Privatization Of Space - A Legal Analysis Of Global Trends And The Need For Uniform Regulation

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T20:47:19.724489+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:10:02.816+00:00

PRIVATIZATION OF SPACE: A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF

GLOBAL TRENDS AND THE NEED FOR UNIFORM

REGULATION

Akashi Khandelwal, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.), Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad

ABSTRACT

In recent years, space has gone from being a domain controlled by governments to a booming area of private investment and innovation. Companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and OneWeb are now playing a major role in space exploration, communication, and even plans for mining resources from celestial bodies. However, the laws that govern space were mostly written decades ago, during a time when only state actors were involved. This paper looks at the current legal framework, both international treaties and national laws and examines whether they are enough to regulate modern space activities. It also compares how different countries like the United States, Luxembourg, the UAE, and India are dealing with private space involvement.

The paper identifies key legal and environmental challenges and makes suggestions for creating a more unified and fair global legal system that keeps space peaceful, sustainable, and accessible to all nations.

I.

Introduction In recent years, space has become more than just a scientific frontier, it is now a commercial battleground. What was once the exclusive domain of powerful state-run agencies like NASA, Roscosmos, and ISRO has rapidly transformed into a playground for private innovators such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, OneWeb, and Planet Labs. This shift marks the rise of what is often called the "New Space" era, defined by increased private participation, cheaper technology, and more flexible government policies. The potential of this private space race is immense. From satellite internet and space tourism to asteroid mining, the business of space is booming. According to a 2020 report by Morgan Stanley, the global space economy is expected to skyrocket to USD 1 trillion by 2040, with private companies playing a central role in this growth.

1 However, with rapid expansion comes complex legal challenges. Outer space is legally considered a global common, which means no one nation can claim ownership. 2 But as national laws begin to allow private ownership of space resources, the door opens to legal uncertainty, competition, and conflict. The Outer Space Treaty 1967 (OST) remains the backbone of international space law, prohibiting national appropriation of celestial bodies. 3 Yet, it says little about whether private entities can extract and profit from space resources. Attempts to fill these gaps, such as the Moon Agreement 1979, have largely failed, gaining little support from major spacefaring nations. 4 In the absence of clear international rules, countries have begun crafting their own laws.

The United States, for instance, passed the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015, which explicitly grants private companies the right to extract and own space resources. 5 Luxembourg and the United Arab Emirates followed suit, while India is still navigating its policy landscape with the long-pending Draft Space Activities Bill 2017. 6 This patchwork of national regulations, although progressive, poses a major risk to international harmony. It threatens to fragment the legal order, invite disputes, encourage regulatory arbitrage, and even harm the delicate space 1 Morgan Stanley, Space: Investing in the Final Frontier (2020) https://www. morganstanley. com/ideas/investingin-space accessed 18 April 2025.

2 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205 (Outer Space Treaty).

3 ibid art II.

4 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 5 December 1979, entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 3 (Moon Agreement).

5 US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015, Pub L No 114-90, 129 Stat 704.

6 Government of India, Draft Space Activities Bill 2017, Ministry of Space, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/draftspace-activities-bill-2017 accessed 17 April 2025.

environment. As a result, there is a growing call among legal scholars and policymakers for a unified global framework, one that promotes innovation while ensuring that space remains a peaceful, fair, and sustainable domain for all. This paper explores the global trends in the privatization of outer space, focusing on the growing divide between international legal norms and emerging national policies. It places special emphasis on India’s evolving legal framework and argues for the urgent need to develop a coherent, inclusive, and enforceable international legal regime to govern the commercial use of outer space. II.

Literature Review The increasing commercialization of outer space has placed existing international legal frameworks under considerable pressure. The foundational treaties, particularly the Outer Space Treaty 1967,7 alongside the Rescue Agreement 19688, Liability Convention 1972,9 Registration Convention 1975, 10and Moon Agreement 197911—were designed during an era of state-dominated space activity and emphasized principles of non-appropriation, peaceful use, and state responsibility. However, these treaties were not intended to regulate the commercial activities of private entities, leaving considerable legal gaps in the modern context. The Moon Agreement, which promoted the notion of the Moon as the “common heritage of mankind,” has been largely ineffective due to lack of ratification by major spacefaring nations.

