This Article is written by Himanshi Singh of United University, an intern Under Legal Vidhiya
ABSTRACT
Space debris accumulation produces essential legal problems along with environmental concerns. Space operations and upcoming mission launches face substantial danger because thousands of defunct satellites and space fragments circle Earth. A complete legal structure that addresses space debris cleanup continues to remain dispersed. The Outer Space Treaty (1967) and its supplementary agreements fail to provide explicit regulations about ownership rights and responsibility for active debris removal and liability implementation. Because there is no enforceable framework and international boundaries create conflicts it becomes challenging to carry out mitigation initiatives. International collaboration with updated laws and binding agreements needs to take action to maintain space sustainability by balancing technological innovation with state sovereignty.
KEYWORDS
Accumulation, Operations, Fragments, Cleanup, Agreements, Sustainability, Technological, Sovereignty, Regulations
INTRODUCTION
The advancement of space exploration has created space debris which constitutes an unintended byproduct of human activity in space. Human exploration of space has resulted in an accumulation of defunct satellites and spent rocket stages together with fragmented objects that create a substantial danger to operational spacecraft and future missions in Earth’s orbit. The growing severity of space debris requires immediate attention to space debris cleanup operations. The removal of debris from space faces important legal obstacles that limit the effectiveness of such operations. One of the more vexing issues of space debris general is finding a suitable definition. The term “space debris” is used commonly enough when discussing the veritable junkyard of expended space objects in orbit as or even naturally occurring objects such as asteroids or meteors. (Listner, 2012)
The Outer Space Treaty (1967) serves as the fundamental legal foundation for space activities together with its supplementary agreements known as the Liability Convention (1972) and the Registration Convention (1976). The space treaties maintain nationwide space control restrictions and set rules for space object liability but fail to provide specific debris removal standards. A critical space obstacle is ownership because the debris belongs to its launching country or entity thus seeking unauthorized modification and removal creates legal questions about state sovereignty and responsibility.
The increasing space traffic requires us to create unified legal guidelines that ensure effective debris removal operations. A sustainable future for space activities depends on strengthened international collaboration together with comprehensive enforceable regulations alongside solutions for liability issues.
The future of satellite launches could resemble a warzone scenario due to high-speed debris created from retired rockets combined with space hardware remnants of previous satellites and collision events. The accumulation of growing space debris in Earth’s orbit is causing us to move in the direction of this present-day reality which many would consider a future nightmare. The ever-growing space junk field contains 36,000 monitorable debris items among millions of untrackable small fragments that increase the potential for dangerous impacts. The Kessler Syndrome creates secondary collisions of space debris that may lead to no-function zones in orbital space. Who is responsible for fixing the debris problem? The solution lies beneath an outdated yet difficult international legal system that offers unclear methods to enforce its provisions. As of November 2022, the US Space Surveillance Network reported 25,857 artificial objects in orbit above the Earth, including 5,465 operational satellites. (Wikipedia, 2025)
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM IN SPACE DEBRIS CLEANUP
The Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967 serves as the main basis of space law and continues to be supported by more than 110 countries including the United States Russia and China. Space belongs to the entire human race according to this treaty as the OST establishes three main principles: first, space belongs to everyone and second, no nation possesses ownership of space objects and third, all governments bear responsibility for all space operations done by both public agencies and private companies. The Outer Space Treaty leaves unspecified matters about space debris because it contains no regulations or procedures for either prevention or remediation. The treaty allows space nations to maintain authority over their outer space assets yet it does not establish responsibility for the dangerous debris that results from these assets.
The Liability Convention of 1972 established financial consequences by making countries responsible for paying out damages from their space object fallout. A launching country remains responsible for any spacecraft debris that reaches Earth as occurred when the Soviet Union made payment following Cosmos 954’s Canadian ground impact in 1978. In space, the establishment of responsibility becomes complicated because measures must detect the responsible party. The thousands of uncontrolled debris orbiting Earth create such a complex situation that it becomes all but impossible to establish responsibility which prevents effective legal claims.
The Registration Convention of 1976 set new rules that required all nations to submit information about their space objects to the United Nations. The registration system identifies ownership but global compliance levels are weak and most unmonitored space debris from earlier periods has not been recorded. The incomplete record system makes legal enforcement alongside accountability processes harder to achieve.
The establishment of voluntary guidelines became necessary due to space sustainability concerns during the early part of the 2000s. The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs co-developed with the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) voluntary guidelines about space objects in 2007. The guidelines required satellites to have a 25-year lifetime after mission completion and demanded the elimination of destructive explosions while requiring controlled entry sequences. These guidelines function as non-binding recommendations since individual states and private sector organizations maintain the freedom to disregard them although numerous members choose such an approach.
