A Guide to Space Policy and Governance

What Are Space Policy and Governance?

Space is no longer a distant frontier visited by a handful of government astronauts. It’s an active, integrated part of modern life. The Global Positioning System (GPS) that guides a car, the weather forecasts that predict a hurricane, and the global video calls that connect continents all depend on a complex infrastructure of satellites operating in Earth orbit. This reliance raises fundamental questions: Who gets to use space? What are the rules? Who is responsible when things go wrong?

These questions are the domain of space policy and governance.

Space policy refers to the set of goals and a strategic framework a nation or organization develops for its activities in space. It answers the “what” and “why.” A national space policy might outline priorities for scientific exploration, national security, or commercial development. It dictates the budget for an agency like NASA and sets the strategic direction for military branches like the United States Space Force (USSF).

Space governance is the “how.” It’s the collection of international treaties, national laws, regulations, and institutional arrangements that manage and regulate activities in space. It’s the legal and political framework intended to keep space stable, safe, and accessible. This framework has to manage everything from who gets to use which radio frequencies to what happens if a satellite from one country collides with a satellite from another.

For the first few decades of the Space Age, space policy was relatively simple. It was an exclusive arena for two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, competing for technological and ideological supremacy during the Cold War. The governance they established was designed for a small club of powerful state actors.

Today, the environment is almost unrecognizably different. The domain is crowded. Dozens of countries now operate their own satellites. Private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin launch more rockets than most nations. Thousands of satellites are being launched in “megaconstellations” by companies like Starlink and OneWeb. Nations like China and India have become major spacefaring powers with their own human spaceflight and deep-space missions.

This new reality is placing immense strain on a governance framework created in the 1960s. The old rules are being tested by new challenges, from the growing hazard of space debris to the contentious question of who is allowed to mine the Moon. Understanding space policy isn’t just for rocket scientists; it’s about understanding the rules that govern a domain of increasing economic, scientific, and strategic importance for all of humanity.

The Foundations: International Space Law

The bedrock of all space governance was laid down during the Cold War. The driving force was not scientific curiosity but mutual fear. As the U.S. and Soviet Union developed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), they realized that the next logical step was placing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in orbit. The prospect of nuclear bombs flying overhead, ready to re-enter at any moment, was a powerful motivator for diplomacy.

This led to negotiations at the United Nations, specifically within a new body called the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). This committee became the forum for drafting the five core international treaties that still form the basis of space law.

The Outer Space Treaty: The Magna Carta of Space

The most important of these is the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, known simply as the Outer Space Treaty. It’s the “Magna Carta” of space, a foundational document that sets forth the grand principles. Its key articles state:

• Space is for Everyone: The exploration and use of outer space “shall be the province of all mankind.” It is free for all states to explore and use without discrimination.
• No Sovereignty in Space: 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 is the single most important principle: no one can own the Moon, Mars, or an orbit.
• Peaceful Purposes: The treaty bans placing nuclear weapons or any other WMDs in orbit, on a celestial body, or in outer space in any other manner. It specifies that the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used “exclusively for peaceful purposes.” This wording contains a famous ambiguity. It does notban all military activity. Military reconnaissance satellites, communications, and navigation (like GPS) are considered “peaceful” in the sense that they are non-aggressive. This distinction between “militarization” (support) and “weaponization” (active conflict) is a central tension in space governance.
• State Responsibility: Nations bear international responsibility for all national space activities, “whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities.” This is a bedrock principle for the 21st century. If a private U.S. company’s satellite damages a Chinese satellite, the U.S. government is responsible on the international stage.
• Astronauts as Envoys: Astronauts are “envoys of mankind” and states must render them all possible assistance in the event of an accident, distress, or emergency landing.

The Other Core UN Treaties

The Outer Space Treaty was a statement of principles. Four other “daughter treaties” were created to elaborate on its practical application.