12 In the absence of a binding and updated global framework, several countries have enacted domestic laws to regulate private space activity. The United States, through the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015, explicitly grants private companies rights over 7 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205 (Outer Space Treaty). 8 Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (entered into force 3 December 1968) 672 UNTS 119. 9 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (entered into force 1 September

1972) 961 UNTS 187.

10 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (entered into force 15 September 1976)

1023 UNTS 15.

11 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205. 12 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 5 December 1979, entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 3 (Moon Agreement).

extracted resources, while maintaining that such ownership does not equate to sovereignty over celestial bodies. 13 Luxembourg followed suit with a 2017 law,14 and the United Arab Emirates introduced Federal Law No. 12 of 2019 to encourage private sector participation in space. 15 India, although still in the developmental stage of its commercial space sector, introduced the Draft Space Activities Bill 2017, which remains unenacted. 16 These examples illustrate the growing trend of regulatory fragmentation, as national laws vary significantly in how they define ownership, liability, and environmental safeguards. This divergence invites legal uncertainty and creates opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, which may compromise the principle of equitable and peaceful use of outer space. Several legal challenges have emerged from this increasingly privatized environment.

Jurisdictional ambiguity is a prominent issue. While Article VIII of the OST provides that a state retains jurisdiction over space objects it registers, this becomes problematic when private entities from different countries operate in shared orbits or on celestial bodies. 17 Similarly, the Liability Convention 1972 places international liability on the launching state but does not adequately define how private actors should be held accountable under domestic law. 18 This lack of specificity may complicate claims when damage is caused by private satellites or debris generated by commercial activity. Another major area of debate is the question of resource ownership. Proponents argue that ownership of extracted resources is legally distinct from sovereignty over celestial bodies and does not violate Article II of the OST.

19 However, critics contend that permitting such ownership undermines the non-appropriation principle and creates inequities in access to space resources. 20 Although the Moon Agreement 1979 attempted to regulate this through the concept of international sharing, its limited adoption renders it practically ineffective.

13 Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015 (US), Pub L No 114-90, 129 Stat 704.

14 Luxembourg, Law of 20 July 2017 on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources (Journal officiel du Grand- Duché de Luxembourg, 28 July 2017).

15 UAE, Federal Law No. 12 of 2019 on the Regulation of the Space Sector.

16 Draft Space Activities Bill 2017 (India)

https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/1970/Draft%20Space%20Activities%20Bill%202017.pdf accessed 18 April 2025.

17 Outer Space Treaty (n 1) art VIII.

18 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (adopted 29 March 1972, entered into force 1 September 1972) 961 UNTS 187 (Liability Convention).

19 Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015 (n 3); Luxembourg Space Law (n 4).

20 Moon Agreement (n 2).

Environmental concerns have also gained attention. The accumulation of space debris, fueled by commercial launches and satellite constellations, poses serious threats to orbital safety. Although guidelines from UNCOPUOS and other international bodies exist, they are nonbinding, and private actors have limited incentive to comply. 21 The absence of enforceable international environmental standards raises concerns about the long-term sustainability of outer space operations. To address these issues, scholars and policy-makers increasingly advocate for the establishment of a comprehensive and uniform international legal framework. Proposed features include harmonization of national laws, binding environmental protocols, defined private-sector liability, and the creation of an International Space Authority (ISA).

22 Such a body could serve as a licensing authority, compliance monitor, and neutral arbiter for international disputes. Its structure could be modeled on similar institutions such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ensuring transparency, neutrality, and inclusivity. In summary, the current international legal framework, rooted in mid 20th century treaties, is insufficient to regulate the complexities of modern, privatized space activity. Without legal reform and stronger international cooperation, the risk of legal conflicts, environmental degradation, and monopolization of space resources may intensify, threatening the long-term peaceful use of outer space. 23 III.

Research Problem With private companies becoming increasingly active in outer space, there is growing confusion about who is allowed to do what, who is responsible when things go wrong, and how space resources should be shared. The main problem is that existing space laws were made during a very different time, and they don’t clearly answer these new questions. Different countries are also making their own space laws, which sometimes go against each other or against older international treaties. This paper explores whether current laws are strong and 21 United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS), Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities (2019); Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC), ‘IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines’ (2007).