The commercialization of space has led to new agreements like the Artemis Accords (2020) that focus on responsible space conduct while mandating debris control measures. Actual debris removal projects are beginning to manifest including the ClearSpace-1 mission developed by the European Space Agency for eliminating big orbital space objects. Private corporations alongside their innovative strategies develop capture equipment which consists of harpoons and nets alongside robotic arms and drag sails to retrieve and lower space debris.
The regulation of space debris exists within unclear international legal and diplomatic territory. Earth’s orbit sits dangerously close to turning into a space junkyard because there are insufficient binding regulatory mechanisms in place. Space remains a zone without enforceable laws for debris management as nations continue to disagree about the adoption of legal frameworks. Waiting increases the danger our orbital routes face.
THE ROLE OF NATIONAL LEGISLATIONS IN SPACE DEBRIS CLEANUP
The accumulation of space debris now creates major operational difficulties for space activities at both present and foreseeable times. Thousands of useless satellites and spent rocket stages together with broken debris at rapid speeds continue to circle Earth making hazardous space collisions much more likely. The fundamental power that drives space debris cleanup stems from national legislation while two major international treaties establish general frameworks. Countries that maintain space programs now pass laws and create space regulations that serve to maintain space sustainability as well as support new debris removal innovations and establish penalties for pollution in space.
Space launches undergo tight regulations through national laws as a vital component of national legislation. The United States alongside other nations employs the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Aviation Administration to enforce satellite operators to provide extensive debris mitigation plans before granting launch access. Through national framework integration, the European Union demands private companies to integrate end-of-life satellite disposal planning within their designs that include either deorbiting systems or graveyard orbits. Governments implement these regulations to guarantee that space missions harm the debris problem to the smallest extent possible and serve to clean up existing orbital objects.
The national legislation plays a pivotal role in spearheading active debris removal (ADR) technology development and implementation. Japan alongside Switzerland along other nations have dedicated their funding to research robotic arms and harpoons and space junk capture nets as potential technologies for space junk removal. Japan’s JAXA-led project together with European ClearSpace-1 established these initiatives to use electrodynamic tethers and physical capture methods for defunct satellite deorbiting. The implementation of financial support tax advantages and research funding by national laws effectively drives both public and private organizations to pursue innovative solutions for debris cleanup operations.
Space debris governance needs both liability and accountability laws to be effective. According to the Liability Convention from 1972 every nation remains accountable for incidents caused by space assets owned by their country. Current laws fail to determine space debris owners effectively because these entities are difficult to trace. Satellite operators become accountable for the proper disposal of their assets under proactive regulations such as those established by France. The implementation of national laws that penalize or require insurance for debris mitigation activities drives space operators to demonstrate responsible conduct in space.
Multiple governments now enforce international and multi-state agreements as part of their national space policies. Together with Japan and the EU the United States forms agreements to build coordinated efforts for space sustainability initiatives. The combined efforts between governments through multi-jurisdictional collaborations establish standardized protocols that create better synchronization between worldwide debris mitigation approaches.
National legislations actively influence space debris cleanup more directly than international treaties do. Through launching space regulations and backing responsible debris-clearing innovations and compliance monitoring combined with global partnership building national governments direct space exploration toward lasting sustainability. Strong national policies will protect Earth’s orbital environment for future space exploration due to rising space activity.
LEGAL AND POLICY CHALLENGES IN ACTIVE DEBRIS REMOVAL (ADR)
The essential solution to reduce space debris through Active Debris Removal (ADR) encounters substantial legal and policy barriers that prevent the wide adoption of this strategy. The legal aspects of space law combined with ownership rights liability issues and geopolitical matters create numerous complexities for debris removal operations.
ADR faces fundamental legal barriers because of unclear matters regarding ownership rights as well as jurisdictional boundaries. Active debris removal (ADR) might be one of the tools for remediating existing debris, but such a proposal faces seemingly insurmountable legal challenges in addition to its technical and economic challenges. (Josef Koller, 2021) According to the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967, a country preserves authority over launch vehicles regardless of their operational status and function. Operational satellites that have become defunct must always require launching state authorizations to alter or remove them because such action may constitute a violation of international law. The required permissions to execute ADR missions become exceptionally difficult to obtain because space debris comes from various nation-states.
Liability is another critical challenge. According to the 1972 Liability Convention, a launching state continues to take responsibility for the damage their space objects create even after they stop being operational. ADR faces complex responsibility questions regarding who must take responsibility when their debris missions fail to perform safely which leads to satellite damage or increases orbital debris arrays. Unclear liability guidelines prevent private firms from investing in ADR solutions because they must protect against legal and financial risks.
Neither military concerns nor intellectual property rights create obstacles during Arbitration and Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes. The presence of sensitive technologies inside satellites discourages nations from permitting foreign entities to contact their space assets during upkeep operations even when these assets are non-functioning. The worry exists about both spying and dual-purpose technology because debris removal systems might get turned into anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons.
