Why Space Needs a New Legal Framework

Credit: Stock Images

From the Apollo missions to the ISS, outer space was once a frontier of progress and cooperation. However, in 2025, it has become the next arena of military rivalry and natural resource contest, driven by the inadequacy of our legal frameworks.

In 2020, approximately 3,000 active satellites orbited Earth. Today, over 12,000 satellites are in orbit, representing an exponential increase in space activity and, consequently, potential for conflict. Despite international efforts to preserve outer space as a realm of peaceful exploration, the creation of the U.S. Space Force—which pledges to transform “space from a combat support function to a warfighting domain”—among similar ambitions from other global powers, reveals that space law is increasingly outdated and ill-equipped to regulate modern space endeavors. 

The Outer Space Treaty

The foundation of space law lies in the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967, drafted at the height of the Cold War and the space race. In summary, the OST prohibits nations from claiming sovereignty over outer space or celestial bodies, forbids countries from deploying weapons of mass destruction in outer space, and mandates that outer space be used for peaceful purposes. 

Unlike other areas of international law, which are governed by institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) or the International Criminal Court, the OST has no enforcement body, court, or sanctions system. Instead, its enforcement mechanism depends on states' good faith compliance and mutual accountability. Enforcement occurs only when another country raises a dispute with the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, effectively reporting a treaty violation.

Furthermore, Article VI of the OST places the burden of regulation squarely on individual nations, stating that “States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, whether carried on by governmental or non-governmental entities.” This means each country must regulate its own space actors, including the US with private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin. 

The Artemis Accords

Recognizing the limitations of the OST, in 2020, NASA and the U.S. State Department initiated the Artemis Accords, a set of statements that outline common principles, guidelines, and best practices applicable to the safe exploration of space.

Launched alongside the Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the moon and establish sustainable lunar exploration, the accords were first signed by eight nations in October 2020. Today, 55 countries have signed, including the U.S., U.K., Japan, Italy, Canada, and Brazil.

The Artemis Accords establish several important principles, including peaceful exploration, transparent data sharing, registration of space objects, preservation of humanity's outer space heritage, responsible extraction and utilization of space resources, deconfliction of activities through "safety zones," and planning for safe disposal of orbital debris. However, a major flaw in the accords is that they are signed at the national level through voluntary bilateral agreements between the U.S. and individual countries, rather than as a binding global treaty. Critically, the US's largest and most significant space rivals—China and Russia—have not signed the accords, effectively invalidating any potential peacekeeping power the accords could have.  

Gaps in Current Space Law

The inadequacy of current space law becomes apparent when examining two critical areas: resource exploitation and weapons regulation. The OST prohibits ownership of celestial bodies, but is ambiguous about the resources that can be extracted from them. The prevailing interpretation is that while no country can claim ownership of the Moon or an asteroid, they can own materials taken from these bodies and returned to Earth. In fact, the Artemis Accords go further, affirming that extracting and utilizing space resources “benefit humankind by providing critical support for safe and sustainable operations”—with no restrictions on exploitation.

The implications of this are profound. When humanity develops the capability to harness space resources at scale, the competition for celestial territory will dwarf disputes over terrestrial natural resources, which are already the source of some of the world’s most brutal conflicts. 

Moreover, the bilateral nature of the Artemis Accords creates potential for inconsistent obligations. Different agreements between the U.S. and various nations could establish conflicting standards, undermining the universal principles of international space legislation.

The treaty's prohibition on weapons of mass destruction in space is also inadequate, as it fails to explicitly regulate modern military technologies such as anti-satellite weapons or missiles that transit but do not detonate in space

Charting a Path Forward

Space law must be established and enforced through multilateral agreements so that all nations operate under the same coherent legal framework. Other domains of international law provide evidence of success, including the Geneva Conventions and international trade law administered by the WTO, which are codified through multilateral treaties negotiated under global institutions like the United Nations. These treaties carry legal force and universal recognition that bilateral agreements cannot match, according to Memme Onwudiwe, a lecturer on law at Harvard.

Second, a dedicated enforcement mechanism must be established. Just as the International Atomic Energy Agency enforces the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty through inspections, a similar body could monitor orbital activities, investigate violations, and publicly report non-compliance. 

Third, the international community must develop clear, unequivocal rules governing space resources and weapons deployment. Explicit guidelines on resource extraction rights and prohibited weapons systems would provide the certainty necessary for responsible space development.

Finally, an international regulatory framework should directly govern private space companies rather than leaving oversight to individual states. The current state-responsibility model creates opportunities for regulatory capture, where it is against the government’s interests to regulate certain aspects of its companies. 

Conclusion

The legal architecture of space was built in an era of space-agency rivalry and scientific idealism, not for a world where private rockets launch weekly and nations depend on fragile constellations of satellites. Without modernization, the same void that once symbolized human curiosity could soon become a new theater of conflict. Our legal window to preserve space as a domain of peace is shrinking, underscoring the imperative for a new, specific, and enforceable legal framework.

Ethan Seiz is a sophomore concentrating in Computer Science. He is a staff writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at ethan_seiz@brown.edu. 

Navyaa Jain is a junior concentrating in Computer Science - Economics. She is a staff editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at navyaa_jain@brown.edu