22 See section V of the research paper: ‘Proposals for a Uniform Legal Framework’.

23 ibid.

clear enough to manage the new realities of space privatization, and what changes are needed to avoid legal conflicts and unfair use of space. IV.

Research Objectives The aim of this paper is to:

1. Understand how space law has evolved over time, especially in response to private

sector involvement.

2. Compare the national space laws of key countries and how they treat private companies.

3. Identify the main legal and policy challenges in the current space law framework.

4. Suggest practical and fair solutions to create a more consistent and effective global legal

system for outer space activities. V.

Historical Evolution of Space Law The evolution of space law has been closely intertwined with technological advancements and the geopolitical context of the mid-20th century. The launch of Sputnik-1 by the Soviet Union in 1957 marked the beginning of the Space Age and underscored the urgent need for an international legal framework governing outer space activities. 24 At the time, there was no legal clarity on issues such as sovereignty in space, liability for damages, or the militarisation of celestial bodies. Recognising this gap, the United Nations established the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) in 1959 to facilitate international cooperation and ensure that outer space would be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. 25 This initiative led to the adoption of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which remains the foundational legal instrument in space law.

26The treaty establishes that outer space is the "province of all mankind" and prohibits national appropriation by sovereignty, use, occupation, 24 UNOOSA, 'The Launch of Sputnik and the Beginning of the Space Age' (United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs) https://www. unoosa. org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/history. html accessed 18 April 2025.

UNCOPUOS,

'United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space' https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/COPUOS/index.html accessed 18 April 2025. 26 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205.

or other means. It also bans the placement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies and holds states internationally responsible for both governmental and non-governmental space activities. This principle of responsibility was further developed through four subsequent treaties: the Rescue Agreement (1968)27, the Liability Convention (1972),28 the Registration Convention (1975),29 and the Moon Agreement (1979)30. Collectively, these treaties aimed to create a robust framework addressing the rescue of astronauts, liability for space object damage, mandatory registration of space objects, and the use of extraterrestrial resources. However, the effectiveness of these treaties, particularly the Moon Agreement, has been limited.

Major spacefaring nations such as the United States, Russia, and China have refrained from ratifying the Moon Agreement, primarily due to its provisions declaring the Moon and its resources as the "common heritage of mankind", a concept considered incompatible with national or commercial interests31. Additionally, these treaties were developed in an era when space activities were largely state-centric. In contrast, the 21st century has seen a dramatic increase in private sector participation, prompting a shift toward the development of national space laws. Several countries have enacted domestic legislation to regulate private space activities. For instance, the United States passed the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act in 2015, granting private entities rights over resources extracted from celestial bodies.

32 Similarly, Luxembourg introduced a law in 2017 to promote its space mining sector,33 and the United Arab Emirates enacted its own space legislation in 2019. In India, the Draft Space Activities Bill (2017) was introduced to provide a legal framework for commercial space activities, address liability and licensing requirements, and foster private sector participation. 34 However, 27 Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (entered into force 3 December 1968) 672 UNTS 119. 28 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (entered into force 1 September

1972) 961 UNTS 187.

29 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (entered into force 15 September 1976) 1023 UNTS 15.

30 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 3.

31 Frans von der Dunk, Handbook of Space Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2015) 334.

32 US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015, Public Law No 114-90, codified at 51 USC § 51301.

33 Law of 20 July 2017 on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources (Luxembourg).

34 Draft Space Activities Bill 2017 (India)

https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/1970/Draft%20Space%20Activities%20Bill%202017.pdf accessed 18 April 2025.

this bill has yet to be enacted, leaving a regulatory gap for domestic private actors. As space activities expand in scope and complexity, the current legal framework, designed during the Cold War, has struggled to keep pace. In response, states and international bodies have increasingly turned to non-binding instruments, such as the guidelines on the long-term sustainability of outer space activities developed by UNCOPUOS. 35While these instruments lack the enforceability of formal treaties, they play a critical role in shaping state behaviour and promoting best practices in the absence of updated binding law. In summary, the development of space law has evolved from a treaty-based regime aimed at ensuring peaceful uses of outer space to a more fragmented system involving national laws and soft law instruments.

As the space domain becomes more congested and commercially driven, there is a growing consensus that international cooperation must be revitalised to develop a more comprehensive and adaptive legal framework capable of addressing contemporary challenges in outer space governance. VI.

