In February 2018, the United Nations (U.N.) and 87 of its Member States agreed on a set of guidelines for maintaining the long-term sustainability of outer space activities. In response to a changing field, with more private companies entering the space sector and increasing militarization efforts, these 21 guidelines provided a broad framework to govern space in future policy, safety measures, international cooperation, and scientific research.

The problem is they were all voluntary. Not one of the 21 guidelines was more than a recommendation for countries to improve their system, and none contained any system for punishment or reward.

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.

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). The 2021 Defense Appropriations Bill included tens of billions of dollars for space spent not with the intention of research, but “protection of interests”, and as space becomes more reachable through advances in technology and private industry, investment dollars in space will only increase.

What is best may be impossible: a revamp of international law, which gives more power to an international body in an increasingly international planet (and beyond). What is worse is what the future holds. If damage control is all we are capable of doing, a series of international laws that are also uniformly passed in the legislation 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.

Author’s Note: I would like to thank Mr. Stephen McCall, Analyst for Military Space at the Congressional Research Service, for providing insight on this topic. It was an amazing experience learning about his work in the field of space. I only scratched the surface of his knowledge about the complexity of the militarization of space and the confusing international and national laws that the space sector is based on, but it has inspired me to learn more about this ever-important topic