• The Rescue Agreement (1968): This treaty reinforces the “envoys of mankind” concept. It requires any state that becomes aware of an astronaut in distress to notify the launching authority and the UN Secretary-General. It obligates states to take all possible steps to rescue and return astronauts who land in their territory.
• The Space Liability Convention (1972): This treaty expands on the idea of state responsibility. It creates a detailed legal framework for liability. It establishes “absolute liability” for damage caused by a space object on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in flight. This means if a rocket booster re-enters and lands on someone’s house, the launching state is liable for the damage, period. No “fault” needs tobe proven. For damage in space (e.g., satellite-to-satellite collision), a “fault-based” standard applies. This convention has only been formally invoked once, in 1978, when the Soviet satellite Kosmos 954 crashed in northern Canada, scattering radioactive debris. Canada billed the Soviet Union for the cleanup.
• The Registration Convention (1975): This agreement attempts to create transparency. It requires all launching states to maintain a national registry of their space objects and to provide information about them (such as their orbital parameters and function) to a central Register maintained by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). This is meant to be a simple “traffic log” so everyone knows what is up there and who it belongs to.
• The “Failed” Treaty: The Moon Agreement (1979): This is the one major treaty that did not achieve consensus. It was an attempt to regulate the exploitation of resources on the Moon and other celestial bodies. It declared that these resources were the “common heritage of mankind” and called for an international regime to be set up to govern their extraction once it became feasible. The United States and other major spacefaring nations never ratified it. They feared the “common heritage” language and the idea of an international governing body would stifle private enterprise and prevent commercial space resource utilization. This treaty’s failure is the direct cause of the legal and political ambiguity surrounding space mining today.

The Key Actors: Who Makes and Enforces the Rules?

Space governance isn’t managed by a single “world space organization.” It’s a decentralized system involving international bodies, powerful national agencies, and, increasingly, influential private companies.

The United Nations Framework

The United Nations remains the central diplomatic forum for space.

• Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS): This is the primary multilateral forum for space governance. It’s where the treaties were born and where new issues are debated. It has a scientific and technical subcommittee and a legal subcommittee. COPUOS operates on consensus, which means all member states must agree. This makes it very effective for building broad agreement but also very slow. It can’t easily keep pace with rapid technological change.
• United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA): This is the UN’s “space office.” It implements the decisions of COPUOS, maintains the Register of Space Objects, and runs capacity-building programs to help developing nations access and use space technology (like satellite data for disaster management).
• International Telecommunication Union (ITU): A specialized UN agency, the ITU is one of the most powerful players in space. It governs the radio-frequency spectrum and satellite orbital “slots.” It’s essentially the global zoning board that prevents satellites from “talking over” each other. Gaining an ITU license for a new satellite constellation is a complex and highly political process.

National Governments and Space Agencies

While treaties are international, their implementation and enforcement happen at the national level. A country’s space policy dictates its priorities and its national laws regulate its citizens and companies.

The United States

The U.S. has a complex, multi-agency approach to space policy and governance.

• NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration): The civilian space agency, NASA is responsible for science, exploration, and aeronautics research. Its policy direction is set by the White House and funded by Congress. It’s a “customer” of commercial launch (like SpaceX) and an international partner on projects like the International Space Station (ISS) and the Artemis program.
• United States Space Force (USSF): As a branch of the armed forces, the USSF’s mission is to organize, train, and equip forces to protect U.S. and allied interests in space. It operates the GPS constellation, runs the primary Space Surveillance Network (SSN) that tracks objects in orbit, and provides space-based warning for missile launches.
• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): Through its Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), the FAA is the key regulator for the U.S. commercial sector. It issues licenses for private launches and re-entries, with a mandate focused on protecting public safety on the ground and in the airspace.
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC): The FCC licenses the radio-frequency spectrum for all U.S. satellites. This gives it immense power over commercial constellations like Starlink, as it can set rules on their orbits, de-orbit plans, and potential for interference.
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): NOAA operates the United States’ weather satellites (like the GOES and JPSS series) and, through the Department of Commerce, also regulates private remote-sensing satellites (spy satellites).

Europe

European space policy is a unique blend of national and international cooperation.