Comparative Analysis of National Space Laws As private companies play a bigger role in space activities, countries are making their own laws to control and guide these ventures. However, these national space laws are quite different from one another. Some are very detailed and commercial-friendly, while others are still in progress. This has led to confusion and inconsistency in global space governance. In this section, we look at how four countries- the United States, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and India, are dealing with space law and private sector participation.

A. United States

The United States has taken a business-friendly approach to space law. In 2015, it passed a law called the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, which allows American companies and citizens to explore and use resources from space objects like asteroids. The law says that companies can legally own the resources they bring back to Earth, like minerals from space rocks.36 This law is important because it creates a kind of ownership right over space resources, something not directly allowed by the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967. The OST bans

UNCOPUOS,

'Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities' https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/topics/long-term-sustainability-of-outer-space-activities.html accessed

18 April 2025.

36 US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015, 51 USC § 51303.

countries from claiming ownership over celestial bodies like the Moon or planets.37However, the US argues that owning resources is different from owning celestial bodies, so it doesn’t break the treaty. Still, many legal experts believe this argument goes against the spirit of the OST.38 The US also supports private companies through government programs like NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) and by using agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to issue licenses and monitor activities.

B. Luxembourg

Even though Luxembourg is a small country without a spaceport, it has become a leader in space mining law. In 2017, it passed a law giving companies the right to own space resources they extract.39 It also started an initiative called SpaceResources.lu to attract space startups and investors from around the world.40 Companies like Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries opened branches in Luxembourg because of its clear laws and strong financial support. The law allows ownership of extracted resources but also says that companies must follow international treaties.41 This balanced approach has been praised as both forwardlooking and legally responsible. Still, just like the US, Luxembourg’s law raises concerns about the idea that outer space should be shared by all humanity, as mentioned in the Moon Agreement.42

C. United Arab Emirates (UAE)

The UAE passed its national space law in 2019 called the Federal Law No. 12 of 2019 on the Regulation of the Space Sector. This law allows both government agencies and private companies to participate in space activities, including the exploration and use of space 37 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205, art II. 38 Frans G von der Dunk, ‘Mining the Moon and Beyond: Domestic Legislation in Light of the Outer Space Treaty’ (2017) 39 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 491.

39 Law of 20 July 2017 on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources (Luxembourg).

40 Luxembourg Space Agency, ‘Luxembourg Space Resources Initiative’ (SpaceResources.lu, 2017)

https://www.spaceresources.lu accessed 19 April 2025. 41 Mahulena Hofmann and Fabio Bergamasco, ‘Space Resources Activities from the Perspective of Sustainability: Legal Aspects’ (2020) 3 Global Sustainability e4 https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.27 accessed 19 April 2025. 42 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 3, art 11.

resources.43 The UAE Space Agency gives licenses and supervises these activities. The UAE wants to become a science and technology hub, and this law supports that goal. It even has plans like the Mars 2117 project, which aims to build a human settlement on Mars in the next

100 years. However, the law is not very clear on important topics like preventing environmental

damage or how to fairly share resources.44 This raises questions about long-term sustainability.

D. India

In India, most space activities have been led by the government through ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation). But in recent years, Indian startups like Skyroot Aerospace, Agnikul Cosmos, and Pixxel have started entering the field. To support these private companies, India set up a body called IN-SPACe (Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre) in 2020. 45 It helps coordinate and authorize space activities done by private players. India also introduced a Draft Space Activities Bill in 2017, which aims to create a legal framework for private space operations. The draft covers licensing, liability for damage, and insurance. 46 But the bill hasn’t become law yet. Until then, private companies operate under temporary rules.

