In February 2018, 87 member States of the United Nations agreed on a set of guidelines for maintaining the long-term sustainability of outer space. In response to a new era, with private enterprises entering the industry and an increasing militarization of space, these 21 guidelines were a wide-ranging framework that covered future policy, safety measures, international cooperation, and scientific research.
The only problem is they were all voluntary. Not one of the 21 guidelines were more than a recommendation for countries to improve their system, and none contained any system for punishment or reward.
This problem is not new to space law. Space has always been an international endeavor, first as a competition between countries, but now unified in an understanding that space is for all people, and is to be used for the benefit of humanity through research and non-militarized methods. However, it has a noticeable lack of international law that codifies these beliefs.
In fact, the latest international law that required, rather than recommended, certain actions by member States was the The Registration Convention, an update to a register to monitor space objects in orbit. It was passed in 1974, only 5 years after the Apollo 11 landing on the moon, and nearing 50 years from today.
Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of SpaceX or another private company in current international space law. After all, these were written in an era when only 2 countries had even reached space, and even those with the support of an entire government.
There is no mention of ASAT (anti-satellite) missiles in current international space law. In fact, only nuclear weapons are explicitly banned in space, per the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, right in the middle of the Cold War.
And even of the 5 agreements that make up the body of international space law (one of which, the Moon Treaty, was never even signed by the US, Russia, or China), there is difficulty in enforcing their rules. As is a problem with all international law, there is no “international police”, and hence it relies on slow economic sanctions to motivate countries to follow laws. And given that all 3 of the countries who are capable of sending themselves to space are permanent members of the UN Security Council with unstoppable veto power, it’s a case of when, not if, there will be a break in space law, and an ensuing chaos.
The future of space law is murky. So long as it relies on individual countries to determine their own limitations, space will inevitably become another area for conflict (if it is not considered one already). Tens of billions are spent not with the intention of research, but “protection of interests”, and as space becomes more reachable through advances in technology and private industry, only more money will be spent.
What is best is impossible: a revamp of international law, which gives more power to an international body in an increasingly international planet (and beyond). What is worst is what is coming. If damage control is all we are capable of doing, a series of international laws that are also uniformly passed in the legislations of individual countries is a temporary solution.
Personally, I just hope that if I ever go to space, it’s as a tourist, not as a soldier.