• European Space Agency (ESA): ESA is an intergovernmental organization of 22 member states. It is notan agency of the European Union (EU), though they work closely together. ESA pools the resources and expertise of its members to conduct missions in science (like the James Webb Space Telescope, a partnership with NASA), navigation (Galileo), and Earth observation (Copernicus Programme).
• National Agencies: Major players like France (CNES), Germany (DLR), and Italy (ASI) also maintain strong national programs that contribute to ESA and conduct their own missions.

Russia

• Roscosmos: The Roscosmos State Corporation for Space Activities is the successor to the Soviet space program. It functions as both a government agency and a state-owned corporation, controlling everything from human spaceflight (Soyuz spacecraft) and military launches to satellite production. It has been a foundational partner on the ISS, but its international relationships have become strained by geopolitical events.

China

• China National Space Administration (CNSA): China’s space program is a fast-rising, state-driven enterprise with deep military roots. In recent decades, it has methodically achieved every milestone of a major space power: human spaceflight (Shenzhou program), a modular space station (Tiangong space station), robotic Moon missions (Chang’e program), and a Mars rover (Zhurong). U.S. law (the “Wolf Amendment”) largely prohibits NASA from bilateral cooperation with the CNSA, leading to a parallel track in space development.

Emerging Space Nations

The 21st century is defined by the rise of many more capable nations.

• India (ISRO): The Indian Space Research Organisation is a world-class agency known for its highly cost-effective and successful missions, including the Mars Orbiter Mission and the Chandrayaan lunar exploration program. It is also developing its own human spaceflight capability.
• Japan (JAXA): The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency is a key partner on the ISS and the Artemis program. It has demonstrated exceptional technical skill in robotics and sample-return missions, such as Hayabusa2.
• United Arab Emirates (UAE): The UAE is a prime example of a new space nation using space as a tool for economic diversification and scientific inspiration. Its Emirates Mars Mission (the “Hope” orbiter) in 2021 was a major success and a statement of its long-term policy ambitions.

The Rise of the Commercial Sector

The single biggest change to space governance in this century is the explosion of the private space industry, often called “NewSpace.” This movement is characterized by private venture capital, agile development, and a focus on commercial business models rather than just government contracts.

• SpaceX: Has fundamentally altered the launch market with its reusable Falcon rockets, driving down costs. It also operates the Starlink megaconstellation and provides human spaceflight services to NASA.
• Blue Origin: Founded by Jeff Bezos, it is developing heavy-lift reusable rockets (New Glenn) and lunar landers.
• Rocket Lab: A leader in the small-satellite launch market.
• Virgin Galactic: Focused on the suborbital space tourism market.

This commercial boom creates a significant governance challenge. The Outer Space Treaty makes the U.S. government responsible for all these companies. This has forced national regulators like the FAA and FCC to scramble to create rules for activities that were once purely hypothetical, from private tourism to commercial satellite servicing. A major gray area remains: “mission authorization” or “continuing supervision.” While the FAA licenses the launch, it’s not entirely clear who is responsible for supervising a company’s activities once it’s in orbit for the duration of its mission.

Modern Challenges in Orbital Governance

The 1960s legal framework is struggling to manage the realities of a 21st-century orbital environment that is crowded, contested, and cluttered.

The Orbital Graveyard: Space Debris

Space debris (or “space junk”) is any man-made object in orbit that no longer serves a useful function. This includes defunct satellites, discarded rocket stages, fragments from explosions, and even flecks of paint. These objects travel at hypervelocity speeds – up to 17,500 mph in low Earth orbit. At that speed, a 1-centimeter aluminum sphere has the kinetic energy of a bowling ball dropped from a 30-story building.

A collision with a piece of debris can be catastrophic, disabling or destroying a functional satellite. This creates even more debris, which in turn increases the probability of more collisions. This cascading effect is known as the Kessler Syndrome, a scenario postulated by NASA scientist Donald Kessler in 1978. A runaway chain reaction could eventually render certain orbits so hazardous that they become unusable for generations.