The draft also lacks clear rules about resource ownership, protecting the environment, and resolving disputes, making India’s legal framework incomplete. 47 E. The Problem of Legal Fragmentation

These examples show that national space laws vary widely. The US and Luxembourg strongly support commercial use of space resources, while India is still building its legal system. This difference leads to legal uncertainty. Some companies may choose to operate in countries with fewer rules or clearer rights, this is called regulatory arbitrage. A bigger problem is the risk of conflict with international law. For instance, if two companies

from different countries try to mine the same asteroid, whose national law will apply? Or if a

43 United Arab Emirates, Federal Law No. 12 of 2019 Regarding the Regulation of the Space Sector.

44 Gbenga Oduntan, ‘Who Owns Space? US Asteroid-Mining Act Is Dangerous and Potentially Illegal’ (The Conversation, 15 November 2015) https://theconversation.com/who-owns-space-us-asteroid-mining-act-isdangerous-and-potentially-illegal-51073 accessed 17 April 2025. 45 Department of Space (India), ‘Establishment of IN-SPACe’ https://www.inspace.gov.in accessed 17 April 2025.

46 Government of India, ‘Draft Space Activities Bill, 2017’

https://www.isro.gov.in/media_isro/pdf/DraftSpaceActivitiesBill2017.pdf accessed 17 April 2025. 47 Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan, ‘India’s Draft Space Law: A Step in the Right Direction?’ (Observer Research Foundation, 2018) https://www.orfonline.org/research/india-draft-space-law-step-right-direction/ accessed 17 April 2025.

private satellite causes damage, how do we assign responsibility when national laws differ? These legal gaps show why we urgently need an updated international space law that reflects today’s realities. Such a law should make sure all countries follow fair, sustainable, and peaceful practices in outer space. VII.

Legal and Policy Challenges in the Current Framework The increase in involvement of private actors in space activities, such as satellite launches, space tourism, and plans for asteroid mining, has brought forward several legal and policy challenges that the existing space law framework, built mainly during the Cold War is not wellequipped to address. The foundational international treaties, particularly the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, primarily focus on state-centric space exploration and peaceful uses. However, with private companies now playing a much larger role in outer space, new concerns have emerged related to jurisdiction, liability, resource ownership, environmental sustainability, and the lack of global regulatory harmonization. A. Jurisdiction and Sovereignty in Outer Space

Under Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty, a country retains jurisdiction and control over a space object it registers, regardless of where the object is located in space. 48 This means that private companies operating in space must comply with the national laws of the country under whose registry they launch their missions. However, this principle leads to legal ambiguity when conflicts arise between companies from different jurisdictions, especially in shared orbits or on celestial bodies. For instance, there is no established international forum or disputeresolution body that determines accountability in cases of orbital interference or accidental damage caused by one satellite to another. 49 This lack of clarity becomes even more problematic as satellite constellations become denser and low-Earth orbit becomes increasingly congested.

The current treaties were not designed to handle such cross-border commercial conflicts between private entities. Moreover, national laws that grant ownership over extracted space resources create additional 48 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205, art VIII.

49 Frans G von der Dunk, International Space Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2015) 42–45.

legal tensions. While these laws argue that companies can own extracted materials without asserting sovereignty over celestial bodies, this interpretation has been widely criticized.50 Article II of the Outer Space Treaty explicitly prohibits national appropriation of outer space or celestial bodies,51 and critics argue that allowing companies to own space resources effectively violates the spirit, if not the letter, of this provision.52 B. Liability for Damages in Outer Space

Liability is another significant legal challenge. The 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Liability Convention) makes states internationally liable for any damage caused by their space objects, whether on Earth or in outer space. 53 However, the convention focuses on state responsibility and does not clearly specify the obligations or liabilities of private actors. Since many private companies operate under state authorization, any damage they cause may result in international claims against the respective state. This situation raises two main problems. First, although states are liable internationally, they may not have robust domestic mechanisms to hold private companies accountable. 54 Second, there is no mandatory international insurance regime for private space operators.

In practice, companies may carry their own insurance, but without globally binding rules, coverage levels vary widely. The result is a legal vacuum where liability exists in theory but is inconsistently applied in practice. The growing risk of space debris further complicates liability issues. Collisions caused by fragments of satellites or disused spacecraft can lead to cascading effects known as the “Kessler Syndrome,” which may jeopardize entire orbital regions. Yet, under the Liability Convention, determining responsibility for debris-related accidents remains a grey area. C. Resource Exploitation and Ownership Issues

Resource exploitation, particularly asteroid mining and lunar resource extraction, has moved from science fiction to policy agendas. However, existing international law offers little clarity

50 US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015, 51 USC § 51303; Law of 20 July 2017 on the

Exploration and Use of Space Resources (Luxembourg).