The lack of binding international regulations concerning debris removal creates policy obstacles during debris removal operations. Space agencies together with the United Nations have established guidelines but they do not possess mandatory enforcement powers. International agreements about standard practices together with liability provisions and cooperative mechanisms are necessary to regulate ADR because it remains without clear oversight.
The necessity of ADR for sustaining space depends heavily on resolving legal ambiguities regarding ownership, liability, and security together with international cooperation challenges. The removal of space debris needs updated international treaties as well as clearer liability frameworks and further diplomatic cooperation for developing a solid regulatory framework.
CHALLENGES IN DEFINING OWNERSHIP AND LIABILITY
Defining both ownership and liability presents the most significant legal challenge to implementing necessary space debris cleanup operations. The legal system considers space debris as the property of the controlling nation so that launches are its permanent owners despite the obsolete status of their equipment. The legal situation creates an awkward dilemma because no one can modify space debris without approval from the launching country while debris puts spacecraft and satellites at risk.
Determination of legal responsibility stands as an equally difficult problem. All actions leading to space object-caused damages trigger national liability obligations according to the 1972 Liability Convention. A damaged satellite becomes at risk when space debris belonging to an old collision hits it. Given the overwhelming number of space objects in orbit, it becomes challenging or impossible to establish the source of discarded equipment and hardware. The lack of object identification prevents states from properly holding accountable parties in space-related incidents.
The application of space liability rules lacks proper means for practical enforcement. The a lack of legal procedures to mandate payment from responsible nations following their defunct satellite collisions. During active debris removal operations which unintentionally make debris into smaller uncontrollable fragments, it becomes essential to determine responsibility for such incidents. International space laws today lack definitive answers that resolve current space situations.
The dual-use problem exists because space debris cleaning technologies possess possible weaponization potential. The legal framework surrounding space debris removal remains unclear because nations are reluctant to let foreign parties touch or modify their space assets despite their inactivity. The orbital environment will remain dangerous for upcoming space operations because nations lack mutual understanding about space asset ownership rights coupled with enforcement mechanisms for liabilities and space debris cleanup cooperation.
CONCLUSION
The time for deciding about space debris cleanup has passed because we now need to determine practical methods. Earth’s orbit has become increasingly dangerous due to thousands of extinct satellites along with flight debris and the numerous fragments generated from orbital collisions that threaten functional satellites and planned missions. Progressive Active Debris Removal technologies hold solutions that struggle against major legal and policy barriers. The lack of enforceable international regulations together with ownership disputes and liability concerns leads to complex legal barriers which experts have yet to resolve effectively.
The problem of ownership stands as the largest legal challenge to resolving space debris. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 confirms that the launching state retains legal ownership of space objects that become non-functional debris orbiting in space. A country needs explicit consent from a launching nation to conduct operations on any debris that belongs to that nation regardless of its hazard level. The acquisition of consent for operating in space proves challenging because states maintain cautious attitudes toward their space-based assets. A lack of legal provisions to authorize collaborative debris removal operations causes numerous cleanup initiatives to halt at the diplomatic negotiation level.
Liability is another major concern. Countries must bear the responsibility to compensate for damages their operational space objects generate according to the 1972 Liability Convention. It proves next to impossible to determine responsibility when debris creates space hazards. The tracking of space debris fragments to their origin becomes nearly impossible because of the overwhelming quantity of fragments present in orbit when an operational satellite gets damaged by debris. Identification of sources does not guarantee the establishment of effective compensation mechanisms because such systems remain either non-existent or weak.
Debris removal technologies demonstrate doubled usage capabilities which creates additional complexities in operations. Various technologies used for ADR which employ robotic arms as well as harpoons and nets have potential ASAT weapon applications. Nations express security doubts which leads them to hesitate when foreign entities attempt debris cleanup operations near their space facilities. The uncertainty about military or espionage uses of debris removal equipment causes countries to delay collaboration.
The legal challenges of space debris cleanup are as vast as space itself. Without clearer regulations on ownership rights, liability enforcement, and cooperative removal strategies, debris will continue to accumulate, endangering future space exploration. The urgency for legally binding international agreements has never been greater. If space is to remain a safe and sustainable environment, nations must work together to untangle the legal knots and pave the way for responsible and coordinated debris mitigation efforts.
REFERENCES
- Josef Koller, T. W., 2021. Aerospace. [Online] Available at: https://csps.aerospace.org/papers/active-debris-removal-policy-and-legal-feasibility [Accessed 23 March 2025].
- Listner, M., 2012. The space review. [Online] Available at: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2130/1 [Accessed 23 March 2025].
- Wikipedia, 2025. Wikipedia. [Online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris [Accessed 23 March 2025].
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
0 Comments