Governance of debris is weak. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) is a technical body, not a legal one, that has issued non-binding mitigation guidelines. These include “passivating” (venting fuel) from old rocket stages to prevent explosions and a “25-year rule,” which suggests satellites in low Earth orbit should be designed to de-orbit within 25 years of their mission’s end. These are just guidelines, and compliance is voluntary.

Crowded Skies: Satellite Megaconstellations

The problem of congestion is being amplified by the deployment of satellite constellations on an unprecedented scale. Companies are launching thousands, or even tens of thousands, of small satellites to provide global internet.

This creates several governance dilemmas:

1. Collision Risk: Thousands of new active satellites dramatically increase the complexity of avoiding collisions, not just with each other but with existing satellites and debris.
2. Radio Frequency Interference: The ITU is under pressure to coordinate spectrum for all these new satellites, which are all competing for the same “airwaves.”
3. Light Pollution: This was an entirely unanticipated problem. The reflectivity of these thousands of satellites creates streaks of light in the night sky, severely hampering ground-based astronomy. There is no international law or body that regulates the “light pollution” of satellites.

Space Traffic Management (STM)

The solution to congestion and debris is widely considered to be Space Traffic Management (STM). This would be a system, analogous to Air Traffic Control, that tracks all objects, models their orbits, predicts potential collisions, and provides warnings or coordination to operators.

The problem is, no such system exists. The U.S. military’s Space Surveillance Network currently provides the most comprehensive public catalog of space objects, but it’s not its primary mission. There is a global policy debate about who should run a future STM system. Should it be run by a military (like the USSF)? A civilian U.S. agency (like the Department of Commerce)? Or a new international, civilian body, similar to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)? Creating a trusted, global STM is one of the most pressing governance tasks of the next decade.

The Next Frontier: Policy for Deep Space

As nations and companies set their sights beyond Earth orbit, they are encountering legal and political vacuums that the Outer Space Treaty never filled.

Returning to the Moon: The Artemis Accords

NASA’s Artemis program plans to establish a long-term human presence on and around the Moon, in partnership with other nations and private companies. To manage this, the U.S. initiated the Artemis Accords.

The Accords are not a new treaty. They are a non-binding set of bilateral political agreements between the U.S. and each signatory nation (which includes Japan, Canada, the UK, and many others). The Accords reaffirm the principles of the Outer Space Treaty – like peaceful purposes and transparency – but also add new ones:

• Interoperability: Partners should build systems that can work together.
• Deconfliction and Safety Zones: This is the most debated part. The Accords state that a signatory can create a “safety zone” around its lunar operations to prevent “harmful interference” from others.
• Space Resources: The Accords explicitly state that the extraction and use of space resources ispermitted under the Outer Space Treaty.

The Accords have been criticized by some, particularly Russia and China (who have not signed). They view the Accords as a U.S.-led effort to bypass the multilateral COPUOS process and unilaterally set the rules for lunar operations and resource extraction. In response, China and Russia have proposed their own joint International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), creating the potential for two competing governance blocs on the Moon.

The Question of Resources: Mining the Moon and Asteroids

This is the central unresolved question in space law. The Outer Space Treaty forbids “national appropriation.” Does that mean a nation can’t own the Moon, or does it also mean a company can’t extract and own water ice from a lunar crater?

The U.S. (and other nations like Luxembourg) has passed national laws stating that private companies dohave the right to resources they extract. The legal argument is an analogy to fishing on the high seas: no one owns the ocean, but a fishing company owns the fish it catches. The Moon Agreement tried to ban this, but it failed.

The Artemis Accords support the “right to extract” position. This issue is a fundamental clash between two philosophies: space resources as a “common heritage” to be shared and managed by all (the Moon Agreement view) versus space resources as a commercial opportunity open to those with the capability (the U.S. and Artemis Accords view).

Planetary Protection

Planetary Protection is the practice of protecting celestial bodies from contamination by Earth life, and protecting Earth from potential contamination from extraterrestrial life. It’s a policy based on scientific and ethical principles.