51 Outer Space Treaty (n 1) art II.

52 Gbenga Oduntan, ‘Who Owns Space? US Asteroid-Mining Act Is Dangerous and Potentially Illegal’ (The Conversation, 15 November 2015) https://theconversation.com/who-owns-space-us-asteroid-mining-act-isdangerous-and-potentially-illegal-51073 accessed 17 April 2025. 53 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (entered into force 1 September

1972) 961 UNTS 187.

54 Ram S Jakhu and others, Space Law: A Handbook (Springer 2017) 133–137.

on how such resources can be used, who can claim them, and how their benefits should be shared. Article I of the Outer Space Treaty states that outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all countries and that its benefits should be shared for the benefit of all humankind. 55Additionally, Article II prohibits any sovereign claims over space territories. Despite this, domestic laws in countries like the US and Luxembourg grant private companies the right to own extracted resources, arguing that this does not equate to claiming territory. This approach has raised criticism for potentially undermining the principle that outer space is the “province of all mankind. ”56 The 1979 Moon Agreement attempted to address this issue by proposing that the Moon and its resources are the “common heritage of mankind,” and an international regime should govern resource exploitation.

57 However, this agreement has not been ratified by major spacefaring nations such as the United States, Russia, or China, significantly limiting its impact. The absence of a global regulatory regime for resource sharing could result in a legal “gold rush” where countries and companies race to extract valuable resources, leading to economic inequality and possible conflict. D. Environmental Sustainability and Space Debris

The rapid expansion of space activities has introduced new environmental challenges. One of the most pressing concerns is the accumulation of space debris, non-functional satellites, spent rocket stages, and fragments from collisions. This debris poses serious risks to operational satellites and future missions. Although guidelines for mitigating space debris exist, such as those issued by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) and the European Space Agency, they are non-binding.58 For example, the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee recommends that satellites be de-orbited within 25 years of completion of the mission, but this is not legally enforceable.59 Private companies may have little incentive to follow such voluntary guidelines, particularly

55 Outer Space Treaty (n 1) art I.

56 Mahulena Hofmann and others, ‘Space Mining and the International Legal Framework’ (2019) 44 Space Policy

101 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2018.12.001 accessed 17 April 2025.

57 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 3, art 11. 58 UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, ‘Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space’ (UNOOSA, 2010) https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/debris-mitigation.html accessed 17 April 2025. European Space Agency, ‘Space Debris Mitigation’

(ESA,

2017) https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/Space_Debris accessed 17 April 2025.

when cost-cutting is prioritized. Without a mandatory international framework, there is a risk that the space environment will become increasingly hazardous and unsustainable. Further environmental concerns include contamination of celestial bodies and atmospheric pollution from frequent launches. Yet, no binding international treaty addresses environmental protection in outer space in detail. The current legal structure offers only limited tools to ensure that space activities are conducted sustainably and with minimal harm to the environment. E. The Need for a Comprehensive and Uniform Framework

The root of many of the above challenges lies in the fragmented and outdated nature of current space law. The foundational treaties were drafted in an era dominated by state actors and primarily focused on peaceful exploration and non-weaponization of space. They did not anticipate the large-scale commercial involvement now taking place. With different countries adopting divergent laws and interpretations, some encouraging private ownership of space resources, others emphasizing state control, there is no single, harmonized framework. This creates opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, where companies choose jurisdictions with lax regulations or greater freedoms, resulting in inconsistent practices and potential legal disputes. To address these concerns, there is a pressing need for a modern, inclusive international legal regime.

Such a framework should provide: Clear rules on private property and resource use, Defined liabilities for private and public actors, Environmental safeguards and sustainability measures, Transparent dispute-resolution mechanisms, and equitable sharing of the benefits of space activities. Importantly, any new legal system must balance the interests of developed spacefaring nations with those of the developing countries to ensure that outer space remains a domain for peaceful, equitable, and sustainable use for all humankind. VIII.

Proposals for a Uniform Legal Framework The expansion of private space activities, including satellite launches, commercial exploration, and resource extraction, has outpaced the development of international space law. While the foundational treaties, such as the Outer Space Treaty 196760 and the Liability Convention 60 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205, art VIII.

