International Space Law, or a Lack Thereof

The lack of consequences is not surprising when it comes to international space law. Space exploration has been an international endeavor since the 1950s, originally as a competition between countries. Now, however, it’s been unified in an understanding that space is for all people, and is to be used for the benefit of humanity through research and non-weaponized methods. However, international law falls short in codifying these beliefs. In fact, the latest international law that required, rather than recommended, certain actions by member states was The Registration Convention, an update to a register to monitor space objects in orbit. It was passed nearly 50 years ago in 1974, only 5 years after the U.S. landed the Apollo 11 shuttle on the moon. 

Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of SpaceX, Blue Origin, or any other private companies in current international space law. After all, these laws were written in an era when only 2 countries had ever reached space, and even those with the support of an entire government.

Furthermore, international space law makes no mention of ASAT (anti-satellite) missile weapons. In fact, only nuclear weapons are explicitly banned in space, per the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, written right in the middle of the Cold War.

Even for the 5 agreements that make up the primary body of international space law (one of which, the Moon Treaty, was never signed by the US, Russia, or China), there is difficulty in enforcing their rules. There is no “international police”, and hence it relies on slow economic sanctions to motivate countries to follow laws governing the peaceful uses of outer space. Given that all 3 of the countries that are capable of sending people to the moon 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 ensuing chaos.