• Forward Contamination: This is about not spoiling the search for alien life. If we are searching for microbes on Mars, we must be exceptionally careful not to bring our own microbes with us on our rovers, which would produce a false positive.
• Back Contamination: This is the “Andromeda Strain” scenario. If we bring samples back from a place that might have life, like Mars or Europa, we must have strict quarantine protocols to protect Earth’s biosphere. This is a key part of planning for a Mars sample-return mission.

The guidelines for planetary protection are set by the international Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), a scientific body. These are guidelines, not laws. As private companies like SpaceX plan their own missions to Mars, a new governance question arises: how do you enforce stringent, expensive planetary protection standards on a private company that isn’t a government science agency like NASA?

Security and Conflict in Space

While space is often spoken of in terms of peace and exploration, it has been a military domain from its inception. The first rockets were weapons, and the first satellites were for reconnaissance. This “militarized” nature of space is now evolving, with growing fears of active conflict.

Militarization vs. Weaponization

This is a key distinction in space policy.

• Militarisation of space: This refers to the use of space for military support functions. This includes reconnaissance and surveillance, military communications, navigation (GPS for guiding troops and “smart bombs”), and missile warning. This is not banned by the Outer Space Treaty and is practiced by all major spacefaring nations.
• Weaponization of space: This refers to placing actual weapons in outer space or on celestial bodies. The Outer Space Treaty only bans WMDs. It does not explicitly ban conventional weapons in orbit. This “loophole” is a source of significant tension.

Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Weapons

An Anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) is a weapon designed to incapacitate or destroy satellites. They can be ground-launched (direct-ascent), air-launched, or even co-orbital (a “killer satellite” that maneuvers close to its target).

Four nations have successfully demonstrated “kinetic” ASATs (those that destroy via impact): the United States, Russia, China, and India. These tests are intensely destabilizing for two reasons. First, they signal an offensive capability. Second, and more practically, they create massive amounts of dangerous space debris. A 2007 Chinese ASAT test and a 2021 Russian ASAT test are two of the largest debris-creating events in history, and the junk they generated will threaten all satellites, including their own, for decades.

Because of this, there is a strong diplomatic push to create norms against such destructive tests. The U.S. has declared a unilateral moratorium on testing destructive, direct-ascent ASATs, and many other nations have joined this pledge. This is an example of “soft law” – building a new rule not through a treaty, but through voluntary norms of responsible behavior.

Dual-Use Technologies

The greatest challenge for space arms control is the dual-use technology problem. This refers to technology that has both a peaceful and a military application.

A satellite designed for orbital debris removal, with a robotic arm to grab junk, could also be used to grab a competitor’s satellite. A satellite designed to rendezvous with and refuel a friendly satellite could also be used to spray or damage an enemy one.

Because it’s nearly impossible to verify if a “servicing” satellite is secretly a weapon, traditional arms control treaties are very difficult to write or enforce. This ambiguity means that a great deal of space security policy is based on monitoring capabilities and intentions, rather than banning specific hardware.

Summary

Space policy and governance stand at a crossroads. The original framework, born from Cold War fears, was successful in preventing a nuclear arms race in orbit and establishing space as a global commons. That framework is now being tested by a new era.

The domain is no longer the exclusive club of two superpowers. It’s a crowded, multi-polar arena filled with dozens of nations and powerful commercial companies. The guiding principles of the Outer Space Treaty remain the foundation, but they don’t provide clear answers for the most pressing modern problems.

The challenges of today and tomorrow are not about sovereignty claims, but about management. They are about how to manage orbital traffic and debris, how to allocate finite spectrum, how to set rules for light pollution, and how to define the rights to extract resources from the Moon and asteroids. They are about how to prevent conflict in a domain where the line between a civilian tool and a military weapon is vanishingly thin.

The future of space governance will likely not be a single new grand treaty. It will be a messy, evolving combination of updated national laws, new bilateral agreements like the Artemis Accords, technical standards, and the slow, steady development of international norms of behavior. Navigating this future will be essential to ensuring that space remains a stable and accessible resource for the generations to come.