moon Agreement’s “common heritage of mankind” approach to gain consensus has led nations to act unilaterally. In 2015, the U.S. passed the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, which domestically legalized the private ownership of extracted space resources. Luxembourg followed suit with its own law in 2017. In an effort to build international support for its legal interpretation and bypass the stalled consensus process at COPUOS, the United States initiated the Artemis Accords. These are a series of non-binding bilateral agreements between the U.S. and other nations participating in the Artemis lunar exploration program. A key principle of the Accords is the affirmation that the extraction and utilization of space resources are permissible under the Outer Space Treaty. This strategy represents a deliberate attempt to build a new norm of customary international law through the coordinated practice of like-minded states.

Preventing an Arms Race in Space (PAROS)

While the Cold War fears that spurred the creation of the Outer Space Treaty have subsided, concerns about the weaponization of space have returned to the forefront of international security discussions. The existing legal framework has significant limitations in this area. The Outer Space Treaty’s arms control provisions are narrowly focused: they only ban the placement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies. The treaty does not prohibit the development, testing, or deployment of conventional weapons in space, nor does it restrict the development of ground-based anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons that can destroy satellites from Earth.

For decades, diplomatic efforts to address these gaps have been centered at the UN Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, under the agenda item “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space” (PAROS). China and the Russian Federation have repeatedly submitted draft treaties that would prohibit the placement of any weapon in outer space and ban the threat or use of force against space objects. these proposals have consistently failed to achieve the consensus needed for negotiations to begin, facing opposition primarily from the United States, which has argued that such a treaty would be unverifiable and would not address the threat of terrestrial ASAT systems.

With treaty negotiations at a long-standing impasse, the focus of the international community has shifted away from legally binding instruments and toward the development of non-binding norms, rules, and principles of responsible behavior. The goal of this approach is to reduce the risks of misunderstanding and miscalculation, increase transparency, and build confidence among space actors. This includes voluntary measures such as unilateral commitments. A prominent example is the 2022 declaration by the United States that it would not conduct destructive, direct-ascent anti-satellite missile testing, a move intended to establish a new international norm and encourage other nations to follow suit.

Charting a Sustainable Future: Guidelines and Best Practices

In the face of a stalled treaty-making process and a rapidly evolving space environment, the international community has increasingly turned to “soft law” instruments and industry-led initiatives to guide behavior and ensure the long-term sustainability of space activities. These non-binding guidelines and best practices are shaping the future of space governance, providing an agile and adaptive alternative to the slow and often contentious process of formal international law.

The UN COPUOS Long-term Sustainability (LTS) Guidelines

The most significant recent development in global space governance is the adoption of the Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities. Finalized by COPUOS in 2019 after nearly a decade of intensive negotiations, this set of 21 voluntary guidelines represents the new international consensus on best practices for conducting space activities in a safe, secure, and sustainable manner.

The LTS Guidelines are comprehensive in scope, intended to apply to all space actors—governmental and non-governmental—and to all phases of a space mission, from design and launch to operations and end-of-life disposal. They are organized into four key areas:

1. Policy and regulatory framework for space activities: Encouraging states to adopt and update national laws that align with international obligations, including effective registration practices and management of the radio frequency spectrum.
2. Safety of space operations: Promoting practices such as information sharing on space objects, conjunction assessment to avoid collisions, and the sharing of space weather data and forecasts.
3. International cooperation, capacity-building, and awareness: Facilitating cooperation to help all countries, particularly developing nations, implement the guidelines and raising public awareness of the importance of space sustainability.
4. Scientific and technical research and development: Supporting research into sustainable space technologies and new measures to manage the space debris population.

While the guidelines are non-binding, their adoption by consensus in COPUOS gives them significant political and moral authority. They serve as an authoritative benchmark for responsible behavior and are intended to be voluntarily incorporated by states into their national laws, regulations, and operational practices. They represent the primary path forward for space governance in an era where new treaties are unlikely.

The IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines

The technical foundation for many of the UN’s LTS Guidelines, particularly those related to space debris, was laid by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC). The IADC is an international governmental forum for the coordination of activities related to the issues of man-made and natural debris in space, comprising the space agencies of the world’s major spacefaring nations.

In 2002, the IADC developed its own set of Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, which have become the global technical standard for minimizing the creation of new debris. These guidelines provide specific, actionable recommendations for spacecraft and launch vehicle operators. Key measures include:

• Limiting the release of debris during normal operations.
• Minimizing the potential for on-orbit break-ups, for example, by venting leftover fuel at the end of a mission (a process known as passivation).
• Avoiding intentional destruction and other harmful activities.
• Limiting the long-term presence of spacecraft in critical orbital regions after their missions are complete.