1972,61 provide general principles, they are inadequate to address the challenges posed by private actors and modern technological advancements. There is an urgent need to develop a uniform and comprehensive international legal framework that fills existing legal gaps, harmonizes national laws, ensures environmental sustainability, and regulates the commercial use of the outer space. A. International Cooperation and Harmonization of National Laws

First step towards a uniform legal framework is enhancing international cooperation. Space is a global common and its governance requires a collective approach. The Outer Space Treaty

1967 underlines this, stating that the exploration and the use of outer space must be carried out

for the benefit of all countries and that states shall conduct activities with due regard to the corresponding interests of the other states.62 However, national legislation on space activities varies significantly, especially regarding ownership rights, environmental protection, and liability. To ensure consistency, a uniform framework should encourage the harmonization of national laws. This does not mean replacing domestic legal systems, but rather aligning them with universally accepted principles developed through multilateral consensus. Institutions like the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) 63and the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) can serve as platforms to promote legal harmonization, information-sharing, and transparency.

B. Regulating Space Resource Exploitation

The commercial interest in extracting resources from celestial bodies has created legal ambiguity. Some states, like the United States and Luxembourg, have passed laws recognizing the rights of private companies to own and profit from extracted space resources.64 However, 61 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (entered into force 1 September

1972) 961.

62 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205, arts I–II.

UNCOPUOS,

'United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space' https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/COPUOS/index.html accessed 18 April 2025. 64 US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015, Pub L No 114-90, § 402; Loi du 20 juillet 2017 sur l’exploration et l’utilisation des ressources de l’espace (Luxembourg).

such laws may conflict with Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits national appropriation of celestial bodies by sovereignty or by any other means. 65 To resolve this conflict, the proposed framework should establish a multilateral regulatory mechanism for space resource utilization. This mechanism must respect the principle of nonappropriation while recognizing the realities of commercial investment. The "common heritage of mankind" concept, though more explicitly applied in the Moon Agreement 1979, should be considered when creating equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms. 66 The framework should include- A licensing system for private actors operating in space, Mandatory registration and reporting of extraction activities, Environmental impact assessments prior to operations and an international space resources registry overseen by a global authority.

These steps would ensure that resource activities are transparent, equitable, and sustainable. C. Liability and Accountability for Space Activities

As private actors increasingly participate in space activities, questions of liability become more complex. The Liability Convention 1972 holds states internationally liable for the damage caused by their space objects on Earth or outer space, regardless of whether the launch was conducted by a government or private entity. 67 However, it does not directly regulate private actors or provide clear enforcement mechanisms for private-sector disputes. To address this, the proposed framework should: Extend liability principles explicitly to private companies, Mandate that all operators secure comprehensive third-party insurance, Define liability-sharing mechanisms between states and their private actors and require transparency in ownership and operator responsibility for each space object.

Further, dispute resolution procedures should be established for conflicts between private operators and states. These mechanisms could include compulsory arbitration or adjudication under a dedicated space tribunal. 65 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205, art II. 66 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 3, art 11. 67 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (entered into force 1 September

1972) 961 UNTS 187, arts II–III.

D. Environmental Sustainability and Space Debris Management

Another most urgent issue in space governance is the rise of space debris. Increasing satellite deployments by private entities and the absence of binding disposal regulations contribute to orbital congestion and the risk of collisions. The Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines issued by UNOOSA and ESA recommend that satellites be removed from orbit within 25 years of the end of their mission, but these guidelines are voluntary. 68 A binding international legal framework must address this issue through: Compulsory end-oflife disposal protocols, Debris mitigation standards for all launches, Active debris removal technologies for high-risk orbits and creation of a global debris registry accessible to all stakeholders. The UN Office for Outer Space Affairs could coordinate global data collection and compliance monitoring. 69 E.

Enforcement and Dispute Resolution: Establishing an International Space Authority

(ISA)

A major shortcoming of the current space law regime is the lack of robust enforcement

mechanisms. Treaties like the Outer Space Treaty and Liability Convention rely on state responsibility and lack binding enforcement or dispute resolution institutions for emerging private space actors. To overcome this gap, the international community should establish a new intergovernmental institution- the International Space Authority (ISA). This body would serve as a regulatory, supervisory, and adjudicative organ dedicated to overseeing commercial space activities across jurisdictions. The ISA would have the following core functions:

1. Monitoring and Compliance: The ISA would monitor all registered space missions,

both public and private, for compliance with international standards on resource use, environmental impact, and liability. States would be required to report to ISA regularly, and ISA would maintain a public registry of licensed activities.

