Who Has the Power? a Critical Perspective on Space Governance and New Entrants to the Space Sector

• Citation: Vol. 48 No. 3
• Publication year: 2020
• topic: Aeronautics,Antitrust and Competition,Business of Law,Charity and Non-Profit Law,Civil Rights,Commercial Litigation,Bankruptcy and Insolvency,Construction Law,Contracts,public contracts,Trust Law,Creditor Rights / Civil Enforcement,Criminal procedure,Admiralty,Administrative Law,Environmental Law,Banking and Finance Law,Constitutional Law,Family Law,Trademark,Patent law,Intellectual Property,Insurance Law,Corporate / Commercial,Tax Law,Labor Law,Immigration Law,Criminal Law,Copyright law,District of columbia,Education Law ,Energy & Natural Resources,Entertainment Law,Federal,Health Law,Indigenous Law,Employment Law,Capital arkets,Mergers and Acquisitions,Contracts law,Ongoing or Prospective Litigation,Personal Injury Law,Civil Procedure,Product Liability Law,Professional Malpractie ,Public Sector Law,Real Estate,Securities Law,Social Security,Technology,Transportation,Upcoming Legislation,Upcoming Regulations,Utilities,Wills, Trusts and Estates,Workers Compensation,corporate governance,Internet, Media and Communications,Consumer Law,Military Law,employee benefits,government,industrial design

Who Has the Power? A Critical Perspective on Space Governance and New Entrants to the Space Sector

Dr. Cassandra Steer^*

The same big players determine space law and space politics are determined as terrestrial geopolitics, and therefore in asking how to govern space, we have to take the current realities of international relations and international law into account. At the beginning of the space race, which was at the height of the Cold War, the two superpowers were the key influential players in developing the first instruments of space governance, namely the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST),¹ and three of the four other core space treaties.² To a lesser degree, European powers and other smaller influential States, such as Canada, were also involved in the treaty negotiations, in forming relevant UN General Assembly resolutions, and in the decision-making within the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). But typically, for the development of any new international legal or governance regime, the smaller players are left on the periphery to accept the new order that is put in place by the greater powers. This new order that they accept is also often to their detriment. In many ways it is very difficult for new entrants into the space sector to wield any great influence on developing norms, or on the sector as a whole—at least, this is the case for States. Today's space race is equal parts commercial and political, and commercial players have a unique ability to disrupt the status quo. However, my comments here are limited to States as new entrants.

How are new entrants interacting with the international space law regime inherited from the Cold War, and what kinds of new governance structures

[Page 752]

might we need to deal with the increasing number and kinds of participants emerging in the space sector? I take a critical perspective, drawing on feminist legal theory and Third World Perspectives on International Law (TWAIL) to pose further questions: Who is exercising power over the development of new legal and governance norms in space and who is excluded from this? I argue that, because we are all so dependent on space for our contemporary existence, twenty-first century space governance needs to take into account more than solely the interests of just the biggest players.

Not only are there more nations active in space, but there are more and more activities being conducted in space, including commercial and scientific. This might include universities facilitating students being able to learn how to design and launch very small satellites into a very low Earth orbit. It might also include big commercial players such as SpaceX and OneWeb, who are beginning to launch hundreds of satellites as part of "constellations" to provide Internet access all over the world.³ And it also includes military competition and contestation. Space has become more accessible and with this comes more challenges in terms of space traffic management, increase in debris and risk of collision, allocation of the radio signals necessary for satellites to transmit their signals and the risk of interference, light pollution caused by satellite constellations in lower orbit, environmental damage from launches and re-entries, and unequal access for developing nations. These concerns are growing in recent times, but the 1967 OST already foresaw what competition could lead to in space, which is why Article I of the OST states that the exploration and use of outer space:

[S]hall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind . . . . Outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law.

Furthermore, under Article VI of the OST, States are responsible for authorizing and continually supervising all space activities that take place under their jurisdiction, whether they are government or commercial activities. And States are responsible for damages caused by those space activities under Articles VI and VII of the OST and under the Liability Convention.⁴ It is, therefore, up to States to regulate space activities under their domestic law, but at

[Page 753]

the same time, these are international global problems, and we need to come up with international legal and governance solutions as well. We need to think about our space environment the way that we think about our oceans and about natural world heritage areas, as a global commons. Space is part of our natural environment, upon which we're very dependent. We cannot count on individual States, who operate according to their own interests, to regulate in the global interest.

Given this global interest and participation in space, a broad definition should be given to what we mean by "new entrant." Today there are only fourteen space-faring nations—that is, States that have independent launch capability from their own territory.⁵ New Zealand was a new addition in 2019, and in 2020 Australia will also join this list.⁶ However, there are at least 72 countries which have space programs, and around 100 States own satellites.⁷ There are approximately 2,000 operational satellites today, of which the United States owns nearly half, which is more than the combined total of the next top ten States.⁸ Almost all States receive some kind of satellite-based services, such as television broadcasting, phone and internet communications, navigation, precision timing for services such as banking, traffic, medical equipment, farming, weather and climate predictions, and much more. It may not be that all of these States can be considered "new entrants" since many of them are more likely consumers of the space economy rather than active participants. But as more States are participating in and impacting upon the space sector, a broad definition should include all stakeholders in order to respond to the needs of space governance in the twenty-first century.

The notion of "new entrant" States usually brings to mind countries such as Israel⁹ and India¹⁰ who have only taken a few years to develop a successful space program—and in the case of India, even to test an anti-satellite weapon

Page Page 754

in 2019, much to the chagrin of the current big players.¹¹ New entrants may be seen as disrupting the political status quo, or challenging the legal grey areas in space law. However, some new entrants, such as Australia, are less disruptive yet highly innovative. The Australian Space Agency (ASA) was created in 2018 and only opened its physical headquarters on February 19, 2020,¹² with a mandate to support the growth of Australia's space industry.¹³ There is no national civil space program, rather the government is entirely focused on pouring money and resources into supporting Australian commercial space entities. This is quite a different scenario from the U.S., where commercial entities have historically had to compete with, or seek contracts through, NASA's national space...