The most well-known of these recommendations is the “25-year rule,” which states that spacecraft operating in low-Earth orbit should be de-orbited (either through controlled atmospheric re-entry or by moving to a disposal orbit) within 25 years of the end of their mission. While adherence to these voluntary guidelines is not universal, they have been widely adopted by national space agencies and are increasingly being incorporated into the licensing requirements for commercial operators.

Industry-Led Initiatives: The Space Safety Coalition

The commercial space industry itself has become a proactive force in promoting responsible practices. Recognizing that the long-term viability of their business models depends on a safe and sustainable orbital environment, companies and organizations have come together to establish their own standards of behavior.

A leading example is the Space Safety Coalition (SSC), an ad hoc group of companies, organizations, and other stakeholders established in 2019. The SSC publishes and regularly updates a document titled Best Practices for the Sustainability of Space Operations. This document is designed to address gaps in existing governance frameworks and promote better practices in spacecraft design, operations, and disposal. It covers topics such as information sharing for collision avoidance, design and operational measures to prevent debris generation, and responsible end-of-life procedures. By endorsing this document, a wide range of commercial operators voluntarily commit to a higher standard of conduct. Such industry-led, bottom-up initiatives represent a vital component of the modern governance ecosystem, complementing the top-down guidance provided by intergovernmental bodies like the UN and the IADC.

Summary

The legal framework governing outer space has traced a remarkable trajectory, evolving from a Cold War conflict-management tool into a complex, multi-layered governance regime. Its origins lie in the geopolitical anxieties of the 1950s and 1960s, where the two dominant superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, sought to prevent their terrestrial rivalry from extending into a new and dangerously unregulated domain. Through the neutral forum of the United Nations, they forged the Outer Space Treaty and its succeeding agreements, establishing foundational principles of peaceful use, non-appropriation, international responsibility, and cooperation. These treaties, designed for an era of state-led exploration, successfully kept the peace and created a stable environment for the first decades of the Space Age.

Today, that environment has been fundamentally altered. The arena of space is no longer the exclusive province of two nations but a bustling domain filled with dozens of countries, international organizations, and a rapidly growing number of private commercial actors. This new era of commercialization, congestion, and competition is placing the original legal framework under unprecedented strain. The rise of satellite mega-constellations creates a “tragedy of the commons” in low-Earth orbit, while the proliferation of space debris poses a persistent threat to all operations. The prospect of private space tourism and the contentious debate over the rights to extract and own celestial resources raise legal questions that the drafters of the 1967 treaty could not have anticipated.

In response to these challenges, the architecture of space governance is adapting. With the consensus-based treaty-making process at the United Nations effectively stalled since 1979, the evolution of space law is now proceeding along different paths. National legislation, such as the proactive commercial space laws in the United States and Luxembourg, is driving the interpretation of international principles. At the international level, the focus has shifted from legally binding treaties to “soft law” instruments, most notably the UN’s Long-term Sustainability Guidelines, which provide an authoritative global benchmark for responsible behavior. Simultaneously, technical bodies like the IADC and industry-led groups such as the Space Safety Coalition are developing and promoting best practices from the ground up. The central challenge for the international community is to harmonize these fragmented approaches—national, multilateral, and commercial—to ensure that outer space remains a safe, sustainable, and peaceful domain for the benefit of all current and future generations.

What Questions Does This Article Answer?

• Which event during the Cold War sparked the birth of space law and the Space Age?
• What fundamental delimitation question arose when Sputnik orbited over many countries without their permission?
• What is COPUOS, and what are its two subsidiary bodies established in 1961 that support its work?
• Which treaty is often called the Magna Carta of Space, and what broad principles does it establish for exploration, access, and non-appropriation?
• What obligations does the Rescue Agreement impose on states regarding astronauts and space objects in distress?
• How does the Liability Convention’s two-tier liability system allocate responsibility for damage on Earth or in space vs. damage in outer space?
• Why is the Moon Agreement considered a failed treaty, and what is the common heritage of mankind concept it proposed?
• What role does UNOOSA play in space governance, and how does the Space2030 Agenda relate to sustainable development goals?
• How does the ITU regulate radio spectrum and orbital slots, and what is the significance of the use-it-or-lose-it rule?
• What ecosystem challenges do satellite mega-constellations pose, including orbital congestion, spectrum demand, and potential light pollution?