68 UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, ‘Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines’ (UNOOSA, 2021)

https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/debris-mitigation.html accessed 17 April 2025. European Space Agency, ‘Space Debris Mitigation’

(ESA,

2017) https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/Space_Debris accessed 17 April 2025.

2. Licensing and Oversight: ISA would act as the central licensing authority for all nongovernmental space operations, with powers to grant, suspend, or revoke licenses for violations. This licensing process would require proof of environmental impact assessments, debris mitigation plans, and financial guarantees (such as liability insurance).

3. Dispute Resolution Mechanism: The ISA would host a Space Court of Arbitration,

composed of legal and technical experts. This court would settle disputes involving- Resource rights among states and private actors, Jurisdictional overlaps, and liability claims involving multiple countries or private companies. It could function under the procedural models of the Permanent Court of Arbitration or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, ensuring neutral and timely adjudication.70

4. Sanctions and Penalties: In case of non-compliance, the ISA would be empowered to

issue binding decisions and levy fines, revoke operating licenses, or recommend sanctions through the United Nations system.

5. Equity and Inclusion: ISA would also have a mandate to ensure that developing

countries have equitable access to space. It could establish benefit-sharing mechanisms for space resource utilization and offer capacity-building programs for the emerging space nations. By creating the ISA, the international community would gain a central body that not only coordinates policy but also ensures legal accountability and resolves disputes fairly. This would bridge the gap between outdated treaties and modern commercial realities. As outer space becomes increasingly accessible and contested domain, the lack of a coherent, enforceable legal structure threatens long-term sustainability and peaceful use. Existing treaties provide foundational principles, but are insufficient to regulate the complex interactions between states and private actors. A new uniform legal framework, centered on international cooperation, sustainable development, and enforcement, must be adopted.

Creating a body like the International Space Authority would represent a decisive step toward fair, accountable, and effective space governance for the benefit of all humanity.

70 Frans G von der Dunk, International Space Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2015) 145.

IX.

Conclusion The increasing involvement of the private companies in space exploration, resource extraction, and satellite communication represents major shift in the way space activities are conducted. While government-led space operations initially dominated the space sector, private entities are now playing a larger role, making the current legal framework inadequate to address the upcoming challenges this shift creates. The Outer Space Treaty (1967)71 and the Liability Convention (1972)72 laid the foundation for space law, but they were designed primarily for state-led activities and do not account for the complexities introduced by privatization. The lack of uniformity in national laws, particularly concerning space resource ownership, liability for damages, and environmental sustainability, results in a fragmented system.

This can lead to legal conflicts, economic inequalities, and environmental damage in space. There is now a clear need for a uniform international legal framework to oversee space activities, especially as private companies expand their role. A harmonized legal system could address several key challenges, such as jurisdictional conflicts, liability for space-related damages, the regulation of space resource exploitation, and the growing issue of space debris. By establishing clear regulations to ensure environmental sustainability, fair distribution of resources, and effective liability mechanisms, the international community can help maintain space as a peaceful, accessible, and sustainable domain for all countries, regardless of their spacefaring capabilities.

To create this unified legal framework, collaboration between spacefaring nations, international organizations like the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), 73and private actors is essential. Including private companies in the regulatory process ensures their interests are aligned with the broader goal of developing a fair and transparent space governance system. While the path toward a unified framework may be long and challenging, it is crucial to safeguard the integrity of space exploration for future generations and prevent the monopolization of space resources by a few private entities. 71 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205, art I.

72 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (entered into force 1 September

1972) 961 UNTS 187, art I.

73 UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, ‘Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines’ (UNOOSA, 2021)

https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/debris-mitigation.html accessed 17 April 2025.

In conclusion, creating a comprehensive international legal framework for activities related to space is not just a regulatory necessity but also a moral imperative. It is essential that legal structures evolve to keep pace with technological advancements, ensuring that space activities benefit humanity as a whole. Only through global cooperation, clear regulations, and sustainable practices can we ensure that the space remains a shared resource, responsibly used for the advancement and development of all nations and the well-being of the planet.